|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 16:04:26 GMT -6
Your Honour, I am addressing the third point of the three that the opposing counsel has revisited, as to the integrity of the wiki and its historical mission. If I am allowed to actually conduct this extremely reasonable and pertinent questioning, then that will be made clear.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 16:08:41 GMT -6
Your honor, the defendant's questioning has thus far proven neither pertinent nor reasonable. However, because he seems insistent that this ties to my third point, I will withdraw my objection.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 16:10:45 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? I did.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 16:35:27 GMT -6
Thank you. Is that material present on the wiki page in question at this time?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 16:37:07 GMT -6
Thank you. Is that material present on the wiki page in question at this time? In a manner of speaking, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 16:41:03 GMT -6
I see. Could you turn to Item E, the current version of the page. Where do you see the quoted material on this page?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 16:43:16 GMT -6
I see. Could you turn to Item E, the current version of the page. Where do you see the quoted material on this page? The quoted material can easily be accessed by going into the "history" section. Then all versions of the page, including my narrative, can be retrieved. Your question asked me if the aforementioned text is on the wiki page at this time, not Item E. Hence why I answered yes.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 17:26:06 GMT -6
Your honor, at this stage we move to terminate the examination.
We request that the email entitled "Fwd: I'm asking politely one more time..." Provided to the court be admitted as evidence. It, coupled with our briefs, shows that 1) the plaintiff submitted the narratives and photo 2) he did so while agreeing to the license 3) he read and understood the license at the time 4) the defendant removed some of the information at my client's request but not all, thus prompting the need for the relief requested in our original filing.
This examination has thus far only reasserted undisputed facts and attempted to introduce irrelevant evidence.
|
|
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 17:46:12 GMT -6
The court fails to see where the examination is going and is inclined to grant the motion. The court recognizes the right of the defense to question witnesses however with the email evidence, this line of questioning is not so necessary. Move it along counselor. The evidence is admitted and the court expects no objection to it as both parties provided the court with the same email. Before defense raises its objection that the court did not allow the email testimony of Dr. Rajala, the court finds this particular evidence to be relevant and not prejudicial.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 18:22:47 GMT -6
Your Honour, I am trying to build a line of inquiry by beginning with facts not under dispute, moving on to relevant principles, before returning to facts under dispute. It is difficult to actually pursue any line of inquiry, though, when I am halted after one or two questions each time. If I was permitted to treat the witness as an adverse witness (once again, the plaintiff himself) then I could more quickly come to my point, but opposing counsel objected to that. May I treat the witness as an adverse witness?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 18:27:47 GMT -6
Your honor, the defendant seems confused by the notion of a "hostile witness." Such a grant would allow the defendant to ask leading questions and is typically reserved for an uncooperative or unwilling witness. My client has given forthright and prompt answers. We have not prevented the defendant from asking a direct question. The notion that he needs to first ask all of these questions to merely reassert facts entered into record is a waste of time and energy.
The defendant has asked multiple questions, none of which attempted to draw any meaningful or relevant information. We believe this to be nothing more than a stall tactic in lieu of filing the rebuttal to our reply brief. We again renew our motion to terminate examination.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 18:34:33 GMT -6
Your Honour, I would suggest that leading questions are appropriate "when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party," as specified by Rule 611 of the United States Federal Courts Rules of Evidence, or (to put it differently) "When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions," as found in rule 2.4.5 of our own Cort pu Inalt's rulebook. The plaintiff himself is the very definition of an adverse party. Opposing counsel is mistaken and appears to simply be unaware of this principle of law, but it is found not only in Talossan law, American law, and British law, but in every other common-law system of which I am aware. Perhaps it is the word "hostile" that has misled him, or perhaps he is merely intent on stopping me from asking questions at all.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 18:51:18 GMT -6
Your honor, the defendant has been in no way hindered from asking relevant direct questions but has failed to do so. The idea that leading questions would be any more relevant is a bit of a strange assertion. Likewise, we have not prevented the defendant from asking any questions. We exercised our right to object numerous times to certain questions, as is our right, and have largely found the court to be in agreement with our objections.
The defendant has had ample opportunity to ask a single relevant and direct question and has failed to do so. The plaintiff has truthfully answered every question presented without reservation or delay. The defendant, by his own admission, seems content to trudge through established fact, despite being repeatedly admonished against doing so, with the hopes of eventually getting to a point.
Direct questions are not necessarily simple questions and neither the plaintiff nor the court should be punished because defendant does not know how to ask a direct question in a manner which would bolster his case. Defendant offers only vague allusions that some un identified proof lie ahead in his seemingly endless line of redundant questioning. When admonished for not getting to the point, defendant could have made an offer of proof, but failed to do so and instead continued along this vein of questioning.
We yield to the court's discretion concerning our motion to terminate examination and compel defendant to file his rebuttal.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 19:08:30 GMT -6
Your Honour, I am placed here in an impossible position. I wish to conduct an examination of the witness. I have specific information and ideas I wish to elicit, but certainly if I state here where I am trying to go, I won't get there. Accordingly, I wish to establish some background information on which the witness will agree, working out relevant principles of law pertinent to the briefs we have seen, and establishing an overall point regarding the plaintiff's own actual views on the subject when removed from his personal interests. This is the very essence of a line of questioning. But immediately after I begin a very simple and uncontroversial line of questioning, opposing counsel objects that the fact about which I am asking has been mentioned and admitted before. I am not unaware of that fact, but I am attempting to build a line of inquiry on the known, before moving on to the unknown.
I am not overly dwelling on these known facts, except inasmuch as I am forced to begin several times and rehash each question over many objects. I am not being repetitive, hostile, rude, or otherwise inappropriate. I am not asking leading questions, even though I am questioning the plaintiff himself, and even though a leading question that supplies a framework and asks about agreement would be more useful and speedy.
I'd ask for the very reasonable leeway of being permitted to ask a handful of questions whose answer we might technically "know" in order to arrive at my point. Thus far, I have asked if the witness wrote the material (he did) and if it was still present on the active page (it isn't).
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 19:35:04 GMT -6
I am not overly dwelling on these known facts, except inasmuch as I am forced to begin several times and rehash each question over many objects. I am not being repetitive, hostile, rude, or otherwise inappropriate. I am not asking leading questions, even though I am questioning the plaintiff himself, and even though a leading question that supplies a framework and asks about agreement would be more useful and speedy. I'd ask for the very reasonable leeway of being permitted to ask a handful of questions whose answer we might technically "know" in order to arrive at my point. Thus far, I have asked if the witness wrote the material (he did) and if it was still present on the active page (it isn't). Your honor, I added the above emphasis. We object to the defendant's assertion. He asked: "Is that material present on the wiki page in question at this time?" At no point did defendant ask if it was on the active page. Nor was my client's assertion that it was on the page "in a manner of speaking" as the prior iterations exist within the history which is accessible from the active page. We are also concerned regarding the defendant's assertion: "I have specific information and ideas I wish to elicit, but certainly if I state here where I am trying to go, I won't get there." this is is the basis of the offer of proof. It also reinforces our earlier objections that the defendant is merely trying to elicit an argument not raised in our legal argument. The purpose of the examination of the witness should be to elicit facts which can be personally testified to by the witness. The defendant states now he is also after specific "ideas" which we strongly object to as the defendant seems to be trying to go on the fishing trip he was advised to avoid at the outset of this examination. This practice we would object to on the basis of being witness badgering. Defendant is essentially trying to bombard the plaintiff with questions hoping to elicit an argument. Furthermore, we object on the basis that this line of questioning is more prejudicial than probative. Counsel is attempting to confuse the issues before the court by focusing testimony on the fact that the plaintiff willingly elected to grant a license for the use of his photo and narrative contributions. These facts remain undisputed. The defendant asserts that this line of questioning will speak to his rebuttal of my assertion that the proposed relief would not infringe upon the historical integrity of the wiki. However, that is a matter of opinion which is before the court for adjudication, not a matter which should be confused with the personal "ideas" of my client, be they what they may. By following this line of testimony, defendant can essentially establish a lengthy chain of testimony built around a tangent and attempt to sidestep the issues we raised in our reply brief. Again, this is merely a tactic to avoid filing a rebuttal and address the matters of law presented. lastly, your honor, this is not the first time that defendant has been instructed to "get to the point" only to assure the court that he will, in due time, and then to attempt to portray himself as a victim being "badgered" by my objections. The defendant has the right to question the witness but has no right to do such with a guarantee that we will not offer reasonable objections where appropriate. The court gave defendant a rather long leash in his examination and rather than lead the court to his buried treasure, merely took a few laps around the park and is bemoaning he is not permitted to have another few before bed. By defendant's own admission any further testimony permitted will be of questionable relevance to the matter before the court and stands a high chance of being of greater prejudicial than probative value. I apologize for the lengthy response, your honor. This is the last we will say on the matter as it is before the court for your judgment on our two motions.
|
|