futuredivot 0 #201 September 2, 2009 QuoteI WILL indicate that I have been paid for an opinion. And I don't think that just because you have been compensated for opinions is these areas invalidates anything you may have to say on the subject from that point on. You seem to. Don't get cocky, though-I think your opinions are invalid for a lot of other reasons.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #202 September 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteI WILL indicate that I have been paid for an opinion. And I don't think that just because you have been compensated for opinions is these areas invalidates anything you may have to say on the subject from that point on. You seem to. Don't get cocky, though-I think your opinions are invalid for a lot of other reasons. Perhaps you should read this since it also applies to you: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3664085#3664085... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #203 September 2, 2009 QuoteI WILL indicate that I have been paid for an opinion. Does that mean that you have been paid to say something you don't believe? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #204 September 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteI WILL indicate that I have been paid for an opinion. Does that mean that you have been paid to say something you don't believe? In my case, no, but I was never pushing anyone's agenda either. Can't speak for others. THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. I'm sure it's a question you lawyers ask expert witnesses in depos and trials, right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #205 September 2, 2009 About the post applying to divot: Don't you think that it is nothing more than a built in way of justifying the avoidance of an opinion or facts that challenge you? There's a huge difference between an online discussion and arguing with a propoganda poster. In fact, the propoganda poster will not hear a contrary point of view. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #206 September 2, 2009 QuoteAbout the post applying to divot: Don't you think that it is nothing more than a built in way of justifying the avoidance of an opinion or facts that challenge you? Facts? What facts? I agree with metalslug. It's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. I'm sure it's a question you lawyers ask expert witnesses in depos and trials, right? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #207 September 3, 2009 The conflict we worry about is whether the expert has consulted with us. I've only had it happen once where there was a conflict of interest, because the expert had already spoken to the opposing counsel. There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. "So, you have been the expert in 20 cases and all of them plaintiff cases" is nit relevant to the facts. Such a thing has little probative value. However, it is likely to prejudice a lay jury against the expert. In fact, it's the only reason anyone would bring it up. It's a standard in limine motion I use to prevent questioning about which side an expert has been on. "Oh. How many cases have you testified in, sir?" "About 500." "And all in support of the prosecution?" "Yes, but..." "NO! Thank you for your answer. Have you ever testified in trial on behalf of a defendant?" "No. But..." "You've answered the question." Don't allow the guy to explain that, yes, he is a county coroner and would rarely have the opportunity to testify against a defendat at trial because he's alewady cleared the proposed defendat of murder because the petechia was caused by a burst aneurism. Courts are about beating the facts of the other person's case. I find out previous case experience in depositions so that my experts and I can review their prior case reports and testimony to find issues with prior methodology. So I ask but not so I can say, "you plaintiffs shyster scoundrel!" I don't ask in trial. I act in depo so I can actually try to find some admissible evidence. P.s. This is not a court of law and people can think what the wish. I think it's messed up, personally. Just like the NY senator slammed for working on tobacco cases. Sure, she was a genius and was given the toughest case by her partner BECAUSE of that. But no. She actually did her damned job and did it well. It's a bummer that science and academia are like high school cliques. "She's cute." "She went out with Joey once." "Fat pig." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #208 September 3, 2009 QuoteThe conflict we worry about is whether the expert has consulted with us. I've only had it happen once where there was a conflict of interest, because the expert had already spoken to the opposing counsel. There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. ... Funny, then, that every time I've been deposed as an expert, EVERY time, I've been asked whether I'd been paid. I wonder why lawyers would ask irrelevant questions. Could it be that they're actually relevant and you are playing lawyer tricks here?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #209 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe conflict we worry about is whether the expert has consulted with us. I've only had it happen once where there was a conflict of interest, because the expert had already spoken to the opposing counsel. There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. ... Funny, then, that every time I've been deposed as an expert, EVERY time, I've been asked whether I'd been paid. I wonder why lawyers would ask irrelevant questions. Could it be that they're actually relevant and you are playing lawyer tricks here? what is really funny prof is, to you, it only makes a difference if the person is on the other side of the issue than you. Otherwise, you dont give a shit. Hmmm, there is a word that describes that........ escapes me right now. Do you remember what it is?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #210 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe conflict we worry about is whether the expert has consulted with us. I've only had it happen once where there was a conflict of interest, because the expert had already spoken to the opposing counsel. There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. ... Funny, then, that every time I've been deposed as an expert, EVERY time, I've been asked whether I'd been paid. I wonder why lawyers would ask irrelevant questions. Could it be that they're actually relevant and you are playing lawyer tricks here? what is really funny prof is, to you, it only makes a difference if the person is on the other side of the issue than you. Otherwise, you dont give a shit. Hmmm, there is a word that describes that........ escapes me right now. Do you remember what it is? Do you have anything relevant to say?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #211 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote The conflict we worry about is whether the expert has consulted with us. I've only had it happen once where there was a conflict of interest, because the expert had already spoken to the opposing counsel. There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. ... Funny, then, that every time I've been deposed as an expert, EVERY time, I've been asked whether I'd been paid. I wonder why lawyers would ask irrelevant questions. Could it be that they're actually relevant and you are playing lawyer tricks here? what is really funny prof is, to you, it only makes a difference if the person is on the other side of the issue than you. Otherwise, you dont give a shit. Hmmm, there is a word that describes that........ escapes me right now. Do you remember what it is? Do you have anything relevant to say? Now you pegged the irony meterTwo in a row. Now, to the query, what is that word?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #212 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotewhat is really funny prof is, to you, it only makes a difference if the person is on the other side of the issue than you. Otherwise, you dont give a shit. Hmmm, there is a word that describes that........ escapes me right now. Do you remember what it is? Do you have anything relevant to say?Quote Now you pegged the irony meter Two in a row. Now, to the query, what is that word? "Businessasusual"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #213 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote what is really funny prof is, to you, it only makes a difference if the person is on the other side of the issue than you. Otherwise, you dont give a shit. Hmmm, there is a word that describes that........ escapes me right now. Do you remember what it is? Do you have anything relevant to say? Quote Now you pegged the irony meter Two in a row. Now, to the query, what is that word? "Businessasusual"? Hmmmmm, that would work but it is still not the one word I am looking for"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #214 September 3, 2009 Quote There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. ... Funny, then, that every time I've been deposed as an expert, EVERY time, I've been asked whether I'd been paid. I wonder why lawyers would ask irrelevant questions. Could it be that they're actually relevant and you are playing lawyer tricks here? Rwad the above. I said I ask about that. Mainly because I want the insights on the cases that they worked. As far as pay - gee, John, I pay the opposing experts for their time and to give me an opinion. When you are deposed, who pays you? I reckon it is the other side who pays you for your time and testimony and opinion. A lawyer trick would be to accuse you of a conflict of interest because you have been paid by both sides to offer an opinion. "You mean that you accepted a check from Reynolds for the same case that you were supposedly working for Alcoa!!!! The nerve of you! To get paid by a plaintiff and a defendat in the same case!" That's a lawyer trick. I'd then accuse you of having month beliefs and giving testimony to whomever pays you, being a toadie, a Reynolds shill, etc. As you see, my post explained exactly why I ask those questions. Such questions are appropriate in deposition. Not at trial in most cases. Depositions are part of discovery. Here in Cali, discovery authorizes outright fishing expeditions. It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #215 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #216 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteTHAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdfMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #217 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdf So you agree with me, then. OK. And if you'd read your own links you would no that nowhere in any of them is any indication that Hansen has been paid as a consultant to big business whose agenda he is pushing.So your links are not relevant to the converstaion at hand and help to prove MY point Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #218 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdf So you agree with me, then. OK. And if you'd read your own links you would no that nowhere in any of them is any indication that Hansen has been paid as a consultant to big business whose agenda he is pushing.So your links are not relevant to the converstaion at hand and help to prove MY point Thanks. Yup, perfesser....he flew over there on his own dime. And you actually BELIEVE that, I've got some nice bottomland in the Everglades you might be interested in.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #219 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important. And I explained why it is important. It leads to sources of information that can be used. If you are deposed and you offer the opinion that a certain alloy is appropriate for a use and inappropriate for another, then the job is to find out other opinions that you have given that are inconsistent with it. Finding out for whom you've worked also has the "conflict of interest" portion that I discussed - are you offering an opinion based upon trade secrets that you learned about while doign work for the company against whom you are testifying in an expert capacity? None of these matters are relevant at trial. They can lead to information that IS relevant, though. Much like anything, just because something is irrelevant in a case (such as what cases in which you've testified) it can lead to relevant information (transcripts of your testimony) that CAN be used to impeach your opinion in THIS case. So, yes, in depositions it can be used to actually get useful information. Such as what you previously said. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #220 September 3, 2009 OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #221 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important. And I explained why it is important. It leads to sources of information that can be used. If you are deposed and you offer the opinion that a certain alloy is appropriate for a use and inappropriate for another, then the job is to find out other opinions that you have given that are inconsistent with it. Finding out for whom you've worked also has the "conflict of interest" portion that I discussed - are you offering an opinion based upon trade secrets that you learned about while doign work for the company against whom you are testifying in an expert capacity? None of these matters are relevant at trial. They can lead to information that IS relevant, though. Much like anything, just because something is irrelevant in a case (such as what cases in which you've testified) it can lead to relevant information (transcripts of your testimony) that CAN be used to impeach your opinion in THIS case. So, yes, in depositions it can be used to actually get useful information. Such as what you previously said. Very funny. My colleague who has not been as successful as I at keeping his consulting cases out of the courts (mainly because he takes far more cases) has the experience EVERY TIME of being asked by opposing counsel, for the benefit of the jury, "How much are you being paid by.... for your opinion". Is it possible that California trial lawyers have not caught on to this tactic?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #222 September 3, 2009 >OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? Don't you know? It's all those brandy-drinking, cigar-smoking grad student fat cats who make millions and want to maintain their opulent lifestyle. They want nothing more than to destroy the poor, underpaid Exxon executives who only want to do what's right and fight the scourge of science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #223 September 3, 2009 QuoteIs it possible that California trial lawyers have not caught on to this tactic? Yes. I'm pretty sure it would be asked at all times if I did not keep it out by motion in limine. A questions like that does little more than inflame the jury. An objection is the legal equivalent of the obviously futile attempt to unring a bell. Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? The same is true, but people like to put that seed of doubt in there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #224 September 3, 2009 Quote*** Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? One of the reasons I quit a quite lucrative activity was my intense dislike of the scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hired who would say anything asked of them, in the knowledge that a lay jury couldn't tell junk science if it stood on its hind legs and bit them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #225 September 4, 2009 Quote OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? What was Lindzen's testimony as an expert witness, and what effect did his testimony and payment have on his research?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 9 of 10 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 23 #213 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote what is really funny prof is, to you, it only makes a difference if the person is on the other side of the issue than you. Otherwise, you dont give a shit. Hmmm, there is a word that describes that........ escapes me right now. Do you remember what it is? Do you have anything relevant to say? Quote Now you pegged the irony meter Two in a row. Now, to the query, what is that word? "Businessasusual"? Hmmmmm, that would work but it is still not the one word I am looking for"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #214 September 3, 2009 Quote There are experts that are viewed as "plaintiffs' hired guns" and "defense dogs." You can go through and depose them about their previous case experience, trial experience, etc. But these are not relevant. ... Funny, then, that every time I've been deposed as an expert, EVERY time, I've been asked whether I'd been paid. I wonder why lawyers would ask irrelevant questions. Could it be that they're actually relevant and you are playing lawyer tricks here? Rwad the above. I said I ask about that. Mainly because I want the insights on the cases that they worked. As far as pay - gee, John, I pay the opposing experts for their time and to give me an opinion. When you are deposed, who pays you? I reckon it is the other side who pays you for your time and testimony and opinion. A lawyer trick would be to accuse you of a conflict of interest because you have been paid by both sides to offer an opinion. "You mean that you accepted a check from Reynolds for the same case that you were supposedly working for Alcoa!!!! The nerve of you! To get paid by a plaintiff and a defendat in the same case!" That's a lawyer trick. I'd then accuse you of having month beliefs and giving testimony to whomever pays you, being a toadie, a Reynolds shill, etc. As you see, my post explained exactly why I ask those questions. Such questions are appropriate in deposition. Not at trial in most cases. Depositions are part of discovery. Here in Cali, discovery authorizes outright fishing expeditions. It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #215 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #216 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteTHAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdfMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #217 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdf So you agree with me, then. OK. And if you'd read your own links you would no that nowhere in any of them is any indication that Hansen has been paid as a consultant to big business whose agenda he is pushing.So your links are not relevant to the converstaion at hand and help to prove MY point Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #218 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdf So you agree with me, then. OK. And if you'd read your own links you would no that nowhere in any of them is any indication that Hansen has been paid as a consultant to big business whose agenda he is pushing.So your links are not relevant to the converstaion at hand and help to prove MY point Thanks. Yup, perfesser....he flew over there on his own dime. And you actually BELIEVE that, I've got some nice bottomland in the Everglades you might be interested in.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #219 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important. And I explained why it is important. It leads to sources of information that can be used. If you are deposed and you offer the opinion that a certain alloy is appropriate for a use and inappropriate for another, then the job is to find out other opinions that you have given that are inconsistent with it. Finding out for whom you've worked also has the "conflict of interest" portion that I discussed - are you offering an opinion based upon trade secrets that you learned about while doign work for the company against whom you are testifying in an expert capacity? None of these matters are relevant at trial. They can lead to information that IS relevant, though. Much like anything, just because something is irrelevant in a case (such as what cases in which you've testified) it can lead to relevant information (transcripts of your testimony) that CAN be used to impeach your opinion in THIS case. So, yes, in depositions it can be used to actually get useful information. Such as what you previously said. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #220 September 3, 2009 OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #221 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important. And I explained why it is important. It leads to sources of information that can be used. If you are deposed and you offer the opinion that a certain alloy is appropriate for a use and inappropriate for another, then the job is to find out other opinions that you have given that are inconsistent with it. Finding out for whom you've worked also has the "conflict of interest" portion that I discussed - are you offering an opinion based upon trade secrets that you learned about while doign work for the company against whom you are testifying in an expert capacity? None of these matters are relevant at trial. They can lead to information that IS relevant, though. Much like anything, just because something is irrelevant in a case (such as what cases in which you've testified) it can lead to relevant information (transcripts of your testimony) that CAN be used to impeach your opinion in THIS case. So, yes, in depositions it can be used to actually get useful information. Such as what you previously said. Very funny. My colleague who has not been as successful as I at keeping his consulting cases out of the courts (mainly because he takes far more cases) has the experience EVERY TIME of being asked by opposing counsel, for the benefit of the jury, "How much are you being paid by.... for your opinion". Is it possible that California trial lawyers have not caught on to this tactic?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #222 September 3, 2009 >OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? Don't you know? It's all those brandy-drinking, cigar-smoking grad student fat cats who make millions and want to maintain their opulent lifestyle. They want nothing more than to destroy the poor, underpaid Exxon executives who only want to do what's right and fight the scourge of science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #223 September 3, 2009 QuoteIs it possible that California trial lawyers have not caught on to this tactic? Yes. I'm pretty sure it would be asked at all times if I did not keep it out by motion in limine. A questions like that does little more than inflame the jury. An objection is the legal equivalent of the obviously futile attempt to unring a bell. Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? The same is true, but people like to put that seed of doubt in there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,032 #224 September 3, 2009 Quote*** Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? One of the reasons I quit a quite lucrative activity was my intense dislike of the scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hired who would say anything asked of them, in the knowledge that a lay jury couldn't tell junk science if it stood on its hind legs and bit them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #225 September 4, 2009 Quote OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? What was Lindzen's testimony as an expert witness, and what effect did his testimony and payment have on his research?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 9 of 10 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,032 #217 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdf So you agree with me, then. OK. And if you'd read your own links you would no that nowhere in any of them is any indication that Hansen has been paid as a consultant to big business whose agenda he is pushing.So your links are not relevant to the converstaion at hand and help to prove MY point Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #218 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote THAT is why it's important to know when there's a conflict of interest. Indeed it is. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/hansens-at-it-again/ http://www.ssc.org/pdf/James_Hansen_Testimony.pdf So you agree with me, then. OK. And if you'd read your own links you would no that nowhere in any of them is any indication that Hansen has been paid as a consultant to big business whose agenda he is pushing.So your links are not relevant to the converstaion at hand and help to prove MY point Thanks. Yup, perfesser....he flew over there on his own dime. And you actually BELIEVE that, I've got some nice bottomland in the Everglades you might be interested in.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #219 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important. And I explained why it is important. It leads to sources of information that can be used. If you are deposed and you offer the opinion that a certain alloy is appropriate for a use and inappropriate for another, then the job is to find out other opinions that you have given that are inconsistent with it. Finding out for whom you've worked also has the "conflict of interest" portion that I discussed - are you offering an opinion based upon trade secrets that you learned about while doign work for the company against whom you are testifying in an expert capacity? None of these matters are relevant at trial. They can lead to information that IS relevant, though. Much like anything, just because something is irrelevant in a case (such as what cases in which you've testified) it can lead to relevant information (transcripts of your testimony) that CAN be used to impeach your opinion in THIS case. So, yes, in depositions it can be used to actually get useful information. Such as what you previously said. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #220 September 3, 2009 OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #221 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's why you mentioning that it happened in every deposition is important. You didn't mention trials. Never went to trial - the other side always capitulated.But their lawyers ALWAYS asked the question, so it must have been important. And I explained why it is important. It leads to sources of information that can be used. If you are deposed and you offer the opinion that a certain alloy is appropriate for a use and inappropriate for another, then the job is to find out other opinions that you have given that are inconsistent with it. Finding out for whom you've worked also has the "conflict of interest" portion that I discussed - are you offering an opinion based upon trade secrets that you learned about while doign work for the company against whom you are testifying in an expert capacity? None of these matters are relevant at trial. They can lead to information that IS relevant, though. Much like anything, just because something is irrelevant in a case (such as what cases in which you've testified) it can lead to relevant information (transcripts of your testimony) that CAN be used to impeach your opinion in THIS case. So, yes, in depositions it can be used to actually get useful information. Such as what you previously said. Very funny. My colleague who has not been as successful as I at keeping his consulting cases out of the courts (mainly because he takes far more cases) has the experience EVERY TIME of being asked by opposing counsel, for the benefit of the jury, "How much are you being paid by.... for your opinion". Is it possible that California trial lawyers have not caught on to this tactic?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #222 September 3, 2009 >OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? Don't you know? It's all those brandy-drinking, cigar-smoking grad student fat cats who make millions and want to maintain their opulent lifestyle. They want nothing more than to destroy the poor, underpaid Exxon executives who only want to do what's right and fight the scourge of science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #223 September 3, 2009 QuoteIs it possible that California trial lawyers have not caught on to this tactic? Yes. I'm pretty sure it would be asked at all times if I did not keep it out by motion in limine. A questions like that does little more than inflame the jury. An objection is the legal equivalent of the obviously futile attempt to unring a bell. Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? The same is true, but people like to put that seed of doubt in there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #224 September 3, 2009 Quote*** Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? One of the reasons I quit a quite lucrative activity was my intense dislike of the scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hired who would say anything asked of them, in the knowledge that a lay jury couldn't tell junk science if it stood on its hind legs and bit them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #225 September 4, 2009 Quote OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? What was Lindzen's testimony as an expert witness, and what effect did his testimony and payment have on his research?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
