With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not compel the conclusion that these statements cannot be considered non-hearsay under the party opponent admission rule. 4. The statements need not be based on personal knowledge. Further, the Court finds that because these witness statements are admissible as party admissions, they need not be based on the witnesses personal knowledge, but may summarize the information provided to them by others. Although the Court recognizes that there is some authority to the contrary, it concludes that the better reasoned view is that the author of a party admission need not have personal knowledge of the statements contained in the party admission: Mueller and Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 8:55. See also Mister v. Northeast Illinois Commuter Railroad Co., 571 F.3d 696, 698-699 (7th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brookover v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp.,

A: holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made
B: holding that warrant of deportation is admissible hearsay under fed revid 8038b to prove defendant was deported
C: holding that it would have been proper to admit party opponent admissions although they were based on multiple levels of hearsay and test their reliability on crossexamination but upholding the district courts exclusion of the statements where the hearsay statements lacked any factual content and lacked any indicia of trustworthiness
D: holding that an internal investigative report which included multiple hearsay statements based on interviews with employees was admissible as a party admission under 801d2d concluding that 801d2d does not require anything else along the lines of internal verification of the reports contents but ruling that the report could have been properly excluded under fed revid 403 for lack of trustworthiness based on the absence of any factual content in the hearsay statements
D.