Attorney-at-Law

FAKE NEWS?

In Uncategorized on 03/12/2018 at 17:15

No, this is not a political blog. I’ve said again and again I do not set my toes in the political swamp; anyway, not here.

But The Great Dissenter, s/a/k/a The Great Concurrer, Master Silt-Stirrer and medalist in the Reverse Judicial Backflip event, Judge Mark V. Holmes, refuses to give evidentiary credence to extracts from The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Time magazine and Vanity Fair.

Moreover, Maltby Capital, Deutsche Bank, Enders Analysis and S&P Global fare no better. Even PricewaterhouseCoopers, that illustrious firm wherein toils that tax guru so dear to my heart, gets short shrift.

Here’s the latest episode of the long-running show starring the late King of Pop, Estate of Michael J. Jackson, Deceased, John G. Branca, Co-Executor and John McClain, Co-Executor, Docket No. 17152-13, filed 3/12/18, a designated hitter knocking off both the gems of journalism and a bunch of reports (largely anonymous) from distinguished opiners.

“This case was tried at a special session beginning on February 6, 2017, and the posttrial briefing runs into later this year. The parties filed their first stipulation of facts before trial. In it they expressly objected to some exhibits on hearsay grounds. They also reserved the right to object to any exhibit on relevancy and materiality grounds.” Order, at p. 1.

FRE 801(c) and 802 jettison the whole bunch.

“Newspaper and magazine articles are out-of-court statements by their authors and are therefore inadmissible hearsay if offered for the truth of the matters asserted. This is of course also true of articles on the internet. Statements that articles quote are double hearsay; for them to be admissible, a hearsay exception must apply both to the quoted statement and to the article itself, which is a statement by its author.” Order, at p. 2 (Citations omitted, but get them for your next memo of law).

Can’t cross-examine a piece of paper, much less a concatenation of electrons.

As for the financial savants proffered by the co-ex’rs, these are “…the financial prospects of either the music industry as a whole or of certain companies within it…. With the exception of the Deutsche Bank reports, it’s not clear who the actual human authors of the exhibits are. These reports are all out-of-court statements that are hearsay if offered for the truth of the matters asserted, and nothing in the record suggests that any hearsay exception applies.” Order, at p. 2.

If they’re in at all, they’re in only for the fact that someone said something, not that what they said is true or false. What use they are at that point is, of course, another story.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: