It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by sled735
Ok, so if I was an american being taken to court for not paying my income tax, I'm not allowed to enter into evidence any of the supporting evidence that the 16th amendment was never ratified, thus making it illegal. I'm not allowed to bring that up, and if I do, it's stricten from the record.
But testimony from a ghost IS admissible.
I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad
Originally posted by new_here
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by sled735
Ok, so if I was an american being taken to court for not paying my income tax, I'm not allowed to enter into evidence any of the supporting evidence that the 16th amendment was never ratified, thus making it illegal. I'm not allowed to bring that up, and if I do, it's stricten from the record.
But testimony from a ghost IS admissible.
I'd laugh if this wasn't so sad
Until I read your statement, I was thinking along the lines of: Let's hope the jury is as WTH as we are, and that's why the judge left it in. That, and because it was someone from AEG's testimony, not Michael Jackson's... Clearly. Plus it was "she said he said" at best, and not worth a grain of sand, save for showing what desperate measures AEG is taking to sway the trial.
That was going to be my post, and it still may be true. But what you said expanded my viewpoint to make it a mere anecdote... an example. Of the larger picture: There is a great deal of power vested in the person allowed to control the flow of information. In any situation. The general flow of it, as well as things like admissibility in court. In any court case... 12 jurors vs. 1 judge. The jurors are still outnumbered, if you think about it. They may not get to hear something at all, or they may hear something that would slam-dunk change their mind, yet be told it is prohibited to allow it any bearing on the outcome. Wouldn't the "jury of our peers" seem a more logical and fair choice to decide what will be allowed consideration, as a part of their deliberations? For 2 reasons: It is THEIR duty to render a fair & honest verdict by sifting through all available information. And also, 12 in consensus just sounds a whole lot more reliable than 1 dictating to them his/her parameters.
Sorry to expand out so far from the Michael Jackson trial. Let's zero back in now, and star for poster who made me zoom out.
There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.
ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.
Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by VegHead
There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.
ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.
Thanks for clearing that up. So WoW... in a civil suit, Mr. Judge has even MORE power than usual.
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by VegHead
There isn't going to be a jury for this trial. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So, it's really just up to the judge.
ITA with you about the the power one person gets and the flow of info.
Thanks for clearing that up. So WoW... in a civil suit, Mr. Judge has even MORE power than usual.
I don't know about the specifics of this case, but juries in civil suits are quite common, especially when very large sums of money are in question.
en.wikipedia.org...