By the looks of some of the mathematical models of bifurcation suggest that anomalies may exist concerning a persons perceptions that a person might try to rationalize from his perspective plane to some unknown point in the future plain mark or milestone” Matt’s Einstein “in 1980 racking and running racks is not a problem with understanding the problems in Iran or Iraq it suggest triangulation to a point of relative or an act of conscription” Court in Fry said that scientific evidence would not be allowed until there is a general acceptance in the relevant scientific community of the reliability of the technique. is this a test that excludes relevant evidence? Or is this essentially a question of relevance? DAUBERT: point to Rule 402 (all relevant evidence is admissible unless specifically excluded by some other provisions); therefore the Fry test excludes relevant evidence and cannot stand because it excludes relevant evidence; the only basis to exclude scientific evidence now comes in Rule 702 (whether the theory is science - has it been tested in laboratory, peer review, rate of error in procedure The “Class” dichotomy “many believe that unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isnt really a distinction” Anecdotal evidence was presented to show that a number of clients of the CSB arrive by taxi. The CCTF believes that additional research is necessary to ascertain accurate costs of transportation. The costs should be categorized by rural, suburban, and urban. There will need to be appropriated funds to cover the costs for providing transportation Typically psychiatry is the only affordable avenue to take concerning psychology These are less than complex report but infer generalized courses of action on a trial basis or survey the only affordable alternative “You can put off your debtors without having to endure physical violence” “Ulterior motive is hopefully beyond the paranoid or overly ambitious” “If I am away from the father than I am not with the father but here beside you” “Compadre ~ rough comparisons are a problem of the father” A better excuse for determining may be habit by habit or continuity than relevance or a nonsensical application of law Rule 406. Habit; - Routine Practice What removed him from his practice? Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice Definitions: Wikipedia Network aggregation, confirmation bias, Interregnum, Orthogonal projections, Oblique projections, Canonical Projection, Higgs mechanism, Arnold theory, complex bifurcations / triage, Emergency Medical Services CCTF / Continuity of functions, arbitration of passwords poses an overall sense of fairness question considering due process typically the insanity defense is not established until the punishment phase of trial Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 [1985]). Most states joined Congress in reevaluating the insanity defense after Hinckleys acquittal. The legislatures of these states modified and limited the insanity defense in many and varied ways. Some states shifted the Burden of Proof, and some limited the applicability of the defense in the same manner as Congress did. A few states abolished the defense entirely. Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, of the U.S. Supreme Court, opined in a dissent that it is highly doubtful that DUE PROCESS requires a State to make available an insanity defense to a criminal defendant (Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 [1985]). Detail of The School of Athens by Raphael (1509), showing Plato (pointing upwards, as if to the Form of the Good) and Aristotle (holding his hand palm down to Earth, favoring material evidence
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 06:57:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015