Comment: you "studied law in college"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Hearsay Evidence or Not? (see in situ)

you "studied law in college"

is kind of like saying you studied being an astronaut. Anything other than law school is not rigorous enough to teach one how to interpret the law or to apply it. I took a law class in college, too. It was easy. I've taught paralegal courses. They are easy. It's not the same thing.

Here's a quote from the wikipedia page that you were too lazy to look at:

"For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as the witness's evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. Only when Susan testifies herself in the current judicial proceeding that she saw Tom in town, that Susan's testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. However, a witness statement "Susan told me Tom was in town" can be admissible as evidence in the case against Susan when she is accused of spreading defamatory rumors about Tom, because now the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that Susan said (i.e., pronounced the defamatory words) "Tom was in town" in the presence of the witness and it is an opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act.["

I'm sure you'll bury your head in the sand, pretend you're right, and a couple of people with high school diplomas will upvote you for being a hard dude. :rolleyes: You;d still lose in court on this point.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein