Tab Content
All
Andrew_Zito
Photos
No Recent Activity

About Andrew_Zito

Basic Information

Interests
chess, work
Political Statement
I have a love hate relationship with words and actions as they are akin to stories of chickens and their eggs:

All too often many on the left and right abusively concur on their reactionary basis in language in what is objectionable, as defined: Whereas words tend to be time consuming on the other hand some prefer actions without words and seem as such thoroughly reactionary as brainless actors.

In discussion any progressive argument on the left, is based on one or more of the objections listed below, it is immaterial if those discussions are rhetorical, polemical, Anarchist, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyite etcetera or Social Democrat:

Conversely any reactionary argument is objectionable on one or more of the grounds to objection listed below. Think abut it.

Objections by body of law United States

This is a list of objections in American law:[1] Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked to a witness include:

Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.

Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.

Asked and Answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct, but not always.

Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process.)

Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.

Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.[2]

Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.

Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.

Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.

Compound question: multiple questions asked together.

Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.[2]

Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.

Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.

Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness.
Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.

Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts. This objection is not always proper even when a question invites a narrative response, as the circumstances of the case may require or make preferable narrative testimony.

Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.

Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.

--------------------------------------------------

There is no use planning a revolution when people can not normally live and work together so in simplistic terms basic company is sought where there can be trust though there is little.

Rule One:

If you want to act stupid and crazy, nice or mean and create drama keep the fuck away as you are nothing I have not seen so take a hike.

Rule Two a Friends list merely creates targets.

Rules Three: There is not such thing as abstract.
Organisation
NOYB-NBB-ULA

Statistics

Total Posts
Total Posts
28
Posts Per Day
0.01
0
General Information
10th January 2018 22:16
1st February 2016
Referrals
0