Re: Is your documentation copyrighted?

[Peter <pnewman1 -at- home -dot- com>]

"Higgins, Lisa" wrote:
> 
> > And how do you know that the envelope wasn't mailed empty and
> > unsealed some time ago?
> 
> Thank you. I've been chiding myself for being such a devious person that it
> would occur to me to mail myself an unsealed envelope, wait for something
> brilliant and successful to be published, copy it, stick it in the envelope,
> then seal it up and trot off to court.
> 
> I've often considered mailing a blank sheet of paper by certified mail to
> companies I don't like, too. Then, later on, I could make up some big
> official demand letter, dated a day or two before the postmark, and I'd have
> the receipt to 'prove' I sent it and it was delivered correctly.
> 
> And to answer the obvious question, yes, I am available for consultation on
> white-collar crimes and world domination schemes.
> 
> Evil Lisa.
> 
The envelope by itself proves that something was mailed. The testimony
of the proponent would be considered evidence of content. The ultimate
issue (ownership and timing) is a question of fact to be determined by
the trier of the facts, who in theory analyzes the totality of the facts
and circumstances and makes a decision based upon preponderance of the
evidence. (judge or jury.) The postmark across the flap would be
persuasive evidence that the envelope was not tampered with. The person
opposing would have to hire an expert to show the envelope was unsealed
and resealed. All of this is theory. Many times a case is won or lost
based upon how the attorney presents the case. I have no intention of
going further into the Federal Rules of evidence or trial practice. I
did enough of that in my prior life.

-- 

Peter

Procrastinators Unite!... Tomorrow