General Mock Trial

Why on God's green Earth are all of you discussing real cases, and looking up definitions etc.  Everything you need to know will be included in the case packet August 15th...as if I even need to say that.  You are all going out on various limbs for no reason when in all actuality the case could deviate 360 degrees from actual defamation law, if the case committee decides to write in Midlands specific rule changes. 

I agree.  The case summary provides us with nothing more than the story.  It does not provide us with the actual law that will be in contention.  We're not going to know anything until August 15th, even though we want it now...

You all should have learned by now that mockers will always speculate, and be persnickety and then argue and become bitter over just about anything. Then some other mocker will come in just to show just how much cooler and more level-headed he or she is than other mockers and he or she will begin to argue about how there is no reason to argue and how ridiculous all the other mockers are for arguing. Then the other mockers will argue if you think its so pointless, why the hell are you all up in this thread? It is the way it has always been and the way it will be forever more. So says the natural laws of perjuries.

On a more substantive note. I agree that looking up the word implicate isn't going to help us much here. My hope is that there is a clear statement of fact from the reporter. Otherwise, the plaintiff's job is going to get even more difficult and there will be danger of having too many issues to address. I honestly can't think of anything he could say other than "he killed him," or "he shot him" or something to that effect. But perhaps I'll be surprised.

The case committee could certainly tweak the law, but even if they do, it is worthwhile to know how defamation actually works, if you're interested in competing this season. The judges that you have will be viewing the cae from the perspective of actual law. They will know the defamation rules that the Supreme Court has ruled are required by the first amendment. If you understand how midlands law is different, it will make your life a lot easier when you're trying to get the judge not to exclude your evidence.

Skull, yeah, I agree. That's what I meant by bootstrapping. However, it's going to be a fuzzy line and I can see some legitimate, 403 confusing or misleading the jury objections. The problem will be that it all comes in to prove falsity. Since there are no objections during closing, I guess there won't be much you can do if someone tries to misapply the law. It'll be up to the judges to make these pretty fine discriminations in the law, which will probably rarely happen.

Josh

You all should have learned by now that mockers will always speculate, and be persnickety and then argue and become bitter over just about anything. Then some other mocker will come in just to show just how much cooler and more level-headed he or she is than other mockers and he or she will begin to argue about how there is no reason to argue and how ridiculous all the other mockers are for arguing. Then the other mockers will argue if you think its so pointless, why the hell are you all up in this thread? It is the way it has always been and the way it will be forever more. So says the natural laws of perjuries.

If there were Perjuries awards for Post of the Year, this would be a finalist.

I feel pretty confident in guessing that AMTA's defamation law will closely resemble major Supreme Court precedent.  Imagine the problems that would ensue if AMTA changed defamation law and then you have a whole bunch of judges who are assuming that real-world standards apply.  I mean, in the Harmon case, the definitions of various types of homicide was lifted wholesale from the Model Penal Code -- AMTA's not exactly trying to reinvent the wheel here.

Skull, yeah, I agree. That's what I meant by bootstrapping. However, it's going to be a fuzzy line and I can see some legitimate, 403 confusing or misleading the jury objections. The problem will be that it all comes in to prove falsity. Since there are no objections during closing, I guess there won't be much you can do if someone tries to misapply the law. It'll be up to the judges to make these pretty fine discriminations in the law, which will probably rarely happen.

Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page there.  It'll be a morass.

You are all going out on various limbs for no reason when in all actuality the case could deviate 360 degrees from actual defamation law, if the case committee decides to write in Midlands specific rule changes. 

Wouldn't that be no deviation, then?? 

Haha smartarse....but yes you are correct.  I guess it would have been more appropriate for me to say 180 degrees.
 

As for mockers always speculating etc....I absolutely agree that by nature us mock-folk are speculators, schemers, and visionaries.  My point was not to scorn, or lecture, but just to point out the obvious.  That if AMTA stays true to its well practiced reputation, idle speculation over case specifics is moot.

I still have love for all my peeps.

Even me?!?!?!?

Wow. 

Especially you Hova.  You're my favorite.  Positive Karma for you.

...my God. I.... I agree with coorey. Everything.....blurry.....world.....spinning.

Seriously. Chill out.

Hatch, I knew the day would come that you would finally see the light.  We aren't much different after all!  haha

See, ya had me on board, then you went and started dishing out karma again. Tsk tsk tsk.

At least now my sense of perjuries equilibrium has returned.

I'm just trying to be positive.  I've been told I lack that ability.

The case comes out in two weeks!

10 Days!!!!!! That deserves a dancing banana.  .......



........ Make that two 

Single digits 

Are we going to be having a countdown here Emery?