Message from discussion
use in court?
Received: by 10.115.90.11 with SMTP id s11mr1035611wal.20.1240919111762;
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <timvangel...@gmail.com>
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.224])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k19si1231552waf.1.2009.04.28.04.45.10;
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of timvangel...@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.224 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.198.224;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of timvangel...@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.224 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=timvangel...@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so362164rvb.45
for <rationale@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=lT4ERUq8PWY3Uax4iH9Alr+eXWbL2ZM0+DEPAt3EfF8=;
b=pBctMBEHXzetljA9W5pq/mFvvz+H5GOXRhaw1ryUsG3aVNGYUnYQnxc1QRUAe8epS7
KaujJ0Pi+nkW9Qjvrz9woZSB0B1/BBbb7S9lY0W2wisv1ZH9gzKZiaYmEt4p6dbdd4aL
Y1l95G0KgJ8yuYpurdEwbWOgC3b2G1Nc3RK40=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
b=piPm8YvsqJvGyjnWwR9eHakoVCT1YE1i+wdGxBqNLvUkdq2rTPRElVduSzHM7l0uH2
lMPtviE+IGEEWpkvOJiCUTNUrGaJQ0uspEPxnBaqviHKMeWwGb997KPsaMkSk86T5qog
888Z3XaiJnHcYd7+aUbKRumIws8gGvu2P+rAQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: timvangel...@gmail.com
Received: by 10.141.26.19 with SMTP id d19mr1940896rvj.184.1240919110677; Tue,
28 Apr 2009 04:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:45:10 +1000
Message-ID: <6a2ff9bf0904280445r237c8a6ci9cb291af098e1e6f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: use in court?
From: Tim van Gelder Austhink <t...@austhink.com>
To: argu...@yahoogroups.com, rationale@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd14deec974b804689bfec1
--000e0cd14deec974b804689bfec1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I was asked "Have any judges in Australia (or anywhere else) ever accepted
the use of *Rationale* by trial or appellate counsel to sketch an argument
about the evidence in a case?"
I know one judge has at least threatened to require Rationale
use<http://www.scribd.com/doc/309694/US-Department-of-Justice-Court-Proceedings-06182007-hearing>but
do not recall hearing of any examples of this actually happening.
Any pointers?
- Tim v.G.
--
Austhink - bringing visual clarity to complex issues
Level 50, 120 Collins St Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
www.austhinkconsulting.com
Ph +61 3 9225 5215 ext 102 Mob 0438 131 266 Skype, LinkedIn timvangelder
Blog timvangelder.com
--000e0cd14deec974b804689bfec1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br>I was asked "Have any judges in Australia (or anywhere else) ever =
accepted the use of <i>Rationale</i> by trial or appellate counsel to sketc=
h an argument about the evidence in a case?"=A0 <br><br>I know one jud=
ge has at least <a href=3D"http://www.scribd.com/doc/309694/US-Department-o=
f-Justice-Court-Proceedings-06182007-hearing">threatened to require Rationa=
le use</a> but do not recall hearing of any examples of this actually happe=
ning.=A0 <br>
<br>Any pointers?<br><br>- Tim v.G.<br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Austhin=
k - bringing visual clarity to complex issues<br>Level 50, 120 Collins St M=
elbourne VIC 3000 Australia<br><a href=3D"http://www.austhinkconsulting.com=
">www.austhinkconsulting.com</a><br>
Ph +61 3 9225 5215 ext 102 =A0Mob 0438 131 266 =A0Skype, LinkedIn timvangel=
der <br>Blog <a href=3D"http://timvangelder.com">timvangelder.com</a> <br>
--000e0cd14deec974b804689bfec1--
|
