Comments on: RIAA ‘mystery witness’ in Tenenbaum case

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:40:22 +0000

” However, on Rayâs suggestion that law students and fledgling lawyers shouldnât practice law this way, why shouldnât they? ”

Precisely.
It obviously works.
There are clearly no consequences for it.

By: SunKing

SunKing — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:43:39 +0000

I’m all for fairness. It should always be the default method/action. But if your opponent refuses to play fair, then they’ve simply opened up a new option for you. To keep things ‘fair’, you should begin to play the game the same way. Just make sure you can beat them at their own game*. Usually, this is easy to do. Since by refusing to play fairly and ‘cheating’, the opposition admits their lack of confidence to challenge and beat you by the rules. This should be seen for what it is, a weakness, either in their ability or their strategy. As such, they are simply acknowledging that they are already floundering. Thus, one should simply press home their inherent advantage, with a (now) wider array of means at their disposal.

*Of course, in a competition decided by a third party (judge/referee/umpire/etc) who has intentionally sided with your opponent, then unfortunately none of the above will work, since you are no longer playing or competing, but merely following a script.

By: United Hackers Association

United Hackers Association — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:17:22 +0000

in canada they have to name witnesses at the discovery phase , YOU cant say you had a witness and produce them later.
USA law seems wacked no matter what so don’t know

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:52:56 +0000

Secret evidence/witness .. maybe its just my TV based knowledge of the US justice system .. but what about ‘discovery’ (procecusion must share evidence with defence). Though the same TV based knowlege trials always has suprise witnesses

… Objection your honour .. unfair surprise!