|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 15, 2014 16:22:37 GMT -6
Very well, your Honour. My questioning will only address issues raised by either myself or the plaintiff in submitted briefs.
S:reu Asmourescu, please let me know when your client is able to answer questions.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 15, 2014 16:42:39 GMT -6
Your honor, I apologize for the delay in this matter, however, a new piece of evidence has recently been uncovered. The plaintiff recently received an email from Dr. G. Rajala advising us that his photo and other pertinent information was removed from the Kingdom of Talossa website following a request to S:reu Jeff Ragsdale. We will provide a copy of this email to the defendant and the court for your consideration in admitting it into evidence of the government set precedent to remove such information upon request.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 15, 2014 17:46:16 GMT -6
Also, I have just been informed that my client has created an account and it is awaiting approval.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 15, 2014 18:03:23 GMT -6
Your Honour, I object to the introduction of this evidence on five grounds, any of which would be sufficient to reject opposing counsel's request:
First of all, as the opposing counsel very recently stated, he has already made his case. His arguments supporting his complaint have been submitted and read, and this is my opportunity to make my defense. Clearly, counsel knew that this piece of evidence may exist and was outstanding, since this seems to relate to the research request earlier in these proceedings, when he asked me about S:reu Rajala. If he was still seeking this evidence, then he should have asked for more time, so that he could include it in his case. If he had trouble obtaining it, he should have gotten a subpoena or otherwise informed this cort. It seems to me there could be some grounds for leeway if this was a surprise, but it's obvious that opposing counsel knew he sought this information on July 7th, the date he wrote to the recipient. That same date, the seventh, was the date he made his main arguments and ceded the floor to the defense.
To put it succinctly: opposing counsel should make his case and then allow me to make mine, not continue to seek and introduce new evidence and arguments when I have called a witness and begun my defense.
Secondly, this statement is uncertain and wholly inadequate to actually reveal any circumstances behind the alleged action or its relevance here. All the relevant material is contained in a single short sentence, phrased without certain knowledge (qualified by "I believe") and devoid of context, explanation, and other materials. What website? What information? Was the information privileged or private in some way? Did S:reu Rajala explicitly cede his rights to that information, as in this case? Even worse, opposing counsel elicited this brief uncertain statement with a lengthy and very leading inquiry, essentially arguing the case and framing things in such a manner as to drag out the response he wished. Given the essay that was sent to the person in question, leading them to an answer, and the uncertain nature of the brief answer, this email cannot possibly be of the caliber necessary to be admitted as evidence.
Thirdly, it would be improper to admit as evidence an email sent in response to the opposing counsel's question. It is markedly different from, say, an email sent in advance of the trial between other parties, which would be a sensible item of evidence. In our electronic proceedings here, admission of this evidence would amount to plaintiff's counsel being permitted to call a witness, make a long case to the witness and obtain the desired answer, and then dismiss the witness - without the defense being allowed to cross-examine! If the plaintiff wishes to call this witness, believing that the witness would be helpful, then the plaintiff should do so (though the time to do so would have been when making his own case, not during my defense). Emailing a question and submitting the answer as "evidence" is not an appropriate way to obtain testimony.
Fourthly, the included information appears to be irrelevant. The person referenced in the email, Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h, was not a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa at the time in question, and certainly not an appointee of the Government or a member of it. The fact that a former citizen asked another former citizen to remove some information from his private website, and the second party agreed to do so, has no bearing at all here.
Fifthly, the defense will happily stipulate that the Ministry of Stuff and Government possess discretion in the disposition of state websites in their care. This fact is not under dispute. Indeed, at the plaintiff's request a great deal of information was already removed from the article in question, if we remember. The significant amounts of information about the plaintiff's personal habits, marital status, and so on were all excised from the entry, in a good-faith attempt to meet the plaintiff's unreasonable demands to destroy the whole entry.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 15, 2014 19:15:27 GMT -6
Your honor, the defendant is free to object. And indeed, we made our primary argument. We also clarified our position on matters of law. The defendant, in the meantime, has still not provided a rebuttal brief ostensibly to allow him to question a "witness" to the interactions which we have provided copies of to the court.
We had initially raised the issue in the evidentiary phase of this hearing regarding internet content related to Dr. G. Rajala, former Regent of the Kingdom. The defendant at that time objected to my line of questioning stating I was asking him to do my research for me. Now, having done said research, defendant objects further.
Let us keep perspective here as well. This is not a jury trial. The only one to see the evidence in question are the three of us. The final arbiter of this case is yourself, your honor. There is no attempt to mislead. Were this the crux of our case, I would say it pretty flimsy. Rather, it is merely a statement by another party to a similar (but also dissimilar) event provided to the court to give context.
We trust your honor will weigh the totality of evidence and our arguments. This evidence represents only that requests to "be forgotten" are not unknown to Talossa. The defendant rightly asserts that there is a difference between a private and publicly run website. The defendant incorrectly asserts that the governmental website has greater authority. Private websites are left to the sole control of their owners. Anything owned by the government, however, is subject to the level of control authorized by applicable law. There exists, in public property, a general expectation that the land belongs to the public.
The defendants assertions merely address what we set forth in our reply brief further raising the question as to why he is delaying in filing his rebuttal.
In either case, we provide this evidence merely as context for your honor in considering the totality of the circumstances.
|
|
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 15, 2014 19:49:08 GMT -6
The court will weigh the arguments and will make a ruling shortly. Can either counsel provide examples of precedent or applicable law in this matter? In the meantime, it is hoped by the court that the defense will proceed forthwith.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jul 16, 2014 1:17:26 GMT -6
Also, I have just been informed that my client has created an account and it is awaiting approval. @letmego has had his account approved.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 7:56:07 GMT -6
On procedural matters, we may turn to both Woolley v Martuc, the only applicable run of procedure available to us today, as well as the Rulebook of the Cort pu Inalt. I have objected on five grounds, and am supported both in general and in four particulars. 1. Timing: the plaintiff has made his case and my defense is now underway, and so it would be unjust to permit the plaintiff to introduce new evidence and arguments. In the outlining of the manner in which civil disputes such as this one are to be conducted in the High Cort, it clearly shows that the plaintiff is permitted to call witnesses during the defense only as permissable "rebuttal witnesses," brought in specifically to rebut a statement by one of the defense witnesses. While this cort's rules may vary, of course, this surely shows the general principle that the plaintiff should not be allowed to forever keep introducing evidence and arguments. How can I prepare the defense brief demanded by the plaintiff if he is, at the very same time, introducing new evidence! "The Cort will invite the Petitioner to present arguments, evidence and witnesses in conformity with the rules of evidence specified elsewhere to prove the charges he or she alleges against the Defendant. Such arguments, evidence and statements from witnesses that the Petitioner wishes to present shall be contained in a single brief filed with the Cort. In this brief, the Petitioner will supply copies of the oaths of any witnesses he or she presents." This was also succinctly stated in courtroom instructions by a Senior Justice on the bench, the Conta Danihel Laurieir, who told Ups Martuc, "You ask if the complainant may counter defense testimony with rebuttal witnesses, and the answer that the Cort will entertain a motion to allow the complainant to present rebuttal witnesses if the Cort feels it is fair and proper to do so and if the testimony of such rebuttal witnesses is narrowly tailored to rebut specific points made by the defense witnesses. The Cort will also entertain a motion from the defendant to respond to the rebuttal witnesses if the Cort judges this fair or proper." (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/19845/thread) 2. Inadequacy: the submitted evidence is suspect, vague, and wholly without context. Even if it was introduced during the plaintiff's case and it was relevant, this evidence simply confuses the issue. We have no knowledge about any context here or any background, and we're not even sure that this really occurred (since the witness himself does not appear to be). This sort of evidence is warned against in the rulebook: "Although relevant, the Cort shall exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Further, leading questions of the extraordinarily lengthy sort in this email exchange are strictly prohibited: "Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony." This witness wasn't even under oath! 3. Right to cross-examine and discover: opposing counsel led the new witness at extraordinary length to obtain this uncertain sentence, and I must have the opportunity to speak to the witness as well. The plaintiff may not call special witnesses that only he may question with essays but that I do not have the opportunity to question. This is also clearly stated in the rulebook: "The Cort, having heard the Defendant's "not guilty as charged" plea, will allow the Defendant, if he or she chooses to do so, to cross-examine the Petitioner and any witnesses. The Defendant shall cross-examine each witness in turn. The Petitioner will be instructed to answer all fair questions asked by the Defendant." The Conta, in the same case as above, instructed Ups Martuc: "Of course, if a person serves as a witness for the defense, he or she must be available for cross-examination by the complainant and for questions from the Cort. The same applies to witnesses for the complainant." (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/19847/thread) 4. Irrelevancy: the fact that a former citizen perhaps requested that another former citizen remove information from a website has no bearing on any matter of law here. Relevancy, by our rulebook, is "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." The issues here are the attempt to create a "right to be forgotten," the matter of copyright, the state's authority to retain submitted information, and so on. This evidence's admission does not touch on any disputed matter, at all. 5. Helpfulness: the defense would probably have been willing to stipulate as to the alleged facts without a problem, had they been introduced during the plaintiff's case and been a part of his arguments. I would ask your Honour to please not allow this email to be admitted. It is wholly inimical to the fair conduct of a trial to permit the plaintiff's counsel to continue to present new arguments and evidence during the defense.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 7:56:38 GMT -6
Separately, in light of plaintiff's counsel being so concerned about delays, I'd ask that your Honour instruct his client to appear in this thread, take both oaths, and be prepared to answer questions immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 8:09:43 GMT -6
I swear or affirm that the information I am about to provide is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 8:14:44 GMT -6
The plaintiff has made an affirmation which is both compliant with the rules of evidence and based upon the standard oath used in the Unified Court System of the State of New York. We are prepared to allow the defendant to proceed in his examination.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 8:35:50 GMT -6
On procedural matters, we may turn to both Woolley v Martuc, the only applicable run of procedure available to us today, as well as the Rulebook of the Cort pu Inalt. I have objected on five grounds, and am supported both in general and in four particulars. 1. Timing: the plaintiff has made his case and my defense is now underway, and so it would be unjust to permit the plaintiff to introduce new evidence and arguments. In the outlining of the manner in which civil disputes such as this one are to be conducted in the High Cort, it clearly shows that the plaintiff is permitted to call witnesses during the defense only as permissable "rebuttal witnesses," brought in specifically to rebut a statement by one of the defense witnesses. While this cort's rules may vary, of course, this surely shows the general principle that the plaintiff should not be allowed to forever keep introducing evidence and arguments. How can I prepare the defense brief demanded by the plaintiff if he is, at the very same time, introducing new evidence! "The Cort will invite the Petitioner to present arguments, evidence and witnesses in conformity with the rules of evidence specified elsewhere to prove the charges he or she alleges against the Defendant. Such arguments, evidence and statements from witnesses that the Petitioner wishes to present shall be contained in a single brief filed with the Cort. In this brief, the Petitioner will supply copies of the oaths of any witnesses he or she presents." This was also succinctly stated in courtroom instructions by a Senior Justice on the bench, the Conta Danihel Laurieir, who told Ups Martuc, "You ask if the complainant may counter defense testimony with rebuttal witnesses, and the answer that the Cort will entertain a motion to allow the complainant to present rebuttal witnesses if the Cort feels it is fair and proper to do so and if the testimony of such rebuttal witnesses is narrowly tailored to rebut specific points made by the defense witnesses. The Cort will also entertain a motion from the defendant to respond to the rebuttal witnesses if the Cort judges this fair or proper." (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/19845/thread) 2. Inadequacy: the submitted evidence is suspect, vague, and wholly without context. Even if it was introduced during the plaintiff's case and it was relevant, this evidence simply confuses the issue. We have no knowledge about any context here or any background, and we're not even sure that this really occurred (since the witness himself does not appear to be). This sort of evidence is warned against in the rulebook: "Although relevant, the Cort shall exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Further, leading questions of the extraordinarily lengthy sort in this email exchange are strictly prohibited: "Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony." This witness wasn't even under oath! 3. Right to cross-examine and discover: opposing counsel led the new witness at extraordinary length to obtain this uncertain sentence, and I must have the opportunity to speak to the witness as well. The plaintiff may not call special witnesses that only he may question with essays but that I do not have the opportunity to question. This is also clearly stated in the rulebook: "The Cort, having heard the Defendant's "not guilty as charged" plea, will allow the Defendant, if he or she chooses to do so, to cross-examine the Petitioner and any witnesses. The Defendant shall cross-examine each witness in turn. The Petitioner will be instructed to answer all fair questions asked by the Defendant." The Conta, in the same case as above, instructed Ups Martuc: "Of course, if a person serves as a witness for the defense, he or she must be available for cross-examination by the complainant and for questions from the Cort. The same applies to witnesses for the complainant." (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/19847/thread) 4. Irrelevancy: the fact that a former citizen perhaps requested that another former citizen remove information from a website has no bearing on any matter of law here. Relevancy, by our rulebook, is "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." The issues here are the attempt to create a "right to be forgotten," the matter of copyright, the state's authority to retain submitted information, and so on. This evidence's admission does not touch on any disputed matter, at all. 5. Helpfulness: the defense would probably have been willing to stipulate as to the alleged facts without a problem, had they been introduced during the plaintiff's case and been a part of his arguments. I would ask your Honour to please not allow this email to be admitted. It is wholly inimical to the fair conduct of a trial to permit the plaintiff's counsel to continue to present new arguments and evidence during the defense. 1. Timing - Your honor, we raised the very same objection to the defendant's calling of my client as a witness. The defendant seems to be saying he is free to introduce new evidence at any point during this proceeding but that the plaintiff may not. 2. We fail to see how the conversation is "out of context." No further communication occurred between myself and Dr. GR. The defendant, and the court, see the entirety of the conversation and its full context. It is vague, and were this a witness statement directly related to matter at hand, we would share the defendant's concerns. But again, the statement provided to the court speaks to a similar (while also dissimilar instance) for the court to merely consider in the scope of the totality of the case. 3. Defendant, again, seems confused by the notion of a witness. We urge him to pursue subjects designed to improve his reading comprehension. Dr RG is not a witness to the matter at hand. He is, if anything, a witness to his own circumstance which is not before the court. The Defendant asserts that he entered a plea of "not guilty as charged" which, again reinforces the notion that he is confused as to the nature of these proceedings. He is not being charged with a criminal offense. There is no "guilt" to be alleged to for him to deny. At issue is a civil matter of law regarding the authority of the Wiki Administrator and the Ministry of Stuff and the application of a recent court decision in the European Union. Defendant is named because he holds the office of Wiki Administrator. Were he to resign, his predecessor (successor) would be before the court in this matter. Our purpose is merely to provide evidence of a precedence of the removal of personal information from a Talossan website which, again, the court may choose to consider in its final decision or not. 4. At last! The Defendant has finally raised an issue which seems to evidence his clarity of the proceedings! These concerns were addressed already, your honor. Here, an individual of arguably greater importance to Talossan history than my client requested the removal of his photo and additional information. A private administrator has sole authority to grant or deny said requests. As we have asserted in our reply brief (to which the defendant again delays in offering a rebuttal) the Witt Administrator, as an agent of the government, does not enjoy the absolute discretion of a private administrator. His power is limited by statute lest the court set the example that government agents may act with impunity and should be granted absolute authority where an ambiguity in the law should exist. Again, given the totality of our arguments, we leave it to the court's discretion as to whether this information is useful. 5. The defendant stated he "did not know" the history of Dr GR's history on the Wiki and seemed to take offense at our questioning adiving we were asking him to do our research for us. We reached out to the affected party to determine what history, if any, there had been. We received a response. Considering we approached the topic during the evidentiary phase of these proceedings (note, however, that the defendant did not indicate at that time he intended to call a witness) we felt this message provided, at the very least, closure to that line of questioning.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 10:40:55 GMT -6
1. Timing - Your honor, we raised the very same objection to the defendant's calling of my client as a witness. The defendant seems to be saying he is free to introduce new evidence at any point during this proceeding but that the plaintiff may not. 1. Your Honour, it is commonly accepted (to put it mildly) that the defense may present a defense during the defense, including calling witnesses. The plaintiff lays out his case, as he has already done by his own admission, and then it is the turn of the defense. If the plaintiff was not done calling witnesses and mustering evidence, then he probably should not have submitted the whole of his main brief and turned matters over to the defense. I am not responsible for his judgment. He had his turn at bat, and now it is mine. He doesn't get to take a few more swings whenever he pleases. 2. We fail to see how the conversation is "out of context." No further communication occurred between myself and Dr. GR. The defendant, and the court, see the entirety of the conversation and its full context. It is vague, and were this a witness statement directly related to matter at hand, we would share the defendant's concerns. But again, the statement provided to the court speaks to a similar (while also dissimilar instance) for the court to merely consider in the scope of the totality of the case. 2. The context to which I referred, of course, your Honour, was the context of the information, the website, the request by the witness, and so on. Obviously we know the context for these emails. What we don't know is what information was perhaps removed, what website it was removed from, when it was removed, whether the former citizen taking it down was just being nice or felt obligated, and so on. We know almost nothing, and I have no opportunity here to learn these things. Plaintiff's counsel even himself admits that this bit of "testimony" - if an unsworn reply to opposing counsel's inquiry can be called that - is vague and not "directly related to matter at hand." If even he doesn't consider it solid and pertinent, then what conceivable use can it be, except as prejudicial? 3. Defendant, again, seems confused by the notion of a witness. We urge him to pursue subjects designed to improve his reading comprehension. Dr RG is not a witness to the matter at hand. He is, if anything, a witness to his own circumstance which is not before the court. The Defendant asserts that he entered a plea of "not guilty as charged" which, again reinforces the notion that he is confused as to the nature of these proceedings. He is not being charged with a criminal offense. There is no "guilt" to be alleged to for him to deny. At issue is a civil matter of law regarding the authority of the Wiki Administrator and the Ministry of Stuff and the application of a recent court decision in the European Union. Defendant is named because he holds the office of Wiki Administrator. Were he to resign, his predecessor (successor) would be before the court in this matter. Our purpose is merely to provide evidence of a precedence of the removal of personal information from a Talossan website which, again, the court may choose to consider in its final decision or not. 3. Your Honour, opposing counsel is indeed greatly learned and prestigious, and so perhaps I am mistaken and deserve his reprimands. However, I would suggest that opposing counsel misread what I wrote, thinking that the quote I supplied from the rulebook was some sort of quote from myself. There has been no pleading because these are civil proceedings, but the quote, while mentioning pleas, applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. Opposing counsel's advice about reading comprehension is greatly appreciated, although he may wish to consider the precedent of Glass Houses v Thrown Stones. 4. At last! The Defendant has finally raised an issue which seems to evidence his clarity of the proceedings! These concerns were addressed already, your honor. Here, an individual of arguably greater importance to Talossan history than my client requested the removal of his photo and additional information. A private administrator has sole authority to grant or deny said requests. As we have asserted in our reply brief (to which the defendant again delays in offering a rebuttal) the Witt Administrator, as an agent of the government, does not enjoy the absolute discretion of a private administrator. His power is limited by statute lest the court set the example that government agents may act with impunity and should be granted absolute authority where an ambiguity in the law should exist. Again, given the totality of our arguments, we leave it to the court's discretion as to whether this information is useful. 4. Your Honour, again, this is irrelevant and not useful. The fact that a private website administrator is capable of removing information from his private website about figures of whatever importance has no bearing here. 5. The defendant stated he "did not know" the history of Dr GR's history on the Wiki and seemed to take offense at our questioning adiving we were asking him to do our research for us. We reached out to the affected party to determine what history, if any, there had been. We received a response. Considering we approached the topic during the evidentiary phase of these proceedings (note, however, that the defendant did not indicate at that time he intended to call a witness) we felt this message provided, at the very least, closure to that line of questioning. 5. Your Honour, I would suggest that opposing counsel should probably have researched such matters and made these inquiries before the trial, or while he was presenting his case. It is unfortunate for his client that he failed to do so, but we are not at an imagined "evidentiary phase." We are at the point of the defense, when I present my arguments, evidence, and witnesses in reply to the complaint by the plaintiff. It would be difficult to do so while the plaintiff continues to make arguments, submit evidence, and call witnesses. This is evident not just by past proceedings (every one of them) and the Rulebook of the Cort pu Inalt, but also simple common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 10:44:11 GMT -6
I swear or affirm that the information I am about to provide is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge. Please raise your right hand and read aloud the following oath, providing a written copy as well: "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, Viteu Marcianüs, 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." Please raise your right hand and read aloud the following oath, providing a written copy as well with your name appropriately inserted into the blanks: "You have sworn that your testimony to this Cort will be true. Do you, Viteu Marcianüs, 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? 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."
|
|
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 11:06:05 GMT -6
While it is true that the plaintiff did in fact communicate to the court his interest in the case of Dr. Rajala and it is also true that said evidence did not arrive during his portion of the trial, it is also true that the email in question does appear to be vague as to its applicability and memory of the said event. It is immaterial to this case whether or not the website was privately run or publicly administered by a government. Both counselors raised objections to the timing in this case and it is perhaps the courts fault for not laying out a timeline more adequately (this is a young court and procedures are still new to it). Nevertheless, in a civil action, any lawyer should know the basic procedures. The plaintiff has indeed rested his primary case and any subsequent evidence or witnesses he may choose to call must be in rebuttal to the defense. Despite the fact that the plaintiff's counsel had no control over the timing of the evidence arriving in his inbox, the email is suspect. Counsel wrote at length and received a brief reply that was vague and unsure. Additionally, while this email does offer the possibility of historical significance and precedent, the initial email by counsel was prejudicial. The court finds no evidence that it was leading, as defense counsel suggests. The email contains non-sworn testimony. The email is perfectly fine for eliciting background information but does not seem to rise to the standards of evidence in a legal proceeding. Therefore, due to the email containing prejudicial information, vague recollections, and non-sworn testimony, the evidence submitted is not admitted into the record.
|
|