You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] mac1221 ago  (edited ago)

I really think that this exhibit item being identified as #Q was purely coincidental. You can think what you wish and if you see some meaning behind it, that is for you to decide. As far as the Oregon HB 2020 is concerned, it would depend on the bill assignment sequencing. Since it is in the title itself, that is a different matter and could be intentional. But, in the exhibit number assignment within a legal filing, not so much. The assignment of numbers will depend on where that item is being introduced within the pleadings and is usually introduced in order.

[–] ssgrader [S] ago 

the house speaker sets what bill goes in what order for voting on.

[–] mac1221 ago 

There is a process to how legislation is introduced in a particular chamber, whether on the federal or the state level. Numbers are not randomly assigned. They are numbered according to order they were received in a particular session. Lawmakers could however, plan on introducing a bill that would have a particular number because it is within the sequenced of numbers that will be available when that bill is introduced. They do not pick any numbers they want. There is order.

[–] ssgrader [S] ago 

who hands them over in that order?

[–] mac1221 ago  (edited ago)

In a filling, there are allegations or arguments being made that are asking a court for relief. This petition or defense often contains supporting documentation, such as affidavits, to lend credibility to points being made in the pleading. As each supporting exhibit is systematically introduced within the case document, it is assigned a number in the order which it is introduced. The exhibits are placed in the order of which they are found in the main document and not just randomly assigned. Therefore, having a particular exhibit being numbered as the 17th, is coincidental. Lawyers are not going to arrange a document to make sure an exhibit is assigned a specific number.