Section 26.1(a)(2)

Guest

Quote :: (2)
The legal theory upon which each claim or defense is based including,
where necessary for a reasonable understanding of the claim or defense,
citations of pertinent legal or case authorities.

In other words HE must provide information on which "HIS"claim is based.
YOU must provide information on which "YOUR" claim is based so that each may clearly understand the position of the other party.

Legal Research that is NOT used as a basis for YOUR argument is trial preparation material. It is propriatary knowledge and work product and as such is privledged and protected.

Quote :

Adequate research not only prepares a case but allows an attorney to anticipate arguments that may araise and attempt to refute them. He isn't obliged to tell you the laws that support your position. It's your attorney's job to find them.

Guest

Drew a blank apparently came by his name honestly. What a maroon.

Guest

Case law is available to anyone. it isn't hidden nor is it evidence. Discovery and fair disclosure is for information that would not otherwise be fairly available to both parties.

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure

,
etc.), and requires the production of a "privilege log" which describes
the privileged information or material in a way that allows others to
see that (if) it is privileged, but does not divulge the privileged
material.

Guest

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure

,
etc.), and requires the production of a "privilege log" which describes
the privileged information or material in a way that allows others to
see that (if) it is privileged, but does not divulge the privileged
material.

Guest

Subdivision (a) provides for automatic disclosure, which first was
added in 1993. Disclosure requires parties to share their own
supporting evidence without being requested to by the other party.
Failure to do so can preclude that evidence from being used at trial.
This applies only to evidence that supports their own case, not
anything that would harm their case. For example, a plaintiff brings a
case alleging a negligent accident where the defendant damaged the
plaintiff's boat. The plaintiff would then be required to automatically
disclose repair bills for his damaged property (Since this would only
support his case) (26(a)(1)(c)).
Subdivision (b) is the heart of the discovery rule, and defines what
is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is
available for the other party to request, as long as it is not
privileged or otherwise protected. Under §1, relevance is defined as
anything more or less likely to prove a fact that affects the outcome
of the claim. It does not have to be admissible in court as long as it
could reasonably lead to admissible evidence.

Guest

Under the work-product doctrine, "tangible material or its intangible
equivalent" that is collected or prepared in anticipation of litigation
is not discoverable, and may be shielded from discovery by a Protective Order, unless the
party seeking discovery can demonstrate that the sought facts can only
be obtained through discovery and that those facts are indispensable
for impeaching or substantiating a claim. That is, the party unable to obtain the information has no other means of obtaining the information without undue hardship.
For example, the witness may have left the country. Where the required
showing is made, the court will still protect mental impressions of an
attorney by redacting that part of the document containing the mental
impressions.

Guest

This applies only to evidence that supports their own case, not anything that would harm their case.

Guest

What is it? Is DM a parrot? Is he listening to Harris? DM.. word up. Harris is not a legal authority.

Guest

Guest

It is embarrassing that Jeff and David run around like lemmings repeating something the other has said. This time, they are wrong wrong wrong. Ask any attorney about case law and they'll tell you it isn't subject to discovery.

Guest

They post misinformation all the time, what's new?

Guest

Has anyone else noticed that when Harris makes MAJOR mistakes he simply slinks out of it and NOBODY calls him on it?

Where is the outcry against people who scream fire or danger when there isn't any. That's just criminal. OH! yeah. DUH!

Subject: Re: Section 26.1(a)(2) Fri May 09, 2008 9:15 pm

Hey Jean, Take a look at TOPIX. It doesn't look to me like he is getting away with it anymore. Jack and Eric are taking him to task. Looks like the jig is up Jeff. You've been outted.

Subject: Re: Section 26.1(a)(2) Sat May 10, 2008 2:35 pm

Jean wrote:: Has anyone else noticed that when Harris makes MAJOR mistakes he simply slinks out of it and NOBODY calls him on it?

Where is the outcry against people who scream fire or danger when there isn't any. That's just criminal. OH! yeah. DUH!

Well, WE call him on it!

But seriously, the reason why Jeff's most vocal supporters don't call him on his big boo-boos is that they all have, by and though their actions, created a state of constant political war in Bisbee. They know that, because of this creation, there cane be no such thing as "errors" or "disagreements" or "differences of opinion." Everyone aginst them are venal and greedy and corrupt and "on-the-take."

So, when errors are made, and because of the "war," Jeff's people know that their opponents have no choice to utilize any slip-ups they may make. ("Fight fire with fire" and all. Or "Live by the sword, die by the sword.") So, rather than face the consequences of their own actions, they ignore it and hope it all goes away.

Number of posts : 31 Registration date : 2008-02-24

What would have been welcomed as a blessing at any other time, turned out to be just another of JH's cheap tricks. JH lost his voice in court and the Judge permitted him to do everything in writing, which gave JH a huge advantage. What does this drama queen have planned for the next time?

Guest

Jeff Harris is not only a liar but a braggart. He thinks because he wrote a few legal documents that he is suddenly a legal eagle. That man is so wrong about discovery and evidentiary matters he doesn't even qualify as a third rate jail house lawyer. It may be that Harris will win on appeal but that will only reflect the way the courts choose to interpret voter disenfranchisement, it won't be because of any stunning legal dictum.