Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Luyten 726-8A: Hello world
Drakenborg: Can't say I exactly knew what was goin on. Anymore videos on it
Lantea: Personally, I never took evidence so it is somewhat more confusing for me probably.
Pont Vanis: It's really hard for me to have an unbias opinion on donziger... its Chevron using it's clout to fuck over a guy fighting for a group of unprotected people
Drakenborg: yeah also never took evidence
Triangulum: I think having some sense ahead of time about what we are going to cover would be lovely, particularly for the less evidence-prepped of us
Kerack: even though this is an advanced topics class. it would be great to have a 30 second refresher on the relevant evidence laws. because im really confused
Pont Vanis: that being said, I am also quite confused
Luyten 726-8A: As someone taking evidence now, but having not learned hearsay yet, this was quite tough to follow
Drakenborg: yeah big oil like we didn't already know was scummy
Lantea: I did find it very interesting though
DQar: I too did not take evidence so it is confusing to me what are two things to keep separate? Can we spend more time going over it!
Venus: I'm still confused - I'd like for us to further review admissibility (hearsay) and sufficiency (confrontation).
Triangulum: yeah, some doctrinal refresher would be interesting. but I did find this class great!
Felucia: I'm still confused, but less confused than I was to start...kept thinking that violation of confrontation clause should result in a nullity
Drakenborg: maybe a bit more background reading
Forgeham: Is there like a 100 page book on basic Evidence stuff we could all read for those who haven't taken it?
Kerack: Loving class though!
Celestis: I thought this discussion was really interesting! I liked how we included Raleigh's case- it pointed out the issues with current hearsay law for me
Starkiller Base: I think I understand it but I'm not sure.
Lantea: I very much enjoyed this class. I would just want a bit more clarification on certain topics
Luyten 726-8A: Hence inability to contribute when called upon as well as fear to chime in
Drakenborg: class is cool
Drakenborg: just was a little confused today
Kerack: I found this article that might be helpful
Andromeda: I think Mike brought up a good point about burden of proof: If you are stripping someone of their ability to practice, you shouldnt be able to use a preclusive finding from a civil case. While the bar revocation isnt a criminal proceeding, it still being stripped of a right to practice law.
Coruscant: Should Donziger be saying that the state review board is using Kaplan's opinion without giving him the opportunity to confront Kaplan? Because didn't he confront Kaplan when he appealed to the 2d circuit?
Felucia: I feel like the question guiding me is "how can we more succinctly explain this in 1 paragraph, in order to plead Donziger's case"
Earth: I think I understand but also might just be so confused that I don't realize I am confused.
Wolf 359: Although I was quite confused and had a difficult time keeping up today (also haven't taken evidence) I thought the discussion was interesting!
Celestis: I dont think that it's fair to preclude Donzinger from re-litigating the issue that was found previously in a CIVIL case- that wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt so not letting that be determined again doesn't make sense to me
Earth: Yes, loved the discussion!
Felucia: I think we're all smart enough to figure this out ... but now we gotta figure out how to understand it well enough to explain the concept to others
Alderaan: If the theory is that collateral estoppel is inadmissible hearsay, wouldnt this be in conflict with the full faith and credit clause? Any time a court accepts a factual or legal finding by another court, they are accepting an out of court statement made by another court. However, that is a fundamental presumption of the full faith and credit clause
Lantea: Yeah donziger should be given another fair shot
Pont Vanis: Nesson knows how to captivate i'll say that much --> any other 2hr discussion of hearsay would put me to sleep
Felucia: FACTS Luna
Drakenborg: he quirky i like him
Drakenborg: his other classes like this
Coruscant: Is part of the answer how easy it is to confront the witness? Raleigh made a point about how Popham was "in the house." Relitigating Donzinger's case would be really hard.
Felucia: Also, a bit unrelated, isn't there a rule of procedure for newly discovered evidence - rule 59 maybe? That would allow for the introduction of the declarant who has now recanted his allegations
Pont Vanis: why would it be hard?
Earth: I don't understand how the Donzinger case is justified at all. The entire case seems so unconstitutional.
Celestis: Yeah in evidence I will say I thought the Crawford distinction was crazy. The whole testimonial thing seems arbitrary to me
Celestis: I vote for reconsidering Crawford!
Pont Vanis: SWEATPEA returns
Pont Vanis: name of nessons dog i think
Kerack: best ending to class ever
Lantea: Favorite Professor at HLS by far
Earth: Thank you for a great class!
Lantea: Yes, that was extremely intereesting and thought provoking as confusing as some of it was.