I’m no attorney, but I like to keep up with legal trends when I can, and as men’s position erodes ever further in society, it’s worth documenting the process by which this has happened. It isn’t as though men’s current, subjugated position is natural — far from it. There has been an avalanche of legislation that has accompanied the decline of men in the Anglosphere. We have quite literally been chained by the law. It is my opinion that the best path to freedom is the elimination of these laws, which, unfortunately, will probably require regime change of some sort. I don’t think the current regime can or will go back on the body of oppressive law that has been growing for many decades. In fact, I have an inchoate theory concerning an idea that law is the DNA of civilizations, and its mutation and radicalization is simply part of the natural aging process that precedes civilizational death.
So I’d like our readers who are attorneys to reflect a bit on a hearsay exception idea I came across, and what implications it has. From my perspective, it is simply another example of stacking the deck against men. I don’t doubt that it will be put to use if possible, as innovations are immune to morality, whether they be legal or technological.
Here’s an excerpt:
Rule 807 is a rarely applied rule of last resort upon which litigants can try to rely if all other hearsay exceptions don’t quite cover statements that they seek to admit. As the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Taylor v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc./Wyndham, 2009 WL 5195973 (D. Nev. 2009), makes clear, however, it could be a useful rule for gender and race discrimination plaintiffs who can’t point to smoking guns and who can’t find employees willing to testify.
