DWS & ANS - the questions surrounding their deaths

Under rule 901(a), the requirement of authentication “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” In Re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. 2005); Sanchez v.
State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 229 S.W.3d 498, 508 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); see Tex. R. Evid. 901(a).
Such evidence may include testimony by a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be, but the predicate for admissibility under Rule 901 may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. Sanchez, 229 S.W.3d at 509; In Re G.F.O., 874 S.W.2d at 731. This requirement may be met by “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.” Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA v. Hill, 194 S.W.3d at 162, 167 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see Tex. R. Evid. 901(a)(4).
The Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook identifies another traditional method of authentication permitted by Rule 901 known as the "reply-letter doctrine."
Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook, Article IX: Authentication & Identification, at 915-15 (6th ed. 2005). Under this doctrine, a letter received in the due course of mail purportedly in answer to another letter is prima facie genuine and admissible without further proof of authenticity. Id. A reply letter needs no further authentication because it is unlikely that anyone other than the purported writer would know of and respond to the contents of the earlier letter addressed to him. Id.

Anyone can search case law on any legal matter in Texas or any other state. Understanding if that case law directly applies to this circumstance would be the judges decision. When there is overwhelming proof that the allegations are false is the key. No judge in the world would allow weight to Baker’s testimony for example. Rule 901(a) does not apply because there has been no testimony in court and the circumstantial evidence must be authenticated by the responding parties. LOL WHY do you think that McC has fought so hard to get the other’s computers? No matter, there is no defamation and certainly no conspiracy to be found in any correspondence between the defendants.
*This requirement may be met by “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.”*
The requirement has not been met, that is why there has been one summary judgement to CCBS, TS has been dismissed (under the pretense of McC not wanting to deal with her--)
The “reply-letter doctrine” has nothing to do with unlawful orders to compel peoples computers.
Look and read to the end of your research,“-- is prima facie genuine and admissible without further proof of authenticity” That is the big deal, McC never by law proved a prima facie fact that VA had been defamed or conspired against.

The prima facie is not genuine and will not be admissible.

Why do you think so many people are upset? The procedure of law was not applied in many circumstance in TL’s court! Every defendant should have a fair laid out prima facie showing to the court by the plaintiff (the accuser) to see if the case is worth continuing. Yes the defendants opposed much of what they have been asked to do, because no judge says Because I said so, based on no laws, no judge says I haven’t read the stacks of papers then makes orders.

The stuff McC got from RT is not admissible. I read the transcripts of the depositions, to me it seemed as if she was pressured, to many people it seemed that way. I know this because of the questions asked by the other attorneys. Certainly the judge will take those transcripts of any defendant being pressured under much consideration. Pressure is a form of blackmail - those are my words.
Nice try though! Good effort and not too much on the direct personal attacks to another’s differing opinion!
If you respond back without attacks, you will get responded back to without insults for those attacks. Good job!

New documents courtesy of 'McCabe Sizzles':

In the breach of contract suit

Citation [shows HKS was served]
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/457...

In the defamation suit

Howie's Notice of Unavailability (lol, I knew this was coming)
[Defendant Howard K Sterns Notice of Unavailability Due To Conflicting Engagement]
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/457...

Harris Reply to Arthur's Response to Motion to Compel and 2nd Request for production
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/457...
__________

If the Judge goes along with HKS's request it will delay the TX State Civil case until after October and likely even longer since it will delay HKS's deposition until the criminal case is concluded.

I wonder if the 08/06/2010 hearings will still take place? It is possible since HKS doesn't have to be present for those hearings and HKS's attorney scheduled that date. We will just have to wait and see.

I don't see anything filed yet in the probate case to delay that hearing that is set on 08/04/2010. We will have to wait and see on that one as well. Maybe he doesn't need to be present for that hearing in the probate case either.

JMO

JMO wrote:

Anyone can search case law on any legal matter in Texas or any other state. Understanding if that case law directly applies to this circumstance would be the judges decision. When there is overwhelming proof that the allegations are false is the key. No judge in the world would allow weight to Baker’s testimony for example. Rule 901(a) does not apply because there has been no testimony in court and the circumstantial evidence must be authenticated by the responding parties. LOL WHY do you think that McC has fought so hard to get the other’s computers? No matter, there is no defamation and certainly no conspiracy to be found in any correspondence between the defendants.
*This requirement may be met by “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.”*
The requirement has not been met, that is why there has been one summary judgement to CCBS, TS has been dismissed (under the pretense of McC not wanting to deal with her--)
The “reply-letter doctrine” has nothing to do with unlawful orders to compel peoples computers.
Look and read to the end of your research,“-- is prima facie genuine and admissible without further proof of authenticity” That is the big deal, McC never by law proved a prima facie fact that VA had been defamed or conspired against.
The prima facie is not genuine and will not be admissible.
Why do you think so many people are upset? The procedure of law was not applied in many circumstance in TL’s court! Every defendant should have a fair laid out prima facie showing to the court by the plaintiff (the accuser) to see if the case is worth continuing. Yes the defendants opposed much of what they have been asked to do, because no judge says Because I said so, based on no laws, no judge says I haven’t read the stacks of papers then makes orders.
The stuff McC got from RT is not admissible. I read the transcripts of the depositions, to me it seemed as if she was pressured, to many people it seemed that way. I know this because of the questions asked by the other attorneys. Certainly the judge will take those transcripts of any defendant being pressured under much consideration. Pressure is a form of blackmail - those are my words.
Nice try though! Good effort and not too much on the direct personal attacks to another’s differing opinion!
If you respond back without attacks, you will get responded back to without insults for those attacks. Good job!

Well if anyone can search, why didn't you before you shot off your mouth with bogus information Gawd you are a complete idiot. I point you right to it and you still can't comprehend it! Didn't bother reading the cases I gave you did you? LMAO

The prima facia is for emals / letters/ docs. 901 is Rules of EVIDENCE. Not a prima to McCabe's overall claim. geesh Simply by REPLYING to the subject, it IS authenticated. It doesn't need the the other side is what it is trying to tell you.

It cleary does not always need the other side in order to 'authenticate' emails. What a moron. It's right there in black and white. Go swim over it because you are looking like a fool.

DDs wrote:

<quoted text>
Well if anyone can search, why didn't you before you shot off your mouth with bogus information Gawd you are a complete idiot. I point you right to it and you still can't comprehend it! Didn't bother reading the cases I gave you did you? LMAO
The prima facia is for emals / letters/ docs. 901 is Rules of EVIDENCE. Not a prima to McCabe's overall claim. geesh Simply by REPLYING to the subject, it IS authenticated. It doesn't need the the other side is what it is trying to tell you.
It cleary does not always need the other side in order to 'authenticate' emails. What a moron. It's right there in black and white. Go swim over it because you are looking like a fool.

The point that you are missing DDs (Ms Pleasereadbeyondtheheadlines) is a friggen conspiracy to defame HAS TO to result in actionable defamation. Who cares what emails were flyng back and forth. Who cares who was digging up dirt on VA. If what ws written was researched, aand found to be substancially ture, then A BIG BOOHOO to VA. Soryy her life sucked, but ya'll can't blame HKS.

JMO wrote:

Anyone can search case law on any legal matter in Texas or any other state. Understanding if that case law directly applies to this circumstance would be the judges decision. When there is overwhelming proof that the allegations are false is the key. No judge in the world would allow weight to Baker’s testimony for example. Rule 901(a) does not apply because there has been no testimony in court and the circumstantial evidence must be authenticated by the responding parties. LOL WHY do you think that McC has fought so hard to get the other’s computers? No matter, there is no defamation and certainly no conspiracy to be found in any correspondence between the defendants.
*This requirement may be met by “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.”*
The requirement has not been met, that is why there has been one summary judgement to CCBS, TS has been dismissed (under the pretense of McC not wanting to deal with her--)
The “reply-letter doctrine” has nothing to do with unlawful orders to compel peoples computers.
Look and read to the end of your research,“-- is prima facie genuine and admissible without further proof of authenticity” That is the big deal, McC never by law proved a prima facie fact that VA had been defamed or conspired against.
The prima facie is not genuine and will not be admissible.
Why do you think so many people are upset? The procedure of law was not applied in many circumstance in TL’s court! Every defendant should have a fair laid out prima facie showing to the court by the plaintiff (the accuser) to see if the case is worth continuing. Yes the defendants opposed much of what they have been asked to do, because no judge says Because I said so, based on no laws, no judge says I haven’t read the stacks of papers then makes orders.
The stuff McC got from RT is not admissible. I read the transcripts of the depositions, to me it seemed as if she was pressured, to many people it seemed that way. I know this because of the questions asked by the other attorneys. Certainly the judge will take those transcripts of any defendant being pressured under much consideration. Pressure is a form of blackmail - those are my words.
Nice try though! Good effort and not too much on the direct personal attacks to another’s differing opinion!
If you respond back without attacks, you will get responded back to without insults for those attacks. Good job!

Great post, that is what I think, too. You did a good job with the details. That is the best post I've read today!

flowerz wrote:

<quoted text>
Great post, that is what I think, too. You did a good job with the details. That is the best post I've read today!

*snort* As if you understood a word of it. LOL!

flowerz wrote:

<quoted text>
Great post, that is what I think, too. You did a good job with the details. That is the best post I've read today!

Thanks. HKS has been granted his Writ of Mandamus. All Lindsay's orders to compel are denied. Opinion filed by the court. I think HKS may be let out of this case if texas cannot get jurisdiction on him, same with LB. TMZ will win on summary judgement like AH. Same as CBS did. That leaves McVA fighting RT and LH - 2 bloggers. McVa will not get jurisdiction on Bonnie either. Those are my predictions from reading the documents and findings by the COA, and the orders so far from the judge in the 80th.

Stern's Writ of Mandamus has been granted. Not a big surprise he was the one in the best position to have his granted.

The opinion.

http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions...

Although it is kind of odd that the court "recast Stern's objections".

JMO

I am just checking in real quick then have to go again.

I guess this does prove that I was right that just the granting of Harris's Writ didn't automatically grant Stern's like some people claimed. That still was handled and done seperately. LOL

JMO

There is also a document from Stern in the TX State case wanting to consolidate the case of the breach of contract into the current TX State Case.

JMO

Have a Wonderful Day everyone.

JMO

Bunch of new documents:

New documents courtesy of 'McCabe Sizzles' via 'Rose'.

Stern's Supplemental Response in Opposition of MTC [Motion to Compel]
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/HSS...

Stern's Motion to Vacate Discovery Order 5/11/09
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/HSM...

Exhibit A
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/HSA...

Notice of Oral Hearing 8/6/10
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/HSN...
__________

More new documents courtesy of 'McCabe Sizzles' via 'Rose', also with links from QV:

Stephens Writ of Mandamus Denied
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/TSM...

http://qvsplace.com/071410_In_re_Teresa_Steph...
-=-=-=-=-=

Motion for EnBanc Rehearing re Harris Mandamus
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/MVA...

http://qvsplace.com/071410_Arthur_vs_Stern_et...

Letter to Court with filing fee for en banc Motion
http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/Let...

New document courtesy of 'McCabe Sizzles'.

Bonnie Stern Status Report California

http://www.angelfire.com/teamtexas-virgie/Sta...
__________

Also QV has a new article regarding the latest attempt by Kapoor and his attorneys to obfuscate and deflect from the real issues of the case.

Kapoor Plays The Gay Card Regarding His Part In Anna Nicole Smiths Death
by QV on 07/15/2010

http://www.qvsplace.com/2010/07/kapoor-plays-...

__________

It has the pictures of him making out with ANS in it.

JMO