child support

Related Topics


Rules Of Evidence

The statutory rules governing testimony, documents, and demonstrative materials. In divorce, the two most encountered rules relate to hearsay (?he said, she said),? and the marital privilege (?my husband told me...?). Clients are often frustrated when important evidence is barred from trial. Lawyers spend considerable time figuring out ?how to get it in.? Try not to get too angry at the system, there is a valid reason for each rule.

Question: Why The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence? The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. Article 19 of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal (in reality: the Inter-allied Military Tribunal) at Nuremberg The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof. Article 21 of the Statutes No one, not even those individuals who regard the Third Reich with nostalgia, denies the existence of concentration camps under Hitler. Everyone also recognizes that certain camps were equipped with crematory ovens: instead of being buried, the corpses were reduced to ashes. The repeated occurrence of epidemics made cremation necessary, especially for those who had died of typhus (see the photos of mass graves at Belsen et cetera). What is disputed by numerous French, British, American, and German authors is the existence of "extermination camps." This expression is used by historiographers to refer to those camps that were supposed to have been equipped with "gas chambers." Allegedly, these "gas chambers" were different from American gas chambers in that they were used to kill hundreds of men, women, and children at a time. Because the victims were chosen because of their race or religion, this is referred to as "genocide." The poison employed in this "genocide" is said to have been Zyklon B (a pesticide based upon prussic or hydrocyanic acid). The Grappler, I appreciate your honest analysis and I do not support any genocide or mass murder by anyone in the past or present time. However, even if I take your benchmark then successive generations of Israelis are guilty of ethnically cleansing, massacring, maiming and murdering Palestinians! Most importantly Israelis got bigger guns (like Hitler) and they are not doing anything to make peace with the Palestinians because they can afford it! Either way, the Israelis can not wash their hands and they are guilty.

Answer: Pretty much what you've said, I guess. Simply that the Tribunal would not have to prove to the normal legal standard those things that were, as it says, common knowledge, such as the existence of the extermination camps (something which the Allies didn't really comment on until, I believe, around 1944, and the Vatican not at all apparently). Obviously, this was to expedite hearings, and not allow them to be bogged down in petty argument over everyday things. Maybe there was a little self-aggrandisement there, this wanting to appear to only deal with lofty issues, and perhaps more than a little desire to get the trials done quickly and get on to punishing those found guilty. As for the rest, I'm not sure if you are saying that extermination camps, as such, didn't exist. Look, even inducing a high mortality rate through epidemics, starvation, lack of heating, inadequate clothing and bedding, poor health facilities, etc, thus requiring cremation ovens of the size and number reported, clearly indicates a policy of genocide, thus making them extermination camps in any real sense. Have you seen the Allied, mainly US and British, footage of the human wraiths they recovered from these camps, and the stacks of corpses? Even if these people were simply left to die without food by guards who ran away, which is extremely doubtful when their condition was clearly the result of long term starvation, that is a major crime. The fact that, from memory, less than 10% of Russian prisoners survived in the hands of the Nazis is a good indication here of both attitudes and policies towards prisoners, and, believe me, they weren't all killed in Allied bombing. One thing I do know is that part of my family came from North Germany some 160 years ago, and they were Jewish. No records survive of any relatives that I can find.

 


Rules Of Evidence Related Products and News

Texas Lawyer

High Court Adopts New Texas Rules of Evidence
Texas Lawyer
 

Restyled Texas Rules of Evidence

JD Supra (press release)
The Court embarked on this rewrite to essentially conform the Texas Rules of Evidence with the Federal Rules of Evidence, which were restyled in 2011. The restyling also modernizes the verbiage and makes the rules more readable and understandable.
 

Dallas Morning News

What's Different About The Grand Jury Process In The Darren Wilson Case?
St. Louis Public Radio
 

Badal rules out Majithia's resignation for 'lack of evidence'

Hindustan Times
?How could the resignation be sought on the basis of mere newspaper reports, when there is no evidence (against Majithia)?? Badal stated while talking to reporters after the state cabinet meeting here. He parried away a query on the role of the ...
 

DNAinfo

Confession of accused Etan Patz killer admissible as evidence, court rules
Bangor Daily News
 

Court rules in favor of Karl and Suzanne Solum in Maranatha land dispute

The Caledonia Argus (subscription)
In most cases, I allowed this disputed evidence for two reasons, first, to give myself, as the finder of fact, the best opportunity to hear all relevant evidence. In court trials, I gently relax the rules of evidence, confident in my ability to ...
 

WDDE 91.1 FM | Delaware's NPR News station

Judge rules on use of drug evidence involved state crime lab scandal
WDDE 91.1 FM | Delaware's NPR News station
 

Wall Street Journal (blog)

Why the 'War on Coal' Doesn't Exist
Wall Street Journal (blog)
 

BBC News

Andrew Mitchell 'probably called police plebs', judge rules
BBC News
 

From Devil's Kitchen: Criminal and civil justice

Zumbrota News-Record
The rules of evidence are different. Often what one side is trying to prove is that an agreement existed between the two parties and the other side broke the agreement causing harm to the first party. The judge gets to decide the question. The judge ...