[Seizethecarp]

Tom Fife’s story:

http://www.rense.com/general84/brck.htm

Tom Fife’s recollections in 2008 of what a Russian woman said to him in 1992 is, for him, a “first person experience” but legally Fife’s account is “hearsay” (he did not personally witness any of the events the woman told him) and therefore inadmissible in any court or serious inquiry.

Fife himself, being a scientist, describes his own account as “definitely anecdotal,” a scientific term meaning that his account cannot be relied on. For forensic researchers such as myself (I am a retired Certified Fraud Examiner CFE) hearsay is the correct legal term for this highly plausible story.

Hearsay accounts can lead to first-hand witnesses, such as the alleged Russian woman, whose testimony could be admissible if she could be found and deposed, but Fife obscures her identity and that of her husband with initials which serves to obstruct further investigation.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, “Sally told me Tom was in town,” as opposed to “I saw Tom in town,” which is direct evidence. Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of about thirty eight[1] exceptions applies to the particular statement being made.

The hearsay rule is an analytic rule of evidence that defines hearsay and provides for both exceptions and exemptions from that rule. There is no all-encompassing definition of hearsay in the United States. However, most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as “an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” “out-of-court” is shorthand for any statement other than one made under oath and in front of the factfinder (the judge) during the same proceeding in which it is being offered in evidence. “matter asserted”means the matter asserted in the statement offered into evidence, not the matter “asserted” by party offering the evidence. Evidence typically is introduced to support not just one proposition but a series of propositions, linked together in a chain of inference. If ANY ONE of the propositions in this chain of inference is “the truth of the matter asserted” in the out-of-court statement, the evidence falls within the traditional definition of hearsay. The declarant is the person that makes the out-of-court statement aka not the person bringing the action (lawsuit).

NOTE: In HEARSAY law, “Witness” means someone who testifies under oath, from the witness stand and “Declarant” refers to someone who makes a statement of any kind, whether or not under oath,and whether in or out of court. (according the the Federal Rules of Evidence)

In EVERYDAY law, “witness” means someone who sees or observes something and “declarant” means someone who says something under oath. The distinctions in the definitions of these words is important to consider in hearsay law.

F.R.E 801- Hearsay is a statement that the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and a party offersevidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (F.R.E. refers to the Federal Rules of Evidence)

Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of another person’s statement, as equivalent to testimony by the witness to the fact. Unless the second person is brought to testify in court where they may be placed under oath and cross-examined.

[noinfringers2]

I have years of experience dealing with peoples stories, anecdotes in your frame of reference, in legal situations/cases. I was given this authority by federal, state, and local laws even though I did not have a law degree only expected common sense to separate fact from fiction. As such, mumble jumble talk that takes away the essence of an argument is weighed along with other presentations be such as fact or fiction. That even though Mr. Fife tells/recalls his encounter at a dinner party it holds some validity unless one takes him as liar. I do not. I would take that you have done a lot of investigation on Obama’s past that includes close contact with the very active communist affiliations in Chicago. This and Obama’s affiliation as well as Mr. Fife’s disclosure cannot be boxed as hearsay that needs court definition.

[LucyT]

Tom Fife’s story

See # 192.

Thanks, Siezethecarp.

[RaceBannon]

My story isn’t hearsay, but no one cares, really.

[rodguy911]

Here's a snippet from the piece:

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."

I never forgot this and it always stays in the back of my mind.If yo pit it all together add in that he is gay it all makes sense in a sordid sort of way.