Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UMP25
As a matter of fact, they are, and many of them are rather liberal, too. In fact, it was my mother who, when she found out about Ria, said to me, "Women shouldn't be umpiring anyway." And this from a rather feminist woman, too.
|
Why did she say so? Do you agree?
Quote:
|
And BTW, regarding "discovery," I know very well what it means in terms of legal definitions. I've been involved in it on both ends of the table. It does NOT mean go to court and sue based on no facts or evidence, conduct discovery to find out information, then hopefully win/settle. It means to hopefully find out information that can add to or confirm what is already known.
|
Since you are privy to the interrogative process, you also know that you are required by law under oath, with direct and significant penalties if you are not truthful, to answer all questions without the aid of an attorney. How is this anything close to the non-interrogatory process? It is not, information gathered outside of legal discovery is nothing more than hearsay, opinion and social jibber-jabber. This information has no underlying penalty for truthfulness. Mr. Ump, you know this as your experiences with legal discovery could not possibly have missed this, no, no possibility at all.
Ria must press suit to be entitled to discovery.
Then you knew this, why the argument?
[/QUOTE]