Dtruthspeaker:


[/b]And I told him I took it in because The Law says it is admissible evidence[b]

But am I going to do anything with it? Nope, there is nothing for me to do with it. It's as simple as that.

But did you believe that he spoke to a cow? Or you even already said it.

Maynman:


But did you believe that he spoke to a cow? Or you even already said it.

Since I have no need for the information, I do not care to believe or not believe!

The evidence will remain in his case file till the day it becometh important, if ever at all.

Dtruthspeaker:


Since I have no need for the information, I do not care to believe or not believe!

The evidence will remain in his case file till the day it becometh important, if ever at all.

So your definition of what “evidence” mean is not correct in all cases? Because now you are not following “due process”

Maynman:


So your definition of what “evidence” mean is not correct in all cases? Because now you are not following “due process”

I have already filled the evidence in the case file as Evidence 1, as required by Law. (Due Process) Shikena!

Dtruthspeaker:


I have already filled the evidence in the case file as Evidence 1, as required by Law. Shikena!

That you need to believe what he said as fact right as required by law?
From this evidence we will use to judge other cases as truth or false.

Maynman:


That you need to believe what he said as fact right as required by law?
From this evidence we will use to judge other cases as truth or false.

I don't understand your question!

Dtruthspeaker:


I don't understand your question!

Read what you wrote.
You took the evidence in(a cow can talk) because you believe it and it’s a fact right?

Maynman:


Read what you wrote.
You took the evidence in(a cow can talk) because you believe it and it’s a fact right?

I already said that I took the evidence in because The Law said it is admissible evidence. That is all.

Dtruthspeaker:


I already said that I took the evidence in because The Law said it is admissible evidence. That is all.

So you believed what you took in as evidence as a fact and tangible information?

Maynman:

So you believed what you took in as evidence as a fact and tangible information?

What I took in is evidence as The Law says and since I have no Since I have no need for the information, I do not care to believe or not believe!

If you require the information, you can have it since this place is a place of public records. So have it.

Dtruthspeaker:


What I took in is evidence as The Law says and since I have no Since I have no need for the information, I do not care to believe or not believe!

If you require the information, you can have it since this place is a place of public records. So have it.

The law didn’t say you should take anything someone said as evidence, it said you should investigate the information and prove it is true. You take only tested and trusted information as admissible evidence.
Someone can’t just walk into the court and say whatever without proving it.
Admissible evidence are not public records, they are fact that can be proven that’s why they are called evidence not public records.

Maynman:

The law didn’t say you should take anything someone said as evidence, it said you should investigate the information...

Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011 tells you, you are talking rubbish.

Dtruthspeaker:



Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011 tells you, you are talking rubbish.

How so? And why are you being specific about a particular law made by a country?

Maynman:


How so?

And you see it tells you that your guy gives evidence that "he had contact with a certain cow which spoke". And none of us was there when it happened.

So Admitted in evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:


And you see it tells you that your guy gives evidence that "he had contact with a certain cow which spoke". And none of us was there when it happened.

So Admitted in evidence.

So it is oral evidence now not admissible evidence?
And what that law says we can’t interpret it fully, we are not lawyers.

Maynman:


So it is oral evidence now not admissible evidence?

Oral evidence is admissible evidence if it is direct evidence to the issue (Section 126)

Dtruthspeaker:


Oral evidence is admissible evidence if it is direct evidence to the issue (Section 126)

And it must be spoken under oath inside a court of law to call it oral evidence?

Maynman:


And it must be spoken under oath in a court of law to call it oral evidence?

Nope! Just any oral statements offered towards proving the truth or otherwise of an issue.

Oath, is to guarantee that you have given the Truth known to you that it was true and not a lie, at the time of giving it. And that if you lied, you would be greatly punished, especially for the damage caused by your lie.

Dtruthspeaker:


Nope! Just any oral statements offered towards proving the truth or otherwise of an issue.

Oath, is to guarantee that you have given the Truth known to you that it was true and not a lie, at the time of giving it. And that if you lied, you would be greatly punished, especially for the damage caused by your lie.

Is that what Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011 says?

Maynman:


Is that what Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011 says?

Nope another Section!

Dtruthspeaker:


Nope another Section!

If another section said it then why are we using Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011?
If We are using the meaning of this law we need to fulfill all it says. And it said you must be under oath inside a court of law to term anything “oral evidence”

Maynman:

If another section said it then why are we using Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011?

If We are using the meaning of this law we need to fulfill all it says. And it said you must be under oath inside a court of law to term anything “oral evidence”

As you can see, there is no oath requirement in S.126.

Dtruthspeaker:


As you can see, there is no oath requirement in S.126.

Does it need to be done INSIDE A COURT?

Maynman:


Speechless huh?
Do you know what “evidence” means?

dont argue with dtruthspeaker. He's a log of Wood

Workch:
dont argue with dtruthspeaker. He's a log of Wood

Translation; "Don't argue with Dtruthspeaker, he can not be beaten"!

Maynman:

Does it need to be done INSIDE A COURT?

What needs to be done inside a court?

Dtruthspeaker:


What needs to be done inside a court?

Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011.

Maynman:


Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011.

Did you see S.126 say it should be done in a Court?

Dtruthspeaker:


Did you see S.126 say it should be done in a Court?

So where should it be done to be termed “oral evidence”? Where is it been used as evidence?
Man, are you this slow?

You quote a section of a law book, where is it been used? Market?

Maynman:


So where should it be done to be termed “oral evidence”? Where is it been used as evidence?
Man, are you this slow?

Then you should read up What is oral now that you know some "evidence"

Dtruthspeaker:


Then you should read up What is oral evidence.

You look it up, it seems you don’t know what it is and why did you bring up Section 126 of The Evidence Act 2011? Was this section used during the Bible era, it’s so pitiful.

Maynman:


You look it up, it seems you don’t know what it is.

If you knew it, you would know what things are oral evidence.