*STEVENS CAUGHT IN MY TRAP!!* Stevens is claiming that the cases I cited do not apply to cops (lay witness) because they are about expert witness testimony. Oh, the ignorance and hubris of an internet lawyer. I knew he would fall into that trap. These cases prove the main issue - ONLY A JUDGE CAN RENDER A LEGAL CONCLUSION regarding the applicability of the law!! Stevens clearly doesn't comprehend Rule 701 regarding lay witness opinion testimony. He confuses a lay witness opinion testimony with rendering a legal conclusion. I suggest Stevens and his "lawyer" also explore what a "Question of Law" is and involves. A great case for learning and understanding Rule 701 and lay witness opinion testimony is PEOPLE v ACOSTA, 338 P.3d 472 (2014) - for those who want real legal information.
Stevens so-called lawyer John Calvin Jones, whose lame attempt at debunking me failed, demonstrated his ignorance of the law. He kept saying that there has to be a witness that can give firsthand personal knowledge that the laws apply. Pure BULLSHIT! Only a JUDGE can render a legal conclusion on the applicability of law. There are probably thousands of cases that make that clear. NONE of this "lawyer's" cases he cited have anything to do with a lay witness making a determination of the applicability of the law - a legal conclusion. Then this "lawyer" says you can't prove a negative. HUH? People prove they're not guilty of a charge all the time. And I've just proved that rendering a legal conclusion doesn't apply to witnesses. No wonder that "lawyer" had to go the China to be hired. According to him, with his ideas, he had problems maintaining employment in the US.
It's funny how Stevens will only accept one lawyer's opinions as correct bvcause it supports his fantasy, but rejects all others. This makes me ROFLMFAO!!
See also:
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
