When the weather is nice, flying a kite is fun. It helps if there’s a light wind. However, a strong wind can blow the kite away. Find a wide-open spot. You don’t want trees, power lines, or traffic lights in the way. Your kite could get stuck on them. If your kite gets stuck, ask a grown-up for help. Don’t try to get it yourself.
Also, be sure there’s nothing to trip on. You might not see what's on the ground while watching your kite in the sky. An empty ball field, a field, or a beach might work best.
A kite flies when the wind catches it. There’s a string attached to one side and a tail on the bottom. The tail helps to balance it in the sky and makes the bottom half heavier than the top. Your job is to hold onto the string and keep the kite flying.
Stand with your back to the wind to get your kite in the air. Hold onto the spool of string. Lift the kite so the wind blows into it. If it doesn’t go right up, run into the wind. Keep checking behind you to see how the kite is doing. The more string you release, the higher the kite can go. Hang onto that spool of string! Sometimes, the kite can pull hard, so you have to use all your strength.
Your kite may come crashing to the ground the first time you try. Once you’ve had some practice, you’ll get better at keeping it in the air.
When the weather is nice, flying a kite is fun. It helps if there’s a light wind. However, a strong wind can blow the kite away. Find a wide-open spot. You don’t want trees, power lines, or traffic lights in the way. Your kite could get stuck on them. If your kite gets stuck, ask a grown-up for help. Don’t try to get it yourself.
Also, be sure there’s nothing to trip on. You might not see what's on the ground while watching your kite in the sky. An empty ball field, a field, or a beach might work best.
A kite flies when the wind catches it. There’s a string attached to one side and a tail on the bottom. The tail helps to balance it in the sky and makes the bottom half heavier than the top. Your job is to hold onto the string and keep the kite flying.
Stand with your back to the wind to get your kite in the air. Hold onto the spool of string. Lift the kite so the wind blows into it. If it doesn’t go right up, run into the wind. Keep checking behind you to see how the kite is doing. The more string you release, the higher the kite can go. Hang onto that spool of string! Sometimes, the kite can pull hard, so you have to use all your strength.
Your kite may come crashing to the ground the first time you try. Once you’ve had some practice, you’ll get better at keeping it in the air.
The issue is determining who has the prior right of possession over the goat.
The general rule regarding wild animals is that the person who kills or mortally wounds the animal with intent establishes the right of possession.
In this case, Walt, as a hunter, could argue that he has the prior right of possession because he intentionally chased and shot the animal. He might claim that the blood on the ground indicated the animal was mortally wounded, even though he failed to recover it. Additionally, Walt could argue that he used a rifle, which is the standard tool in the hunting industry. Even if he did not immediately capture or kill the goat, the rifle mark could identify him as the one who killed it. In the Whale case, the court held that when a custom is universally accepted within an industry, it can serve as a mark of ownership.
Louie, as the landowner, could argue that he has constructive possession of the animal because it was found on his property, Blackacre. Landowners are generally regarded as having prior possession of any animals found on their land, even if they have not physically taken possession.
Goofy, as the original owner of the goat, could argue that he has the prior right of possession. The goat’s ear bore the mark “GG,” and Goofy operated a well-known goat farm in Greenacre. This evidence undermines Walt’s claim in two significant ways:
1. The goat was not a wild animal but a domesticated one, making Walt’s argument regarding wild animals inapplicable.
2. Walt shot the goat from a distance of approximately 100 meters. At this range, as an experienced hunter, he should have been able to recognize the ear mark and distinguish the goat’s behavior as domesticated rather than wild.
Walt’s argument is likely to fail.
Between the landowner and the original owner, the general rule is that the landowner, as a finder, has a prior right of possession against everyone except the original owner. Thus, Goofy’s ownership claim would prevail over Louie’s argument. However, since the goat was found on Louie’s land, Goofy may need to compensate Louie for trespassing to retrieve the goat.
Liefste
Er was eens een koning
en die las aan alle mensen
een brief voor over 't nieuwe jaar
met wat hij hen wou wensen.
Hij sprak over gezondheid,
geen ruzie of verdriet.
Heel het land blij en gelukkig,
gemor en oorlog liever niet.
Vandaag is weer een jaar gestart
en daarom dacht ik plots:
ik pak het als die koning aan
en lees mijn brief vol trots.
Maak van dit jaar een groot succes,
iets leuks voor elke dag.
Dan sta ik hier ook volgend jaar
weer met een grote lach.
Van je koninklijke kapoen
...............................................
1 januari 2025
Jaime's small host reaches Castle Darry, and he finds himself contemplating the genius of his uncle Kevan for his choice of a bride for Lancel, Amerei Frey, whose mother is a Darry.
He has dispatched Red Ronnet to accompany Wylis Manderly to Maidenpool, but nevertheless he has too many men to be fed at his cousin's new castle. Jaime takes note of all the armed Freys and "sparrows" in the castle, far outnumbering Lannister men.
Darry's maester greets Ser Jaime, surprised by this unexpected visit, and tells him that Kevan departed right after the wedding, and that Lancel is praying in the sept. The maester provides him with Lancel's own room, since Jaime's cousin has taken to sleeping in the sept.
As Jaime bathes before the guest feast, he notices that Josmyn Peckledon, his new squire, wishes to bed Pia. Jaime tells him to use Lancel's room for his first bedding, saying, "You'll feel a lord yourself when you're done, if Pia knows her business."
But Jaime warns him to treat her kindly, perhaps due to his own guilt for refusing the girl when Qyburn sent her during his recuperation at Harrenhal.
At the feast, Jaime learns that his cousin has been fasting since the old High Septon died. Lancel also does not join them for dinner. Lady Amerei begs Jaime to stay and help them defeat Lord Beric Dondarrion, the Hound, and the other outlaws.
He learns that the outlaws seem to be following a woman now, cloaked and hooded, and no one has seen Beric Dondarrion for a while. Jaime's companion Strongboar claims to be moved by Ami's words, and promises to return after they take Riverrun to sort out the Hound. Jaime leaves the table and goes to the sept. Three armed sparrows bar his path, but Lancel lets him in.
Lancel admits that his father left after they quarrelled, and that he does not intend to consummate his marriage. And then he admits his greatest sins: serving the wine that resulted in King Robert's death, and that he had been sleeping with Cersei.
Lancel states that he plans to forsake his title as Lord of Darry, and head to King's Landing to swear vows as a Warrior's Son. When Jaime learns that Cersei has rearmed the faith, he is almost as upset by this as he is to discover that Tyrion was not lying about Cersei's infidelity.
Later, in the yard, Jaime admits to Ser Ilyn that he slept with Cersei when she was at Castle Darry with Robert. Cersei wanted him to get Arya Stark and he would have killed her had he found her first.
Mōwiōm: richtig Ślōnzŏk - ôn chce jyno ordnōng. Drobnŏczkōm daje pozōr, robota mŏ porzōmnŏ... A jŏ wōm gŏdōm: Szlus! Bajtlyne fandzolynie! Nojbarzij ślōnskŏ rzecz: ze swoimi sie wadzynie!
Było fest wczas rano, ulice czyste i prōzne. Szołch na banhof. Jakech porōwnoł zygor na wieży ze swojim zygarkym, toch spōmiarkowoł, że już było moc niyskorzij, niż żech myśloł. Musioł żech sie uwijać.
Skirz szoku tego ôdkrycio niy bōł żech zicher drōgi, niy znoł żech jeszcze tak dobrze tego miasta. Szczyńściym szandar bōł blisko, pognołch dō niego i ze ciynżkim dychym spytołch go ô drōga.
Ôn sie uśmiychnōł i prawiōł: – Ôdy mie chcesz znać drōga? – Ja – pedziołch – bo sōm niy poradza znojś. – Dej pokōj! Dej pokōj! – ciepnōł i ôbrōciōł sie ôdy mie ze nogłym szarpniyńciym, jak ludzie, co chcōm być sami ze swojim śmiychym.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A defendant asserting qualified immunity has the burden of proving the defense.
Absolute immunity is complete immunity from liability generally afforded to prosecutors, judges, and the president of the United States. Absolute immunity defeats a suit for damages at the outset so long as the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal court from granting any relief to a Plaintiff if they name the State as a Defendant in her § 1983 suit. The way to overcome this immunity is for Plaintiff to name the State Officer as a Defendant in his or her official capacity. Then, under Ex Parte Young, the federal court may grant Plaintiff the injunction against the future enforcement of the state law by the State Officer on the grounds that the law violates the federal Constitution. Under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, when a state official acts in an official capacity and violates federal law, that official loses his or her Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A defendant asserting qualified immunity has the burden of proving the defense.
Absolute immunity is complete immunity from liability generally afforded to prosecutors, judges, and the president of the United States. Absolute immunity defeats a suit for damages at the outset so long as the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal court from granting any relief to a Plaintiff if they name the State as a Defendant in her § 1983 suit. The way to overcome this immunity is for Plaintiff to name the State Officer as a Defendant in his or her official capacity. Then, under Ex Parte Young, the federal court may grant Plaintiff the injunction against the future enforcement of the state law by the State Officer on the grounds that the law violates the federal Constitution. Under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, when a state official acts in an official capacity and violates federal law, that official loses his or her Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A defendant asserting qualified immunity has the burden of proving the defense.
Absolute immunity is complete immunity from liability generally afforded to prosecutors, judges, and the president of the United States. Absolute immunity defeats a suit for damages at the outset so long as the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal court from granting any relief to a Plaintiff if they name the State as a Defendant in her § 1983 suit. The way to overcome this immunity is for Plaintiff to name the State Officer as a Defendant in his or her official capacity. Then, under Ex Parte Young, the federal court may grant Plaintiff the injunction against the future enforcement of the state law by the State Officer on the grounds that the law violates the federal Constitution. Under the Ex Parte Young doctrine, when a state official acts in an official capacity and violates federal law, that official loses his or her Eleventh Amendment immunity.
A federal court, in the exercise of its diversity jurisdiction, is required to apply the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting, including that state’s conflict of law rules. However, the federal courts apply federal procedural law.
If there is no federal statute or rule on point, it must be determined whether that law on that issue is substantive or procedural to determine what law should be applied.
If it is a matter of substance, the federal judge must follow state law in a diversity case. If it is a matter of procedure, the federal judge may ignore state law.
Some situations, such as statutes of limitations, choice of law rules, and elements of a claim or defense, are well-established as substantive issues, and federal courts must apply state law.
However, if the law’s classification can not be clearly established, the court must use one of the tests to determine if state or federal law should apply. The outcome-determinative test holds that an issue is substantive if it substantially affects the outcome of the litigation.
A federal court has federal question jurisdiction over a suit when the suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action, on its face, shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.
Under Mottley, a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action, on its face, shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States.
Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised; (2) actually disputed; (3) substantial; and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, federal courts shall have original, diversity jurisdiction over lawsuits where the parties on both sides of the suit are completely diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Complete diversity of citizenship exists if no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.
Concerning individuals, citizenship is determined by their domicile at the time of filing the suit. For an individual to establish their domicile, they must have physical presence with intent to remain in the state. An individual may only have one domicile at a time. The mere residence is not enough. A person retains their original domicile until they establish another. If one represents the interests of another, i.e., infants, incompetents, or decedents, then they retain the citizenship of the one represented.
A corporation is domiciled in its (1) place of incorporation and (2) its principal place of business. The principal place of business refers to where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities, a nerve center. This is typically the corporation's headquarters.
Unincorporated associations are domiciled wherever the members of the organization are domiciled.
The lack of diversity between any plaintiff and defendant destroys it for all parties.
Jurisdiction is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed. Jurisdiction is unaffected by subsequent changes in the parties' citizenship so long as the court has jurisdiction when the suit is filed.
If a plaintiff later amends a complaint and such a complaint destroys diversity, then the court loses its jurisdiction over that claim.
The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of any costs and interest. The plaintiff’s good faith allegation in his complaint controls the amount in controversy.
A single plaintiff with two or more unrelated claims against a single defendant may aggregate claims to satisfy the statutory amount.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, federal courts shall have original, diversity jurisdiction over lawsuits where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and suits between citizens of different states.
Concerning individuals, citizenship is determined by their domicile at the time of filing the suit. For an individual to establish their domicile, they must have physical presence with intent to remain in the state. An individual may only have one domicile at a time. The mere residence is not enough. A person retains their original domicile until they establish another. If one represents the interests of another, i.e., infants, incompetents, or decedents, then they retain the citizenship of the one represented.
A corporation is domiciled in its (1) place of incorporation and (2) its principal place of business. The principal place of business refers to where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities, a nerve center. This is typically the corporation's headquarters.
Unincorporated associations are domiciled wherever the members of the organization are domiciled.
The lack of diversity between any plaintiff and defendant destroys it for all parties.
Jurisdiction is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed. Jurisdiction is unaffected by subsequent changes in the parties' citizenship so long as the court has jurisdiction when the suit is filed.
If a plaintiff later amends a complaint and such a complaint destroys diversity, then the court loses its jurisdiction over that claim.
The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of any costs and interest. The plaintiff’s good faith allegation in his complaint controls the amount in controversy.
A single plaintiff with two or more unrelated claims against a single defendant may aggregate claims to satisfy the statutory amount.
Supplemental jurisdiction is invoked where a supplemental claim arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the original claim, whether the case got into court by diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction. Essentially, this means that the two claims must arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
For cases that are in federal court based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction may not be used to support claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24; claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19; and claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24.
Federal courts can decline jurisdiction over a claim if it (1) raises a novel or complex issue of State law; (2) substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the district court has already dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) in exceptional circumstances where there is reason to decline jurisdiction.
Paragraph 1:
Shining beacon
'Julia' from 'Romeo and Juliet'
'He would flog her to death with a rubber truncheon' or 'tie her naked to a stake and shoot her full of arrows like Saint Sebastian.' Violent Imagery
a maze of barbed wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests' Symbolism
'Mixed up with fear and hatred.’
'slightly disgusting minor operation'
''systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations.' Historical allusion
'desire was thoughtcrime.'
'something which a man wants and has not?' Aristotle
'locked loneliness that one had to live.'
'privacy, love, and friendship.'
Subverts Genres and Tropes, even using intertextuality and historical allusion.
Paragraph 2:
If language is about what it means to be human
'You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St Martin's, when will you pay me? say the bells of old Bailey?' 'Astonishment' uncharacteristic
'‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?'
'Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions... changed into something contradictory of what they used to be.' Paradox
'He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people.' Irony
'make thoughtcrime literally impossible'
Orwell uses metalinguistics and the recurring motif of 'Oranges and lemons'
Paragraph 3:'
Illuminating the dark corners of our world
'who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past' Chiasmus and trochaic pentameter creates a rhythmic cadence.
'ignorance is strength' Subversion of 'knowledge is power'
'All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.' Euphamism
'VAPORIZED' 'UNPERSON' Euphamisms
'the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.'
'ALONE in the possession of a memory?'
World building through slogans and phrases
In order for a defendant to remove a suit filed in state court to federal court, the defendant must be able to show that the Plaintiff could have filed the suit in federal court as an original matter.
If the case was eligible, the Defendant must receive the written consent of all oined and properly served defendants the suit. Then, they must file a written Notice of Removal within 30 days of the date on which the Defendant was served with the plaintiff’s state court complaint or other pleading or document that made the case removable. If multiple Defendants, then each defendant has 30 days to file the notice of removal from the date of service.
The written notice must prove a short and plain statement as to why the case should be removed. The Defendants must sign the Notice pursuant to Rule 11 and attach a copy of all state court process pleadings and orders to the notice. The Notice must be filed in the Federal District Court in the district where the state court where the plaintiff filed the initial pleading. The Defendant must serve all adverse parties with a copy of the notice and a memo explaining the reasons why the suit was removed.
The Defendant must serve a written notice to the state court with a memo and other attachments.
If the case is not removable at its outset but later becomes removable, the defendant has 30 days from receipt of the document that makes the case removable.
A plaintiff has 30 days from the date of filing of the Notice of Removal to file his Motion to Remand.
FRE 412: Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim’s Sexual Behavior or Predisposition
(a) Prohibited Uses. The following evidence is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:
(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or
(2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Criminal Cases. The court may admit the following evidence in a criminal case:
(A) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior, if offered to prove that someone other than the defendant was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;
(B) evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct, if offered by the defendant to prove consent or if offered by the prosecutor; and
(C) evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.
(2) Civil Cases. In a civil case, the court may admit evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. The court may admit evidence of a victim’s reputation only if the victim has placed it in controversy.
(c) Procedure to Determine Admissibility.
(1) Motion. If a party intends to offer evidence under Rule 412(b), the party must:
(A) file a motion that specifically describes the evidence and states the purpose for which it is to be offered;
(B) do so at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time;
(C) serve the motion on all parties; and
(D) notify the victim or, when appropriate, the victim’s guardian or representative.
(2) Hearing. Before admitting evidence under this rule, the court must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, related materials, and the record of the hearing must be and remain sealed.
(d) Definition of “Victim.” In this rule, “victim” includes an alleged victim.
FRE 413: Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.
(b) Disclosure to the Defendant. If the prosecutor intends to offer this evidence, the prosecutor must disclose it to the defendant, including witnesses’ statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The prosecutor must do so at least 15 days before trial or at a later time that the court allows for good cause.
(c) Effect on Other Rules. This rule does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.
(d) Definition of “Sexual Assault.” In this rule and Rule 415, “sexual assault” means a crime under federal law or under state law (as “state” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 513) involving:
(1) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A;
(2) contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant’s body — or an object — and another person’s genitals or anus;
(3) contact, without consent, between the defendant’s genitals or anus and any part of another person’s body;
(4) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from inflicting death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person; or
(5) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in subparagraphs (1)–(4).
FRE 414: Similar Crimes in Child Molestation Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.
(b) Disclosure to the Defendant. If the prosecutor intends to offer this evidence, the prosecutor must disclose it to the defendant, including witnesses’ statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The prosecutor must do so at least 15 days before trial or at a later time that the court allows for good cause.
(c) Effect on Other Rules. This rule does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.
(d) Definition of “Child” and “Child Molestation.” In this rule and Rule 415:
(1) “child” means a person below the age of 14; and
(2) “child molestation” means a crime under federal law or under state law (as “state” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 513) involving:
(A) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A and committed with a child;
(B) any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110;
(C) contact between any part of the defendant’s body — or an object — and a child’s genitals or anus;
(D) contact between the defendant’s genitals or anus and any part of a child’s body;
(E) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from inflicting death, bodily injury, or physical pain on a child; or
(F) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in subparagraphs (A)–(E).
FRE 415: Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation
(a) Permitted Uses. In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation. The evidence may be considered as provided in Rules 413and 414.
(b) Disclosure to the Opponent. If a party intends to offer this evidence, the party must disclose it to the party against whom it will be offered, including witnesses’ statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The party must do so at least 15 days before trial or at a later time that the court allows for good cause.
(c) Effect on Other Rules. This rule does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.
FRE 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
negligence;
culpable conduct;
a defect in a product or its design; or
a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
FRE 408: Compromise Offers and Negotiations
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim — except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
FRE 409: Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
FRE 410: Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:
(1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn;
(2) a nolo contendere plea;
(3) a statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 or a comparable state procedure; or
(4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4):
(1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or
(2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.
FRE 411: Liability Insurance
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.
ISR PE UHR 2PE32 USR PE URR PE LP 7WNP287 1MV42 SI 2L95 8 3L95 7 #MV100 SI #T17 SI #WI16 SI 5BC404 SI 5SC410 SI IHR @ MAIN HMA 20S 508 THIN LSW RED SHIRT BLK PANTS NEG WPNS NEG HBD OR CDN DOT ON FT SB VIN 1HGC3F85BA012067 LP 6TOV242 WIFE VERB HUSB PHY TRANSIENT VERB CUST REFUSING TO LEAVE VEH SWERVING UNABLE TO MAINTAIN LANE DOT SB SI #TS20 ADT R: HARO 9512192679 8772387730 COV SLIDING GLASS DOOR PERR/FIR AS 2 245J RP STABBED SUSP BRO JESUS GONZALES HMA 510 220 LSW BLK SHIRT BLU JEANS HOLDING KITCHEN KNIFE CURR IN GARAGE RP REQ MEDICAL FOR WOUND TO ABDOMEN RP GONZALES 9512344462 ADDL RP JUAN HERNANDEZ 9514426265 ADVD SON STABBED HIS SISTER RP SECURED WPN SON CURR IFO RESD WAITING FOR DEPS WILL BE COOP #PC33 SI #PC33 98 NE AOD #O14 SI CHI 2O12 98 RA AWS LP 6GWT414 #D21 2D10 SI 2D10 98 NE 2D10 RE STN REF REPTS 5BC410 TR 1015 W12 1019 FRM RUHS 5RC442 RE RUHS W0 FRM RPDC VIN WBA5A5C51GG352378 URR PE USR TE ISR F IHR @ GRAND IHR #F12 #MV102 SI #S15 SI #D21 SI #T18 SI #JV24343071 #PC33 5RC517 SI 5RC517 6 RUHS 5IC380 97 0 5IC388 TC 5SC410 CC , STILL ENRT #JV77 SI 2JV10 SI 2WI86 SI 1F72 SI #I31 SI 3L95 3L95 6 STN REF REPTS E100 SI #JV71 DUP, #JV72 PER E100 #TE33 DUP, #TE31 PER SW121 #PE19 DUP, #PE18 PER PE112 IHR @ 1530 RP RELL ADVD 1022 FALSE ALARM #T19 SI 2T32 SI 2T32 98 NE #S15 SI #C13 LP 8UTV494 LP 6GHS414 LP NV.4T445L LP 9GHT444 LP 7TEM620 LP DPYBM77 LP 2359MDP LP IHRTMSC VIN YTA2H5T61GT362365 1SW44 SI SC 5SC417 N7926 04432 NONE 5SC417 RM, CELL 9992345562 EOW 1815HRS 5SC417 TR 1015 W12 RPDC FRM CBDC
