How a Court Case Works: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A court case is a conversation between two parties. Like in regular conversation, you can say things back and forth to negotiate a solution, except there are several differences compared to a regular conversation. Here we | A court case is a conversation between two parties. Like in regular conversation, you can say things back and forth to negotiate a solution, except there are several differences compared to a regular conversation. Here we examine sufficient evidence, how we may admit it, and how we may block it. This discussion revolves around the case of a hostile, bad faith, egregious, reckless, and dishonorable opponent as evidenced by their performance. This extreme case is taken to underscore methods by which a pro se party can secure justice. | ||
#The court can hear anything, but it doesn't mean that what you say will be admitted into evidence. Before you admit something into evidence, a basis must be established for the relevance, non-prejudice, hearsay, first hand knowledge, and other factors. Here, one must understand all the [[Qualities that Allow Evidence To Be Admissible]]. Otherwise - this evidence will be ignored completely. | #The court can hear anything, but it doesn't mean that what you say will be admitted into evidence. Before you admit something into evidence, a basis must be established for the relevance, non-prejudice, hearsay, first hand knowledge, and other factors. Here, one must understand all the [[Qualities that Allow Evidence To Be Admissible]]. Otherwise - this evidence will be ignored completely. | ||
#You can say anything, but you are liable for verity, and liable for perjury if under oath. | #You can say anything, but you are liable for verity, and liable for perjury if under oath. | ||
Revision as of 21:34, 7 July 2024
A court case is a conversation between two parties. Like in regular conversation, you can say things back and forth to negotiate a solution, except there are several differences compared to a regular conversation. Here we examine sufficient evidence, how we may admit it, and how we may block it. This discussion revolves around the case of a hostile, bad faith, egregious, reckless, and dishonorable opponent as evidenced by their performance. This extreme case is taken to underscore methods by which a pro se party can secure justice.
- The court can hear anything, but it doesn't mean that what you say will be admitted into evidence. Before you admit something into evidence, a basis must be established for the relevance, non-prejudice, hearsay, first hand knowledge, and other factors. Here, one must understand all the Qualities that Allow Evidence To Be Admissible. Otherwise - this evidence will be ignored completely.
- You can say anything, but you are liable for verity, and liable for perjury if under oath.