Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33

Status
Not open for further replies.
ko531 said:
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION to STRIKE​

AlexanderLove is not employeed by the DLA as a Prosecutor and therefore does not have the power to represent the commonwealth. As he is not apart of this case in the slightest. I motion to strike everything that AlexanderLove has just said.

DATED: This 13th day of april 2024
Click to expand...
The Motion to Strike is denied as the DLA has provided proof of employment. I just ask that the associate prosecutor in the future lead with the information you are here on behalf of the state to save the court the time and the filing of these motions.
 
I wasn't sure how to format this response as I can't provide a quote for some reason. So I am numbering them within the order they were presented to the court. The objections that are listed below that are indicated as sustained will remain. The ones not mentioned will be considered by the court to be overruled.

Context 1 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to argumentative and testifying is sustained. - Should the individual object to vagueness then you can provide the clarification within your response to an objection. The plaintiff will need to stick to asking questions rather than providing testimony within the question.

Context 2 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to Counsel testifying and Relevance is sustained. While providing context is fine in a general sense, this appears to be more about arguing with the witness rather than providing context. it. After reading the counsel's explanation multiple times, I do not understand where the question is going. Please reword the question to properly be within the scope and purpose for which the witness is here.

Context 3 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to Counsel testifying and Argumentative is sustained. Counsel is again instructed to ask questions and not make off-the-shelf remarks when conducting the witness examination.

Context 4 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to Calls for Conclusion, Argumentative, and Relevance is sustained. Counsel is again instructed to ask questions and not make off-the-shelf remarks when conducting the witness examination.

The Motion to conclude the cross-examination is denied. While the number of objections filed is vast, the plaintiff is awarded the right to rephrase his questions to the witness to comply with the above-substantiated objections.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion / opinion.

Objection your honor. Question calls for speculation.

I motion to strike any testimony given as a result of this question.
Click to expand...
The objection is overruled. While the court understands that you may not have originally been assigned to the case, the time has come and gone. We moved on from the set of questions being objected to.
 
The plaintiff shall provide their final round of questions for the witness, including their reworded questions, as indicated in the above responses to the objections, within the next 24 hours.
 
Questions for @End

1. As you did write one of the bills in question, Why should one take your testimony at face value when you could be trying to protect your bill?

2. As already shown the case being used as precedent negatively impacted you, Why should one believe you are not giving testimony for the purpose of refuting that precedent as a favorable ruling could lead to that case being appealed?

3. You went from one question not recalling the case in question to the next giving a summary on the same case. Why shouldnt one take your inability to answer questions during cross examination (that it seems you have the knowledge to answer) as a tainted witness testimony?
 
ko531 said:
Questions for @End

1. As you did write one of the bills in question, Why should one take your testimony at face value when you could be trying to protect your bill?

2. As already shown the case being used as precedent negatively impacted you, Why should one believe you are not giving testimony for the purpose of refuting that precedent as a favorable ruling could lead to that case being appealed?

3. You went from one question not recalling the case in question to the next giving a summary on the same case. Why shouldnt one take your inability to answer questions during cross examination (that it seems you have the knowledge to answer) as a tainted witness testimony?
Click to expand...
Objection argumentative
 
Response to Objection
​

Nothing there in any question is making an arguement. Those are valid questions about the validity of End's Testimony while giving a sentence of context so the questions arent considered vague. Every statement before each question is stating a fact that has already been addressed in this lawsuit at one point or another.
 
Nacho said:
Could you specify which question you are objecting to? Once defined, the plaintiff has 24 hours to provide a response.
Click to expand...
All of them, your honor
 
ko531 said:
Response to Objection
​

Nothing there in any question is making an arguement. Those are valid questions about the validity of End's Testimony while giving a sentence of context so the questions arent considered vague. Every statement before each question is stating a fact that has already been addressed in this lawsuit at one point or another.
Click to expand...
Rebuttal, your honor?
 
1. As you did write one of the bills in question, Why should one take your testimony at face value when you could be trying to protect your bill?

I have no emotional attachment to any bills that I've written. I've written what I'd estimate to be around 200 laws in the course of my time in the legislature, I was a primary author of the constitution, and I have served as both President and Chief Justice. I'm not here today just because I wrote one of the laws that you are contesting and want to provide an opinion, I am here at the request of the commonwealth to provide expert advice on the potential negative impacts of your challenge and the legality of the legislation that I happened to draft.

I am at no loss on whether this case goes in the commonwealth's favour or yours. It changes nothing for me, I'm not concerned about 1/200 bills being struck down by a court - and it won't be the first time nor the last.

2. As already shown the case being used as precedent negatively impacted you, Why should one believe you are not giving testimony for the purpose of refuting that precedent as a favorable ruling could lead to that case being appealed?

As I've described previously, this is a completely different scenario in a completely different context. The merits of this case should be judged independently of any other case and compared for sentencing/costs where common law applies. In this case, there is little to no common features in this case and the case you continue to mention. You have my answer on the matter, I ask that you stop asking this question in a slightly different way each time as my answer will not change regardless of how you ask it.

3. You went from one question not recalling the case in question to the next giving a summary on the same case. Why shouldnt one take your inability to answer questions during cross examination (that it seems you have the knowledge to answer) as a tainted witness testimony?

You were asking leading questions. I could not recall any of the information which you were ambiguously prompting. Ask me a pointed question and I will give you a pointed answer.

Would you like my expert opinion or would you like to continue attacking my well-established credibility to be speaking on the matters asked of me?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection argumentative
Click to expand...
As the plaintiff did, in fact, reword the question(s), and it does appear in this instance to simply provide context, I will overrule the objection.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Rebuttal, your honor?
Click to expand...
Customarily we don't normally allow rebuttals to respond to objections. In the future I will consider the option for rebuttals of responses.
 
No further questions your Honor
 
Nacho said:
As the plaintiff did, in fact, reword the question(s), and it does appear in this instance to simply provide context, I will overrule the objection.
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider

Your honor it wasn’t just the remarks. The questions themselves are argumentative as they are outside the scope of witness examination. An example would be “why are you a liar?” In this extreme example, you can see the question doesn’t actually shed light on material facts at hand to the case, it serves only to harass the witness. Ko’s questions do the exact same thing. They seek to smear the testimony of the witness in a manner not within the scope of a cross examination. A lawyer intending to discredit a witness should ask FACTUAL questions that lead to their discrediting, NOT targeted opinion questions that are worded similar to political push polls. The questions asked by the plaintiff are predatory in nature and do not help advance this case. I therefore also move to strike the questions as well as testimony as a result of these questions.
 
I will allow the plaintiff to respond to this motion if the plaintiff doesn't respond within 24 hours. I will consider the matter settled and decide on the motion.

As the Plaintiff has indicated, they don't have any more questions at this time; we will move into closing statements by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing statement before the court. Please be prompt in delivery.
 
The defense states these statements dont shed light on facts in the case. They infact do shed light on facts in this case including the validity of ends testimony. These question ask The motive behind Ends testimony since he wrote one of the bills being contested and because the precedent in this case affected him negatived with the third question asking about End's contradicting testimony in which he went from not recalling the case to summarizing the case.

It is extremely important to understand the validity of a witness's testimony especially when it appears they may possibly benefit from giving a certain testimony. Each statement is based on facts in this case.
1. FACT: End wrote a bill being contested in this case.
2. FACT: The precedent being used affect end.
3. FACT: End original said he didnt recall the case and in the next question went on to summarizing the same case.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Reconsider

Your honor it wasn’t just the remarks. The questions themselves are argumentative as they are outside the scope of witness examination. An example would be “why are you a liar?” In this extreme example, you can see the question doesn’t actually shed light on material facts at hand to the case, it serves only to harass the witness. Ko’s questions do the exact same thing. They seek to smear the testimony of the witness in a manner not within the scope of a cross examination. A lawyer intending to discredit a witness should ask FACTUAL questions that lead to their discrediting, NOT targeted opinion questions that are worded similar to political push polls. The questions asked by the plaintiff are predatory in nature and do not help advance this case. I therefore also move to strike the questions as well as testimony as a result of these questions.
Click to expand...
I will be denying the motion to reconsider, by extension, the request to strike the testimony as well. While I do see your perspective on the question, I also see that it is still based on the facts and not fully opinionated.
 
ko531 said:
The defense states these statements dont shed light on facts in the case. They infact do shed light on facts in this case including the validity of ends testimony. These question ask The motive behind Ends testimony since he wrote one of the bills being contested and because the precedent in this case affected him negatived with the third question asking about End's contradicting testimony in which he went from not recalling the case to summarizing the case.

It is extremely important to understand the validity of a witness's testimony especially when it appears they may possibly benefit from giving a certain testimony. Each statement is based on facts in this case.
1. FACT: End wrote a bill being contested in this case.
2. FACT: The precedent being used affect end.
3. FACT: End original said he didnt recall the case and in the next question went on to summarizing the same case.
Click to expand...
Can you clarify if this was a response or a closing statement it did not have the header, and didn't want to mismark it as such?
 
Nacho said:
Can you clarify if this was a response or a closing statement it did not have the header, and didn't want to mismark it as such?
Click to expand...
It was a responses as you allotted me 24 hours to respond to the objection and so I did
 
The motion to reconsider is denied as I further reaffirm my original decision.

The plaintiff has failed to submit to the court their closing statement within the time frame given with no request for additional time. The plaintiff is found in contempt.

We will now transition into closing statements by the defense. They have 72 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
Nacho said:
The motion to reconsider is denied as I further reaffirm my original decision.

The plaintiff has failed to submit to the court their closing statement within the time frame given with no request for additional time. The plaintiff is found in contempt.

We will now transition into closing statements by the defense. They have 72 hours to provide their closing statement.
Click to expand...
Due to Nacholebraa's resignation from the Courts, I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

Due to the Defense missing their Closing Statement they are found in contempt, given I am unsure who was at fault I will not be issuing a contempt of court charge.

We will however be in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. All listed bills are unconstitutional due to not stating they are to amend the Constitution.
2. The bills listed are unconstitutional due to the Court Precedent and Law regarding Amending the Constitution.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Courts have a duty to ensure stability thus this case should not have been heard.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This case is hinging on the fact of whether the Acts in question stated they were to amend the Constitution and if stating you are amending a Constitutional Amendment if it still requires you to state that you are amending the Constitution. Simply, the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act states that any bill amending the Constitution or an amendment to the Constitution needs to state they are amending the Constitution.

2. This case is a simple case and is just open and closed.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of Plaintiff however, I will not be granting the Prayer for Reliefs due to what is being requested.

I will however, request that Congress posts a new bill fixing these issues. Until those are signed into law however, the old laws are still in effect.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top