I never said any such thing. I said -- and have repeatedly said to you -- that any deposition has to be PROVEN in court before you can call it EVIDENCE. Anybody who can say anything in a deposition. Until it's been TESTED in a courtroom, it's NOT REAL EVIDENCE.
This is like the time you denied you said that you didn't believe Ron Brown was murdered. Remember?
Ok, I'm game. Note in particular the portion in BOLD near the end of this.
Recall that you and I were discussing the depositions and FOIA documents that Klayman gathered in Filegate (crimes which for "some reason" you'd rather ignore). You began by stating "A deposition is NOT EVIDENCE nor is it TRUTH until it is admitted to court and CROSS EXAMINED UNDER OATH. DUH."
I responded: "Well no doubt the people that write dictionaries will be surprised. From mine: Ev-i-dence n. 1. The data on which a conclusion may be based, or by which proof or probability may be established. Sounds to me like the data (i.e., evidence) comes BEFORE the proof. I suspect that Ashcroft might even call the material Klayman gathered "evidence" at this point in time (before the trial). There is another definition: 3. Law. The documentary or verbal statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law."
You responded: "That says it all; MAY BE ESTABLISHED -- after it is proven in court. Man, you are dense. " and added "Now I know you're Larry Klayman. Nothing can come before it's proved."
To which I replied: "Dictionary definition #1 clearly says the proof or probability is what is established, not the evidence. The evidence is USED to establish the proof or probability. "
You then wrote: "evidence : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter Tell it to Merriam-Webster. A deposition is NOT ruled TRUTHFUL until it has been so ruled in court. I type depositions all day long. I can damn well tell you it is NOT always truthful. "
To which I replied "evidence : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. But you just got done telling us that NOTHING comes before the proof. This definition again clearly says the evidence FURNISHES proof."
I then added: " Let's see what the New Oxford Dictionary says.
evidence
t noun [MASS NOUN] the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination.
n Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge.
Notice that last phrase "without evidence, they can't bring a charge." If what you say were true, no court could charge anyone with a crime because the court would have to meet and prove the facts true inorder to call those facts evidence and bring a charge. Clearly by this definition, the evidence comes BEFORE the charge. Ergo, it comes BEFORE the court proceedings. Ergo, your definition is nothing but an EXCUSE for not investigating democRAT crimes.
No wonder you keep asking the same thing over and over. You're dense.
No Howlin. It is because you NEVER answer the questions. Let's see ... how many times have I asked the questions about who is responsible for investigating CRIMINAL matters ... Klayman or Ashcroft ... without an answer from you? How many times have I asked you to explain why you don't believe Brown was murdered?
You recall wrong. That's a very stupid argument; and it's a really stupid argument to make to a woman who spends ALL her time marking evidence in depositions and in a courtroom. I know what I am talking about; you don't.