republishing to the jury: just making sure you all saw this į“¹B) httpsį“¹B//cdn.imgchest.com/files/f97d5bfccaf7.png
response on those groundd: LOL? did you forget there's literally a character evidence exception for exactly the same shit? rule 405(a) by reputation or opinion. this is admissible
OBJECTION! this is why i fucking hate character evidence. okay. i'm officially moving my objection to lack of foundation then since you're not arguing for a specific trait - being likeable is not a fucking trait & if you try to argue that it is literally fucking everyone will laugh at you for being the first troll in recorded history to lose on a relevance objection under rule rule 401
response on those grounds: actually under rule 902(2) this is self-authenticating evidence (albeit without a seal) n therefore requires no foundation to be laid for it to be admissible. go take a long walk off a short pier buddy
RESPONSE ON THOSE GROUNDS! are you literally stupid you're blatantly not filling either prong of 902(2) like this is not signed or ceritifed. the word "official" is not in fact good enough
LikĀ£, Trycks is this likĀ£, worth your timĀ£?;[
response on those grounds: it's also good under 902(11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity because you are *constantly* asking people whether or not they like you most even when you don't verbalize it. because you're pathetic.
OBJECTION! YOU'RE LITERALLY THE ONE THAT MADE THE STUPID FUCKING FORM. *THAT* IS PATHETIC. & you also literally didn't fucking disclose this during discovery there was no *reasonable written notice to offer the record* ARE YOU EVEN FUCKING TRYING
DIRECT EXAMINATION TESTIMONY! no it is not.
LikĀ£, Trycks ;[ likĀ£, maybĀ£ wĀ£ can likĀ£ go out? LikĀ£, just ignorĀ£ this likĀ£, LOL.