Is it possible you believe my post was "half-thought-out" because you only read half of it before replying?
I have nothing to thank you for.
Is it possible you believe my post was "half-thought-out" because you only read half of it before replying?No. You posted a half-thought-out response and then gave us the other half.
As for the link, I am sharing with you where the law originated. Are you anti-information after going on a tangent on this thread?
From that link we can see where you are skimming your information from, not Court TV but Wikipedia. LoL!
Your post...
The Federal Rules of Evidence are based on the California Code of Evidence. The FRE Advisory Committee notes frequently reference analogous California sections and state court cases to guide interpretation of the Federal Rules. Before the federal courts used common law evidence rules that were difficult to apply uniformly.From Wikipedia...
During the twentieth century, projects such as the California Evidence Code and the Uniform Rules of Evidence encouraged the codification of those common law evidence rules.If what you want to do is go off on a tangent to make yourself feel smart by skimming from Wikipedia then good for you, but I don’t see why you needed to ping me and others to it... Other than making an audience for yourself.
When I share information, I shoot people a link so they know where that information is coming from. But hey that’s just me, making an audience to pose is not my thing.