Often called the site of MISINFORMATION! Steve Cyrkin's website has been known to post a lot of wrong information for it's collectors over the years. It could be based on autographs, his personal vendetta's against dealers, some sellers so he tells people who to avoid, and he protects others, often when there is a mountain of evidence showing and proving otherwise. It is amazing how this man's mind works. Now under full disclosure, he himself has admitted in a court case that he himself suffers from a serious mental illness.
He has admitted in a court of law to having and suffering from Dissociative identity disorder. (In short, to have more then ONE personality)
While this is not a shot at his mental capacity, people need to know what the VOICE of the hobby really is, and how fragile of a person he really is, and why he does the things he does.
It is also amazing that RR Auctions, Roger Epperson and others use him as a mouthpiece, and allow him to be the "reporter" on things knowing how fragile this man really is...
Overlooking a lot of items on his website, it is also amazing how many name have VANISHED, as if overnight. (since his lawsuits has started at least) Just up and gone. Names that are in these court documents, are somehow, "404 not found" on his website.
Could it be that one of his "personalities" had those names? Who had those names? Where did they go? Weird right??!!
What this is about, is about the video deposition's that were such a highlight for a long time. Steve had a lot to say, because he knows that he will be sitting for some in multiple cases and he does not want to do it, knowing that there will be a website for others to see that video deposition after it takes place.
A man that he protects Roger Epperson, has tried to get out of having his Video Deposition taken numerous times, until the court finally stepped in and said that he had to have it taken, and he had 30 days from that ruling to get it done, we are less then 10 days from the end of that ruling and Roger even though is COMPED to sit for that ruling and has lost every motion to have his video taken, filed yet another motion to try to get it "quashed" which of course will be turned down like the previous attempts.
(Roger also lost his appeal in his Todd Mueller case last week and has been ordered to pay all Appellate costs for both in the case, so that has to be a 100-200 grand loss for the man that thinks he knows everything.... OUCH! Guess he wishes he never got involved now don't he?)
Numerous "names" on THE WEBSITE weighed in saying how it was illegal to post, to have these video's up, etc...etc, including this gem "video deposition's are inadmissible as evidence in a hearing and at trial" (This person's name is another 404/error)
I will now direct EVERYBODY to the LAWS about this: (FYI- in short 100% LEGAL!!!)
Rule 32. Using Depositions in Court Proceedings
(a) Using Depositions.
(1) In General. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition may be used against a party on these conditions:
(A) the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it;
(B) it is used to the extent it would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the deponent were present and testifying; and
(C) the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8).
(2) Impeachment and Other Uses. Any party may use a deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony given by the deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(3) Deposition of Party, Agent, or Designee. An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4).
(4) Unavailable Witness. A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds:
(A) that the witness is dead;
(B) that the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing or trial or is outside the United States, unless it appears that the witness's absence was procured by the party offering the deposition;
(C) that the witness cannot attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment;
(D) that the party offering the deposition could not procure the witness's attendance by subpoena; or
(E) on motion and notice, that exceptional circumstances make it desirable—in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in open court—to permit the deposition to be used.
(5) Limitations on Use.
(A) Deposition Taken on Short Notice. A deposition must not be used against a party who, having received less than 14 days’ notice of the deposition, promptly moved for a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(B) requesting that it not be taken or be taken at a different time or place—and this motion was still pending when the deposition was taken.
(B) Unavailable Deponent; Party Could Not Obtain an Attorney. A deposition taken without leave of court under the unavailability provision of Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(iii) must not be used against a party who shows that, when served with the notice, it could not, despite diligent efforts, obtain an attorney to represent it at the deposition.
(6) Using Part of a Deposition. If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself introduce any other parts.
(7) Substituting a Party. Substituting a party under Rule 25 does not affect the right to use a deposition previously taken.
(8) Deposition Taken in an Earlier Action. A deposition lawfully taken and, if required, filed in any federal- or state-court action may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties, or their representatives or successors in interest, to the same extent as if taken in the later action. A deposition previously taken may also be used as allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(b) Objections to Admissibility. Subject to Rules 28(b) and 32(d)(3), an objection may be made at a hearing or trial to the admission of any deposition testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and testifying.
(c) Form of Presentation. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must provide a transcript of any deposition testimony the party offers, but may provide the court with the testimony in nontranscript form as well. On any party's request, deposition testimony offered in a jury trial for any purpose other than impeachment must be presented in nontranscript form, if available, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.
(d) Waiver of Objections.
(1) To the Notice. An objection to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice is waived unless promptly served in writing on the party giving the notice.
(2) To the Officer's Qualification. An objection based on disqualification of the officer before whom a deposition is to be taken is waived if not made:
(A) before the deposition begins; or
(B) promptly after the basis for disqualification becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.
(3) To the Taking of the Deposition.
(A) Objection to Competence, Relevance, or Materiality. An objection to a deponent's competence—or to the competence, relevance, or materiality of testimony—is not waived by a failure to make the objection before or during the deposition, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at that time.
(B) Objection to an Error or Irregularity. An objection to an error or irregularity at an oral examination is waived if:
(i) it relates to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time; and
(ii) it is not timely made during the deposition.
(C) Objection to a Written Question. An objection to the form of a written question under Rule 31 is waived if not served in writing on the party submitting the question within the time for serving responsive questions or, if the question is a recross-question, within 7 days after being served with it.
(4) To Completing and Returning the Deposition. An objection to how the officer transcribed the testimony—or prepared, signed, certified, sealed, endorsed, sent, or otherwise dealt with the deposition—is waived unless a motion to suppress is made promptly after the error or irregularity becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.
(As amended Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937
This rule is in accordance with common practice. In most of the states listed in the Note to Rule 26, provisions similar to this rule will be found in the statutes which in their respective statutory compilations follow those cited in the Note to Rule 26.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment
As part of the rearrangement of the discovery rules, existing subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Rule 26 are transferred to Rule 32 as new subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). The provisions of Rule 32 are retained as subdivision (d) of Rule 32 with appropriate changes in the lettering and numbering of subheadings. The new rule is given a suitable new title. A beneficial byproduct of the rearrangement is that provisions which are naturally related to one another are placed in one rule.
A change is made in new Rule 32(a), whereby it is made clear that the rules of evidence are to be applied to depositions offered at trial as though the deponent were then present and testifying at trial. This eliminates the possibility of certain technical hearsay objections which are based, not on the contents of deponent's testimony, but on his absence from court. The language of present Rule 26(d) does not appear to authorize these technical objections, but it is not entirely clear. Note present Rule 26(e), transferred to Rule 32(b); see 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 164–166 (Wright ed. 1961).
An addition in Rule 32(a)(2) provides for use of a deposition of a person designated by a corporation or other organization, which is a party, to testify on its behalf. This complements the new procedure for taking the deposition of a corporation or other organization provided in Rules 30(b)(6) and 31(a). The addition is appropriate, since the deposition is in substance and effect that of the corporation or other organization which is a party.
A change is made in the standard under which a party offering part of a deposition in evidence may be required to introduce additional parts of the deposition. The new standard is contained in a proposal made by the Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence. See Rule 1–07 and accompanying Note, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates 21–22 (March, 1969).
References to other rules are changed to conform to the rearrangement, and minor verbal changes have been made for clarification. The time for objecting to written questions served under Rule 31 is slightly extended.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1972 Amendment
Subdivision (e). The concept of “making a person one's own witness” appears to have had significance principally in two respects: impeachment and waiver of incompetency. Neither retains any vitality under the Rules of Evidence. The old prohibition against impeaching one's own witness is eliminated by Evidence Rule 607. The lack of recognition in the Rules of Evidence of state rules of incompetency in the Dead Man's area renders it unnecessary to consider aspects of waiver arising from calling the incompetent party witness. Subdivision (c) is deleted because it appears to be no longer necessary in the light of the Rules of Evidence.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1980 Amendment
Subdivision (a)(1). Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a prior inconsistent statement of a witness in a deposition to be used as substantive evidence. And Rule 801(d)(2) makes the statement of an agent or servant admissible against the principal under the circumstances described in the Rule. The language of the present subdivision is, therefore, too narrow.
Subdivision (a)(4). The requirement that a prior action must have been dismissed before depositions taken for use in it can be used in a subsequent action was doubtless an oversight, and the courts have ignored it. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §2150. The final sentence is added to reflect the fact that the Federal Rules of Evidence permit a broader use of depositions previously taken under certain circumstances. For example, Rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that if a witness is unavailable, as that term is defined by the rule, his deposition in any earlier proceeding can be used against a party to the prior proceeding who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony of the witness.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment
Subdivision (a). The last sentence of revised subdivision (a) not only includes the substance of the provisions formerly contained in the second paragraph of Rule 30(b)(2), but adds a provision to deal with the situation when a party, receiving minimal notice of a proposed deposition, is unable to obtain a court ruling on its motion for a protective order seeking to delay or change the place of the deposition. Ordinarily a party does not obtain protection merely by the filing of a motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c); any protection is dependent upon the court's ruling. Under the revision, a party receiving less than 11 days notice of a deposition can, provided its motion for a protective order is filed promptly, be spared the risks resulting from nonattendance at the deposition held before its motion is ruled upon. Although the revision of Rule 32(a) covers only the risk that the deposition could be used against the non-appearing movant, it should also follow that, when the proposed deponent is the movant, the deponent would have “just cause” for failing to appear for purposes of Rule 37(d)(1). Inclusion of this provision is not intended to signify that 11 days’ notice is the minimum advance notice for all depositions or that greater than 10 days should necessarily be deemed sufficient in all situations.
Subdivision (c). This new subdivision, inserted at the location of a subdivision previously abrogated, is included in view of the increased opportunities for video-recording and audio-recording of depositions under revised Rule 30(b). Under this rule a party may offer deposition testimony in any of the forms authorized under Rule 30(b) but, if offering it in a nonstenographic form, must provide the court with a transcript of the portions so offered. On request of any party in a jury trial, deposition testimony offered other than for impeachment purposes is to be presented in a nonstenographic form if available, unless the court directs otherwise. Note that under Rule 26(a)(3)(B) a party expecting to use nonstenographic deposition testimony as substantive evidence is required to provide other parties with a transcript in advance of trial.
Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment
The language of Rule 32 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
Former Rule 32(a) applied “[a]t the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding.” The amended rule describes the same events as “a hearing or trial.”
The final paragraph of former Rule 32(a) allowed use in a later action of a deposition “lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action.” Because of the 2000 amendment of Rule 5(d), many depositions are not filed. Amended Rule 32(a)(8) reflects this change by excluding use of an unfiled deposition only if filing was required in the former action.
And this from the American BAR Association: Video's at Trial
The introduction of videoed deposition testimony at trial is increasingly common. Once it has been determined that deposition testimony is admissible, special permission is typically unnecessary to introduce video depositions. Indeed, many courts prefer video deposition testimony over traditional stenographic transcripts because video testimony enables the fact finder to view the witness’s demeanor, and thus to better assess the deponent’s credibility.  Yet there are pitfalls as well. Improper editing of video clips, for example, can provide skewed and inaccurate versions of events by placing statements or expressions out of context and overemphasizing otherwise innocuous expressions or comments.
General Rules for Introducing Video Deposition Testimony
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 governs the use of depositions in court proceedings. Specifically, Rule 32(a)(2) provides that “[a]ny party may use a deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony given by the deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.” In addition, under the Rules the deposition of an adverse party may be used “for any purpose,” including instances where the party has testified and is available to give further testimony. 
When introducing video clips, an attorney faces the same challenges as the admission of any other evidence. For example, there must be a legitimate purpose for showing the video testimony.  Video testimony can be excluded if it would be merely cumulative of live testimony that has been introduced.  And a court may require the introduction of any other part of the video deposition that ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced. 
Using Video Deposition Testimony During Opening Statement
Video deposition testimony can be used successfully in opening statement. Let us illustrate the benefit of using video deposition testimony with an anecdote.
A major issue in a jury trial handled by the authors’ firm was whether a contract existed between the plaintiffs and the deponent. The plaintiffs, who owned a low-voltage wiring company and recording studio, sued an insurance company for bad-faith failure to pay a claim. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer’s failure to pay caused them to lose various contracts with third parties, including one with a well-known alternative rock band. Our firm represented the defendant insurance company, and we deposed the band’s lead singer in the attempt to prove that that there was no contract. The plaintiffs had stated under oath that they entered into an agreement with the deponent. In the deposition videotape, when asked whether he had entered into the alleged contract with the plaintiffs, the long-haired, rock-star deponent shook his head negatively, looked directly at one of the plaintiffs, and said emphatically that there was “no way in *$?#” he would ever have had a contract with them.
We used this dramatic video clip successfully as part of our opening argument at trial. Using the video format highlighted the importance of the testimony, and a large screen allowed the jury to scrutinize closely the deponent’s non-verbal communication. Although we had collected impeachment evidence from a number of other sources, the video clip poignantly and powerfully conveyed to the jury our desired point. In the end, the jury returned a total defense verdict.
Using video evidence in opening statements is typically allowed so long as the evidence is otherwise admissible.  Because rulings concerning the use of evidence during opening statement are ultimately committed to the trial court’s discretion, however, determinations can vary greatly depending on the individual judge. For example, in Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., the court prohibited both parties from using video clips in opening because “[r]epeatedly showing the same few deposition segments seems to exalt the relevance of those videotaped shreds of evidence over live testimony.”  By contrast, in MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, the court allowed the use of video excerpts in opening and ordered the party seeking to show the video clips to “advise plaintiff’s counsel promptly of the particular excerpts they intend to show.” 
To avoid being blindsided by unexpected video clips during opening statements, attorneys should take advantage of trial-management orders and local rules to ascertain in advance what video clips, if any, opposing counsel intends to use. You should also consider writing a letter to opposing counsel specifically asking about the intended introduction of video deposition testimony. Conversely, attorneys seeking to use video clips in opening are cautioned that referring to inadmissible evidence in the opening statement may be the basis for a mistrial or the imposition of sanctions. 
Introducing Video Deposition Testimony During Later Stages of Trial
Certain pitfalls must also be avoided when using video testimony during later stages of trial.  For example, portions of videotape testimony shown during closing argument should not be so lengthy as to constitute a second trial, emphasizing only one litigant’s side of the case.  Similarly, parties should not edit video deposition testimony in a manner that misstates the testimony or takes statements out of context, thereby confusing or misleading the jury. 
To address such problems, hearings can be conducted out of the jury’s presence to view the proposed portions of the videotaped testimony on the record to ensure that the video clips accurately reflect the evidence.  A good strategy for ensuring that opposing counsel’s video editing is proper is to request a hearing in connection with a pretrial conference.
This article ends with a word of restraint. While using clips of video depositions can provide a powerful tool for highlighting crucial comments and captivating the jury’s attention, the tool should be used sparingly to maintain its value. In the authors’ experience, juries have seemed riveted by video clips that directly impeached an opposing party or that contained dramatic non-verbal communication. However, where video clips have only marginally deviated from an opposing party’s testimony, or where the contradiction between live and video testimony was subtle, using video deposition testimony has proved less beneficial. The considerable time and money spent preparing and presenting these clips could have been better used for more traditional presentations of evidence. Using video clips can grab the jury’s attention, but if overused, the jury may become desensitized to the video clips and, even worse, may view the clips as sensationalism or histrionics rather than as credible evidence.