Witness Statement: Fill & Download for Free

In the UK the age of consent for sexual interiors in 16. The allegation against Andrew is that he had sex with a 17 year old woman in London. Even that has not been proven so no criminal offence has been commited by Andrew. There is nothing to investigate.If the FBI want to interview Andrew then they can come to the UK or do it via Zoom. The US Embassy has a FBI liaison officer who could do itYou se the thing is nobody in the UK trusts the US authorities. They are just as likely to invite him over for a witness statement and arrest him on a trumpt up charge.The Duchess of Sussex's behaviour is being investigated under UK employment laws which oblige the Royal Household to investigate.

Hi. I work for the Evening Standard newspaper in London. Today this is our front page.Even after everything we found out, all the evidence he gave and the failed attempts by Amber Heard to defend herself including going back and forth in her stories and her statements the media here has defended her since the beginning, using Johnny Depp as their punching bag.I heard all the audios of their conversations, saw the pictures, heard all the witness statements from both sides, and read the transcripts of the trial. He is OBVIOUSLY not a wife beater.He always left the room when she got angry. He didn’t fight back even when he had reason to.The police officers that went to their apartment in one of Heard’s temperamental nights said that nothing seemed wrong or out of place when she said exactly the opposite in her witness statement.Australians are now investigating her again because of the accusations by HER assistant saying she tried to falsify documents and pretend she didn’t know she couldn’t just take her dogs to Australia.She is TRASH! And somehow this judge allowed her to get away with it. This angers me immensely, and seeing the front page of the newspaper that I work for makes me want to quit.Johnny is now going forward with his trial against Amber Heard herself in America, hopefully there, he will get at least a bit of justice.EDIT: For everyone saying they can’t find me online relating to the ES paper, that’s because I’m not a writer for the paper, I’m a Team Leader for door to door distribution. I have nothing to do with the writing of the paper or what they put in it. When they come to me they’re ready to go out into the world.EDIT #2: Warner Bros. has just asked Johnny Depp to resign from the Fantastic Beasts franchise and he has officially left the franchise…For those interested in the audios and transcripts here you go:Johnny Depp/ Amber Heard AUDIO and TRANSCRIPTSEDIT #3: NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST THE JUDGE HIMSELF!!Thank you for reading!

I’m going to take the liberty of dividing your question into its three component parts and then address each part separately.“Does Judge Judy regularly violate the rules of evidence that apply to most trial courts in the United States?”“Would a notarized witness statement of the sort we usually see on Judge Judy constitute admissible evidence in most trial courts in the US?”“Would a cell phone text message of the sort we usually see on Judge Judy constitute admissible evidence in most trial courts in the US?”The short answers to your questions are: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Yes.(1) Does Judge Judy regularly violate the rules of evidence that apply to most trial courts in the United States?Do dogs bark?Judge Judy’s evidentiary rulings bear very little resemblance to the actual Rules of Evidence that govern most trials in US courts.She routinely admits evidence that should be inadmissible at trial.She routinely rejects evidence that should be admissible at trial.Evidence law is one of my specialty areas. I’ve taught the subject many times in my capacity as a law school professor. Whenever Judge Judy comes on, I drive my family up the wall by giving them a running play-by-play commentary on all the erroneous evidentiary rulings Judge Judy makes. I keep telling them I’m going to get myself a set of mini-nerf balls and start throwing balls at the TV set whenever Judge Judy makes a blatant error.Judge Judy treats the hearsay rule, in particular, with reckless abandon.I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard her reject a proffered piece of evidence by labeling it “inadmissible hearsay” when the evidence was not hearsay at all.I’ve also lost count of the number of times I’ve heard her reject a proffered piece of evidence by labeling it “inadmissible hearsay” when the evidence was actually admissible hearsay. (If your only source of information about the hearsay rule was Judge Judy, you might get the impression that all hearsay is automatically inadmissible. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain 28 separate categories of admissible hearsay evidence.)I’ve also lost count of the number of times I’ve seen her conveniently disregard the fact that a proffered piece of evidence was inadmissible hearsay if the evidence was something she wanted to see.How concerned should we be about the fact that Judge Judy seems to regard the Rules of Evidence as being optional?Actually, not very concerned. Judge Judy is an arbitrator, not a judge.When parties opt out of the regular court system and choose instead to hire a professional arbitrator, one of the things they’re opting out of is the court system’s formal procedural rules. It’s not unusual for arbitrators to ignore the Rules of Evidence whenever they find it convenient.The fact that Judge Judy ignores the Rules of Evidence whenever she finds it convenient doesn’t bother me. Most other arbitrators do the same thing. The thing about Judge Judy that makes me want to throw nerf balls at the TV set is the way she pretends she’s following the Rules of Evidence strictly and pontificates at length about how the Rules dictate all of her evidentiary rulings, when the reality is that she pays very little attention to the rules at all.Let’s move on to the next part of your question.(2) Would a notarized witness statement of the sort we usually see on Judge Judy constitute admissible evidence in most trial courts in the US?No. Unsworn statements that are made in writing by a non-testifying witness, out of court, and presented at trial as evidence of whatever the witness says in the document are almost always inadmissible hearsay.You can’t cross-examine a piece of paper. And that’s why it can’t be admitted into evidence.In order for an unsworn written witness statement to be admissible in evidence, the statement would have to fall into an exception to the rule that makes hearsay evidence generally inadmissible. As I said previously, there are 28 categories of admissible hearsay, but witness statements of the sort we usually see on Judge Judy would not fit into any of those exceptions.That fact that the document happens to be notarized does not matter at all. A notarized statement is not the same as a sworn statement. The only thing a notary public certifies is that the person who signed the document is the person whose name appears on the signature line.(3) Would a cell phone text message of the sort we usually see on Judge Judy constitute admissible evidence in most trial courts in the US?Yes. The difference between the written witness statements we usually see presented on Judge Judy and the text messages we usually see presented on Judge Judy is this:The written witness statements were created by third parties who cannot be cross-examined.The text messages were written by the opposing party.How many times have you heard something like this on Judge Judy?Plaintiff: The money was a loan, not a gift. Defendant promised to pay me $100 each month until the loan was paid off.Defendant: The money was a gift, not a loan. I never promised to pay the money back.At this point, Plaintiff hands Judge Judy her cell phone, the camera zooms in, and we see a text message written by the defendant: “I’m having money trouble this month. Can I give you $50 now, and then I promise to make it up to you by paying $150 in June?”Out-of-court statements like this one are very, very different from unsworn eyewitness statements made by third parties. The difference is that this statement came from the defendant.When the plaintiff uses the defendant’s own statement against him, the defendant looks a little silly if he tells the judge, “Your Honor, this statement shouldn’t be admitted because it might be unreliable. For all you know, I was lying.”Of course, the defendant is always free to challenge the out-of-court statement. The defendant can try to convince the judge that he never made the statement; he can claim the plaintiff spoofed the text message. The defendant can also try to convince the judge that he was lying or mistaken when he made the statement. But the statement is admissible.