What happened to needing 2 stars to win?

[Johnnybravo4]

I was bad at this.

In the Federal Rules, hearsay is an out of court statement used the prove the truth of the matter asserted.

So BM testifying that SK said they they aren't taking AI to prove the fact that the Hawks aren't taking A.I. is hearsay

But if BK is the manifestation of the Hawks, then the defense to hearsay would be that it was a party admission...thus admissible.

[Lascar78]

I OBJECT!

[AHF]

If Bernie testified the Hawks didn't want AI it would not be hearsay.

If he testified BK said the Hawks didn't want AI it would be hearsay (not double hearsay) but might be admissible under a hearsay exception.

If a Hawksquawker testified that Bernie said that BK said that the Hawks didn't want AI that would be double hearsay.

Quote:

---

But if BK is the manifestation of the Hawks, then the defense to hearsay would be that it was a party admission...thus admissible.

---

Interstingly, the entire debate is whether this is an admission against interest!

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I was bad at this.

---

Given the fact that you generally don't hear what people say it doesn't surprise me that this gives you trouble.

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

If Bernie testified the Hawks didn't want AI it would not be hearsay.

If he testified BK said the Hawks didn't want AI it would be hearsay (not double hearsay) but might be admissible under a hearsay exception.

If a Hawksquawker testified that Bernie said that BK said that the Hawks didn't want AI that would be double hearsay.

Quote:

---

But if BK is the manifestation of the Hawks, then the defense to hearsay would be that it was a party admission...thus admissible.

---

Interstingly, the entire debate is whether this is an admission against interest!

---

I thought that was what I said

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If Bernie testified the Hawks didn't want AI it would not be hearsay.

If he testified BK said the Hawks didn't want AI it would be hearsay (not double hearsay) but might be admissible under a hearsay exception.

If a Hawksquawker testified that Bernie said that BK said that the Hawks didn't want AI that would be double hearsay.

Quote:

---

But if BK is the manifestation of the Hawks, then the defense to hearsay would be that it was a party admission...thus admissible.

---

Interstingly, the entire debate is whether this is an admission against interest!

---

I thought that was what I said

---

I just thought it was funny that we were debating whether the trade would be in the best interests of the Hawks and the admissibility of hearsay testimony under the admission against interest exception arguably could turn on whether BK was right about that or not.

(On the top part, I was summarizing what I don't think had been stated in a single post with as much clarity).

[Johnnybravo4]

Hilarious. I just had bad flashbacks to Bar Bri.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...If a Hawksquawker testified that Bernie said that BK said that the Hawks didn't want AI that would be double hearsay...

---

I think that would be double-dog hearsay!