If you are going to correct him legally, don't mak
Post# of 154841
(Total Views: 473)
Posted On: 10/16/2021 3:56:12 PM
Re: craigakess #107913
If you are going to correct him legally, don't make the same mistake he made.
Your bringing hearsay into this discussion is out of place.
Hearsay is an EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION. Also, something isn't hearsay until it is offered as evidence. Also, there are also numerous exceptions to the evidentiary objection, but this is beyond the scope of this post. However, the hearsay objection really has nothing to do with this discussion.
If his sworn testimony is shown to be knowingly materially false (not the actual legal definition, but gives you the idea), he can be charged criminally for perjury in many jurisdictions.
While he may not be able to be charged with perjury for the emails themselves, they might be evidence against him for his other statements, even if hearsay!
Also, the emails might have other legal consequences, such as evidence of breach of contract or intentional interference with business relationships. I am sure the company's lawyers are already looking into this possibility.
**I am not giving you or the company legal advice so take whatever I say here with a grain of salt. We are just shareholders brainstorming together**
Your bringing hearsay into this discussion is out of place.
Hearsay is an EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION. Also, something isn't hearsay until it is offered as evidence. Also, there are also numerous exceptions to the evidentiary objection, but this is beyond the scope of this post. However, the hearsay objection really has nothing to do with this discussion.
If his sworn testimony is shown to be knowingly materially false (not the actual legal definition, but gives you the idea), he can be charged criminally for perjury in many jurisdictions.
While he may not be able to be charged with perjury for the emails themselves, they might be evidence against him for his other statements, even if hearsay!
Also, the emails might have other legal consequences, such as evidence of breach of contract or intentional interference with business relationships. I am sure the company's lawyers are already looking into this possibility.
**I am not giving you or the company legal advice so take whatever I say here with a grain of salt. We are just shareholders brainstorming together**
(6)
(0)