Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Asking is not disqualifing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
If it was permitted, I would respond to the lawyer trying to disqualify me
"Have you ever looked up a past case?  Have you ever consulted another
attorney on a particular legal issue?".  In otherwords, if we are going to
"disqualify" people for learning something new by asking questions,
reading books, etc, then there will be no one qualified for anything.
Nobody knows everything and that includes the lawyer asking you the
questions in order to try to disqualify you.  You could make the point
that under such a premise, if the judge were to need to look up previous
case law that night in order to make a ruling, then maybe that judge
should be "disqualified" too (of course, "attacking" the judge in such a
manner might not be the wisest thing in the world).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, David Merrick wrote:

> There has been an attempt to disqualify an expert Structural Engineering witness because he is on record asking relative questions on-line. There needs to be a defense developed for all engineers to allow such open questioning. A researching engineer, willing to have an open on-line dialogue, should be the most respected.
>
>
>
> A standard-of-care, for engineering design, is not a popular vote by engineers, it does not include code changes made by highly respected engineers or organizations, it is not a code change by the authors of the code.
>
>
>
> The code is law and the standard of care by the law makers, by adopting the code . The standard-of-care, for engineering design, is the code wording that has been adopted by our law makers.
>
>
>
> Several interpretations of an adopted code may correctly reflect the same wording. This is where open on-line discussions are needed, not closed door meetings. We need discussions exploring if an interpretation contradicts other parts of the adopted code. The law belongs to the public. Because ignorance of the law is not an excuse, the law must be affordable for all, free. Discussions and interpretations must be affordable, free and respectable.
>
>
>
> David Merrick, SE
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********