-- 1:34 PM PST -- "And we’re back, with more gripping testimony on what my friend objected to in my friend’s representation of my friend’s deposition..."**********
-- 1:36 PM -- "The chair is reading their “ruling” on the admissibility of Prof. John Miller’s testimony—though on what basis they propose to decide is a mystery, since THERE ARE NO RULES OF EVIDENCE.
They more or less have to make it up as they go along."
"Anyway, they are ruling it inadmissible, because it’s irrelevant. Or is it irrelevant because it’s inadmissible?"
RELATED: Wait a minute... I'm so confused
Let's ask an actual lawyer...
"Forget the hearsay evidence that flows like a river through this kangaroo court -- Awan is telling us about some other lawyer's "shock" at the Maclean's article."It sure isn't...
"Forget the jurisdictional issues -- what is a Toronto grievor doing here, other than forum-shopping, because the Ontario HRC couldn't hear his case, despite their lust to do so; forget his first-year-political science earnest Chomksy-isms."
"Forget all the law (the Tribunal certainly has.)"
"This isn't about law."
-- 3:00 PM -- "Glory glory — they’re ruling prior articles (i.e., prior to Steyn’s Oct. 23 2006 piece) out of bounds, but allowing subsequent articles."*
"Solomonic, or incoherent? I report, you decide."