|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 13:30:11 GMT -6
I do not object to the question asked. Not sure how this occurred but the court and the defendant will notice my post is stamped earlier than the defendants yet appears after it. In any case, we do not object at this time.
We also wish to clarify that we did not mean to accuse the court of impropriety it put it onto the defensive, rather, in the absence of a "special promise" the plaintiff relies on the integrity of the court and the defendant to not engage in ex parte discussions which would impair the impartiality of the court, we are merely requesting the same reciprocal courtesy.
Defendant is correct that I COULD direct the defendant on how to answer. I would not because such would be a violation of our ethical obligations as officers of this court. But to bar ALL communication between counsel and plaintiff during proceedings would not be fair to my client.
Regarding hostility, by the defendant's assertion all witnesses, regardless of their willingness to actively and earnestly respond in their testimony should be declared as "hostile" thus allowing counsel to ask leading questions while already under direction not to go on fishing expeditions.
|
|
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 13:32:26 GMT -6
The court has made its ruling as clearly as possible and will revisit it if needed. Once again, the witness is prohibited from conferring with counsel as to the scope of questions asked. The witness will answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 13:35:12 GMT -6
We thank your honor for his consideration and I affirm that we shall not engage in any consultation as to the scope of questions asked during the period of the defendant's examination.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 13:35:49 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? Yes, Alex.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 13:38:15 GMT -6
Your Honour, I will let the matter of hostility rest, unless it becomes necessary to impeach the witness or ask a leading question, at which point I would appreciate being permitted to submit further argument about adverse witnesses.
S:reu Marcianüs, your answer to my question?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 13:39:12 GMT -6
Ah, thank you. My next question is this: when you uploaded this image to TalossaWiki, did you select a license from the drop-down menu?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 13:42:04 GMT -6
Your Honour, I object to the plaintiff's "signature" statement, which is prejudicial and argumentative and yet which appears after every post he makes. It is entirely inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 13:58:00 GMT -6
Your Honour, I object to the plaintiff's "signature" statement, which is prejudicial and argumentative and yet which appears after every post he makes. It is entirely inappropriate. Your honor, the plaintiff was compelled to appear on a non-governmental, privately run board by this court. The latter portion contains an assertion made within our multiple briefs as filed. So, the statement is indeed factual. Since this is not a jury trial, we are not sure who the defendant is concerned the statement will prejudice as we are confident that the court would not be swayed by it in any manner. Further, the statement made is not made specific to the court thread and would appear in ANY posting on Witt by the plaintiff who chooses to assert his Organic Right to self-expression. Lastly, as noted, this is a private forum which is principally governed by a set of rules known as "Wittiquette" and I see no violation of said Wittiquette in my client's chosen signature. It really could have gone unnoticed by myself, the court and everyone else, had the defendant not chosen to call attention to it. However, it does not impair the rights of the defendant nor deny him an objective hearing on the matter before the court. The plaintiff did not wish to appear. However, upon receiving the order to do so, immediately made an account and made himself available as he felt it his duty to respond to the orders of the court in which he seeks redress. That compliance with the law does not mean my client is prohibited from having a personal opinion or that he should be denied the right to put that opinion in the signature line of his newly created account. We yield to the discretion of the 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 14:02:14 GMT -6
In considering all the arguments for and against the objection, the court has concluded that if a non-citizen of Talossa has the legal ability to sue in a Talossan Court, that very act brings him or her into the jurisdiction of the court. The court looks for precedent in this issue to US law as the plaintiff is presumably a citizen or resident of that nation. A foreign national may sue in US court and there are mechanisms in place to subpoena foreign nationals to US courts, though those nations may or may not choose to honor the requests. In Talossa, this may be the first or one of the very first times a foreign national has sued a Talossan citizen. The court is fully aware of the precedents that may be set here. In this case, a foreign national has sued and the court has tacitly accepted the suit as valid (though it has not actually ruled on the legality of the suit itself). The court also concludes that the plaintiff, despite his citizenship, can indeed be subpoenaed to appear before this court and therefore the objection is overruled. There is one caution, however, the court has no ability to force the plaintiff to appear as there exists no form of judicial treaty between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Talossa. The court orders the Ministry of Immigration and the Seneschal to issue a visitors visa to the plaintiff S:r Marcianus for the duration of the trial. The plaintiff should take note of the above referenced ruling (bold text added for emphasis). Neither the court nor either counsel has the ability nor the inclination to force someone to enter this forum. The plaintiff is free to retain his personal beliefs but the statement will have no bearing on this courts procedures or rulings. Plaintiff is advised that the statement puts the testimony into perilously hostile territory.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 14:03:36 GMT -6
S:reu Marcianüs, when you uploaded this image to TalossaWiki, did you select a license from the drop-down menu?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 14:10:11 GMT -6
S:reu Marcianüs, when you uploaded this image to TalossaWiki, did you select a license from the drop-down menu? Yes, Alex.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 14:12:13 GMT -6
I'm not quite sure we're on a first-name basis, S:reu Marcianüs. If you need to refer to me, S:reu Davinescu will do. Thank you.
So, S:reu Marcianüs, which license did you select from the menu?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 14:17:28 GMT -6
Your honor, we object. Had the defendant read our reply brief he would undoubtedly be aware that there is no dispute as to the fact that the plaintiff uploaded the image. The crux of our case is not that the plaintiff did NOT upload the image nor that he did not freely choose a license which granted right of use of said image.
Rather our case, to which the defendant seems insistent on not responding to, is 1) that the plaintiff has a right to be forgotten pursuant to a recent case in the European Union 2) that this case mirrors, in a sense, the act of divorce where two parties freely enter into a contract but where they come before a court for the reconsideration of previously entered into agreements and contracts.
If we stipulate to the level of license issued, would the defendant consider foregoing this line of questioning which will drag out these proceedings and draw attention away from the points of law we have presented?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 14:23:01 GMT -6
Your Honour, I am attempting to question a witness. My questioning is exactly pertinent to the facts of the case. It is neither improper nor fishing. I understand that opposing counsel didn't want the witness to testify and instead wanted to go through some series of stipulations, but he was over-ruled - let's not go through the same argument a second time!
|
|
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 14:24:17 GMT -6
The stipulated evidence suggests that license agreement was chosen. Move along counselor.
|
|