|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 11:07:11 GMT -6
Thank you, your Honour.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 16, 2014 11:18:47 GMT -6
Don't thank me too fast counselor. The court admonishes the defense for doing its job in replying directly to the plaintiff in regards to the oath of the plaintiff. The court tires of the back and forth nature of the dispute and once again directs counselors to address the court and not each other. It also asks counselors to allow the court time to rule on objections and motions before filing new objections and new motions. The court will provide to the witness the appropriate instructions in a separate post.
|
|
|
Case 14-03
Jul 16, 2014 11:23:30 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 11:23:30 GMT -6
I understand, your Honour, and apologize. I took as my model Woolley v Martuc, where counsel swore in their witnesses, but I see that, there too, they waited for judicial instructions. It won't happen again.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 16, 2014 11:25:57 GMT -6
The witness will use this method as laid out by the Uppermost Cort in Wooley v. Martùc:
INSTRUCTIONS TO WITNESS
You have been called to give testimony before the Magistrates Cort of the Kingdom of Talossa. Under the rules of this Cort, every witness shall be required to declare that they will testify truthfully. In addition, witnesses will be asked to solemnly promise to follow certain rules designed to protect the integrity of the testimony of the witness.
1. JUDICIAL OATH
Please raise your right hand and read aloud the following oath:
As you stand before this Cort, before the entire Kingdom of Talossa, before the whole world, before any God you may worship, and before your own conscience, do you _______________ openly and solemnly swear that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Now reply (if you do in fact want to so swear) in the following manner (inserting your name where the blank is):
Yes, I ____________, do so swear.
2. INTEGRITY PROMISE
Please raise your right hand and read aloud the following oath:
You have sworn that your testimony to this Cort will be true. Do you ______________ also promise that while you are giving your testimony to this Cort you will not communicate in any form (in conversation, via email or telephone, for example) with any person except those whom the Cort explicitly allows? (In your case, as a witness called by the defense, this means that as you give your testimony to the Cort, you will respond only to questions from the complainant (Sir Alexandreu Davinescu) and the Magistrate of the Cort and will not communicate with anyone else. Do you promise this?
Now reply (if in fact you do want to so promise) in the following manner (inserting your name where the blank is):
Yes, I____________, do so promise.
3. SEND CONFIRMATION OF OATH AND PROMISE.
Finally, in an a post in to the Cort in this thread that is visible to all the parties (the magistrate, the complainant and the defendant), please copy the text of the JUDICIAL OATH and your affirmation of swearing to it and a copy the text of the INTEGRITY PROMISE and your affirmation of the promise.
The Cort will acknowledge your affirmations in the thread, and then the defense will ask a first series of questions.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 11:35:21 GMT -6
Objection, the rules of evidence state the the oath must evoke the conscience of the individual. My client objects to the wording of this oath and it's references to deities. My client has sworn an oath and the defendant should proceed with his questioning or else drop the matter. I have advised my client not to take the oath as presented by the defendant as both violate his rights.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 11:45:25 GMT -6
Furthermore this oath violated the legal representation act which allows the witness to confer with counsel.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 11:51:00 GMT -6
Your Honour, I have no objection to a modified version of the oaths that eliminate the phrase "before any God you may worship," if it would be more comfortable for the plaintiff.
I would note, though, that the Legal Representation Act, 42RZ5, was repealed.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 11:52:39 GMT -6
My client will not take anything beyond the oath he has already taken. It is compliant with the rules of evidence and in no means diminishes thr integrity of this court.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 16, 2014 12:01:39 GMT -6
In the flurry of back and forth motions, the court did not see the plaintiff's oath. The court will accept that oath as valid as it closely mirrors the oath's taken in the plaintiff's home country. The defense may proceed with its questions.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 12:17:39 GMT -6
Your Honour, I have two questions for information, just so I understand the procedure, as well as a request.
The witness has refused to take the second oath which restricts his communication, and his attorney seems to indicate that he wishes to be able to privately advise his client during testimony. The purpose of the second oath, as I understood it, was to prohibit exactly this behavior, so that the witness is obliged to refrain from private communications of any kind with any party during his testimony. If it so please your Honour, I wonder whether or not this is still the case? It does not seem proper for the witness to confer during testimony, although of course his attorney will be here and able to object to any question.
My other question is to confirm how this will work: I will post single questions here, obtain the answer (unless there is an objection), and then post my next question. Neither I nor opposing counsel will confer or discuss with the witness in private without permission from this cort. You will observe and ensure that I do not stray into lines of questioning immaterial to the case. Is this all accurate, your Honour?
Lastly, I'd ask permission to treat the witness as hostile.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 16, 2014 12:38:12 GMT -6
The witness is directed to not interact privately with counsel on questions raised by the defense during direct examination or cross examination nor with any other party. Any questions or interactions during his testimony will be in open court (i.e. this forum). The defense is correct that he will post a question, the witness will answer and counsel may object before the next question is asked.
The motion to treat the witness as hostile is granted.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 12:43:38 GMT -6
Thank you, your Honour. S:reu Marcianüs, thank you for your testimony. I direct your attention to Evidence Item F, visible here: talossa.proboards.com/post/119002Did you upload this photograph to TalossaWiki?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 12:51:38 GMT -6
The defendant is now asking the court to allow him to ask leading questions while denying him the ability to confer with counsel in a non-living court. I'm not sure what defendant is concerned about regarding the ability to confer with counsel. Further, despite knowing that both the defendant and the magistrate both frequent the same private forum where they are in regular communication the plaintiff sought no special assurance against ex parte discussion.
So, we object to the witness being treated with hostility as, to date, he readily appeared to testify despite the stall tactics of the defendant. His only offense at the moment has been to object to the oath the defendant presented.
We further object to his inability to confer with counsel as, again, this is a non-living court and the plaintiff should be able to consult counsel where he has a question if his rights within these proceedings.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jul 16, 2014 13:09:54 GMT -6
The court may have been premature in naming the witness as hostile. The ruling is stayed until and unless the witness demonstrates hostility.
As for ex parte communications, the court finds itself once again defending itself. It should be noted that the magistrate publicly stated upon his nomination that he would refrain from political activities where possible and leave his post as leader of his party in order to remain as apolitical as possible. The private forum the plaintiff refers to is that operated by the RUMP party. It should be noticed that I have refrained from commenting in that forum since taking the judicial oath.
The plaintiff is also correct that this is a non-living court so therefore the court will clarify its ruling on conferring with counsel. The court did not prohibit conferring with counsel it only limited the communication to not include the content of questions in open court. If there is an issue with questions asked, plaintiff's counsel may object.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 13:16:30 GMT -6
The witness is the plaintiff, being examined by the defense. He is the very definition of an "adverse party" who should be treated as hostile under commonly accepted principles of law - his interests in these proceedings directly contradict my own. C.f. the United States Federal Rules of Evidence and the Rulebook of the Cort pu Inalt.
Your Honour, I would like to register my objection to the plaintiff being permitted to confer with counsel on any matter during testimony. The witness should not be able to speak to an adviser about how he will answer or what bearing it will have on the case. He should simply answer the whole truth, unless you or his counsel object to the question.
|
|