[Akira]

Trinsey v Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647 "statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightning to the court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment".

It means lawyers can't testify or offer evidence, because they have no first hand knowledge.



RULES OF EVIDENCE

RULE 602. LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

however.....

Here's the rule that hurts you....

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 43. TAKING OF TESTIMONY

(g) Copies of Corporate Records. Copies of any votes or other records upon the books of a corporation or of any papers in its files may, when attested by its clerk, be received in evidence unless it appears that the adverse party has been denied access to the originals at reasonable hours.

Make sure any clerk brings proof of employment and/or copy of oath.

You can always ask the magistrate who he/she represents... since it's the state, this would be a conflict of interest. The magistrate will do backflips to keep from answering.

For HIS Glory,
Akira