|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 14:25:51 GMT -6
Very well, your Honour.
S:reu Marcianüs, when you selected the license agreement that is titled, "This is my own work, and I give permission for it to be used here," did you read it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 14:36:21 GMT -6
Very well, your Honour. S:reu Marcianüs, when you selected the license agreement that is titled, "This is my own work, and I give permission for it to be used here," did you read it? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 14:48:04 GMT -6
I direct your attention back to evidence. Please read over Items A and G. Do you understand the content of these items of evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 14:54:19 GMT -6
I direct your attention back to evidence. Please read over Items A and G. Do you understand the content of these items of evidence? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 15:20:30 GMT -6
Your honor, from our reply brief:
Petitioner entered into the licensing agreement when he was a citizen of the Kingdom who actively participated in Kingdom affairs. Pursuant to his Organic rights, he terminated that citizenship in a manner not dissimilar to a divorce. Like a married couple facing divorce, this warrants a reappraisal of the previously agreed upon status.
Again, we stipulate to the fact that the plaintiff entered into the agreement with full understanding of the agreement at the time. We take no issue with this assertion. The defendant's line of questioning appears irrelevant given that we do not contest 1) that the plaintiff uploaded the photo 2) that the plaintiff selected a license 3) that the plaintiff read and understood the license at that time.
We reiterate that the matter before the court is not IF these events occurred but rather that 1) the plaintiff has a right pursuant to a court case in Europe, to be forgotten 2) that the Witt administrator has no statutory authority to make unilateral decisions without any form of recourse 3) that the plaintiff's proposed revisions would leave intact the integrity of the Wiki while allowing him to properly distance himself from the Kingdom of Talossa, that right to separate himself being granted by Organic Law.
The defendant has refused to offer a rebuttal to the assertions in our reply brief. Instead, he is rehashing facts already established throughout these proceedings. At this time, we move to release the witness and compel the defendant to offer his rebuttal brief so that the court can decide on the matter before it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 15:23:36 GMT -6
Have you ever edited Wikipedia?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 15:25:02 GMT -6
Objection, relevance. These proceedings are not about my client's editorial background.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 15:25:45 GMT -6
Your Honour, it is impossible to actually conduct my line of questioning with this badgering. I am trying to ask a series of questions about the agreement to which the witness entered into, which has direct bearing on the facts and is important to my defense. Opposing counsel is attempting to thwart my ability to actually present a defense, by objecting to every question and word.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 15:29:13 GMT -6
Your honor, the defendant is not presenting a defense. He is attempting to rehash established fact which is contained in our brief and is now attempting to solicit irrelevant information about my client's background,over lack thereof, editing Wikipedia, which, though a Wiki is a wholly separate enterprise from the Talossan Wiki. As this case is not about Wikipedia, we fail to see how the question can be relevant especially given the defendant's recent objection (on the basis of relevance) to us introducing evidence related to another privately owned website (at least ours was Talossan in nature).
We are within our rights to object .
|
|
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 15:30:39 GMT -6
The court will allow the examination to continue but strongly suggests that the line of questioning does not need to rehash accepted facts in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 15:33:32 GMT -6
Just a point of clarification, does his honor's reply overrule our objection to the Wikipedia question?
|
|
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 15:35:05 GMT -6
The court also finds that the question "have you ever edited Wikipedia" to be irrelevant and strikes the question from the record. Keep the questioning to admitted evidence and briefs.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 15:48:44 GMT -6
Your Honour, TalossaWiki's structure is much the same as that of Wikipedia, and editors of both enter into implied agreements over copyright. That implied agreement is central to my defense, and addressed at length in my initial brief. I will move on, but I want to register an objection here once more, noting that I am not being permitted the necessary leeway to explore directly pertinent issues.
S:reu Marcianüs, I direct your attention instead to Item C of evidence. In particular, I direct your attention to a paragraph at the opening, reading,
"In the summer of 2006, Viteu resided in Oceanside, NY and worked in a resort community known as Cherry Grove on Fire Island in New York five days a week. He had a lot of free time to drink and live a carefree life of debauchery and decadence. The days were spent working in the kitchen, both as a dishwasher and doing food prep, at a restaurant. The nights consisted of vast amounts of beer, vodka, and rum. During one of these nights, the term micronation got thrown around by some friends with whom he had been drinking."
and a paragraph at the close, reading
"After dropping out of high school during his senior year, Viteu spent some time traveling the East Coast and lived in North Carolina and Georgia. He eventually found himself living in Oceanside, NY where he took his GED and started college at NCC in January, 2006. In 2008, he transferred to CUNY Hunter College where he majored in History and Political Science. Viteu moved to Clinton Hill, Brooklyn in February 2009. He graduated cum laude on May 29, 2012 with a Bachelors of Arts in Political Science and with honors in History. In December 2010, he moved in with his boyfriend in Inwood, NY (the northern most neighborhood on the island of Manhattan). He currently works in the not-for-profit sector and is preparing for his wedding on August 5, 2012. He will be relocating out of New York at the end of the year."
I believe this material is some of what you requested be destroyed. Who wrote this material and submitted it to TalossaWiki?
|
|
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 15:54:51 GMT -6
The objection is noted and overruled. Wikipedia editing was not, from the courts reading of the briefs, admitted into evidence. The witness will answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 15:59:36 GMT -6
Objection, your honor. Again, we have established that these narratives were written by the plaintiff. We addressed this in our original brief. The defendant's continued assertion that: "the implied agreement is central to my defense" demonstrates that the defendant is attempting to argue against a case we never presented. I will, for what I hope is the last time, again restate that the plaintiff wrote narratives and uploaded a photo fully aware of thr implications thereof. He is not arguing that he did not give consent. He is arguing, again this is restated from the two briefs submitted, that 1) he has a right to be forgotten 2) that the Witt administrator does not have the statutory authority to make unilateral decisions without giving individuals leave for recourse and 3) that the proposed relief would leave intact the integrity of the wiki and it's historical mission.
Defendant has demonstrated through his latest objection that he does not intend to address the matters of law raised and instead, yet again, is choosing to rehash established fact. We even included snippets of narratives similar to those posted by the defendant in our original filing.
|
|