In American adjudication, answers to factual questions -- questions about states of the world -- must be based on evidence.

United States v. Brown, 606 F. Supp. 2d 306, 311-312 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ("In weighing the probative value of the evidence of the prior conviction against its prejudicial effect, courts in this Circuit consider the following factors: ?[1] the impeachment value of the prior crimes, [2] the date...A specific act of a witness sometimes may be used to impeach a witness, but if the act to be used for impeachment is similar to an act at issue in the trial, the risk of undue prejudice may increase and the trial court may therefore have more reason to exclude the impeaching act as unduly prejudicial.

Germano v. International Profit Association, Inc., 544 F.3d 798, 801-805 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding, in plaintiff's civil action against defendant company for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that the trial court erred in ruling that....A statement of an employee or agent is treated as an employer's or principal's statement and, if offered against the employer or principal, it is an admission that is exempt from the hearsay rule if the employer or principal authorized its employee or agent to speak about the matter that the employee or agent spoke about and if the statement was made during the employment or agency relationship.

Fed. R. Evid. 902(1) ("A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature...Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1) and comparable State rules provide that a document bearing the seal of a domestic governmental body and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible. Such a document is "self-authenticating."