Lawsuit: Adjourned ZeketheKaiser v Government

[bharatj]

@TedHastings_AC12, describe your experience as Former Speaker UnityMaster’s Deputy Speaker; did you feel that he fulfilled his constitutional duties in the capacity of what is being debated in this lawsuit?

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Objection your honor, he is asking a very vague question and both parties have already agreed this case isn't about Unity. Also, Ted is not a judge and is not qualified to answer on whether something is constitutional or not.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Although we do not have a fully established system for objections, I will be willing to hear them out. However, I will be very strict in hearing objections.

With that being said, does the Defense wish to respond to the objection?

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

I agreed that the case is not about the reasons for why Unity was VoNCed. The case is about Unity’s failure to fulfill his constitutional duties leading to Super making the announcement. Therefore, I would argue that Unity is tied to this case, just not directly for the reasons he was VONCed.

Ted is not being asked to make a constitutional judgement, that is not the job of a witness. He is here to describe his experience, that is all. Witnesses in the past have never made constitutional judgements, and it’s no different in this case.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The objection is overruled, witness please answer the question.
The court resumes with direct examination.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your Honour,

During my time as Deputy Speaker of Parliament under UnityMaster, I would not say my experience was the best. It came rather apparent rather quite quickly that things were not as they should be.

The first thing that made me think this is that UnityMaster and a few other mps openly admitted to Parliament within the first week that they knew there were at least two members of parliament that were elected unconstitutionally. He did not however tell mps anything more than that, nor did he ask the mps to take any specific action in this matter.

It was not until Jemizzy lacking discord came to light that eventually a VoNC of Jemizzy was agreed and initiated by myself. UnityMaster should have been the one to announce this, but I did it in the capacity of DSoP because UnityMaster was too busy to do the announcements himself, but not busy enough to not send messages on discord. This therefore raised more questions.

I do hope this statement assists the court.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your Honor,

I would like to motion to strike TedHastings_AC12's testimony for irrelevance.

A vague question was asked, and the answer was not relevant to any point in this case. This case is about supersuperkings ignorance of the law, and choosing to initiate a VoNC proceeding without the legal power to do so.
Tedhastings has provided the court with testimony about UnityMaster discussing certain MPs ineligibility to be in parliament. This issue was resolved weeks back in a court case, and there is no reason to bring it up. The DoS even accepted fault for allowing these MPs to be elected. At no point was UnityMaster violating the constitution nor unfulfilling any constitutional obligations during this irrelevant issue. Why is this being discussed?

It is completely irrelevant to this case, this testimony should be stricken.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

My apologies for the timely response, I have had a very busy week. I will give notice to the parties now, the upcoming week will be similar; although I will try my best to be active, the case may slow down some.

Nonetheless, onto the case.

Objection overruled for the same reasons the Defense listed the first time the objection was made.
The court is reminded that during witness testimony one is allowed to go outside the scope of this case to build an argument. Obviously, there are limits to such lines of questioning, but when that line is crossed and noted by a counsel, it will be made known.

The court asks that if the Defense has any additional questions, they put them all in one response. If follow-up questions are needed they may respond directly after the witness answers, granted there are no objections. If the Defense has no more questions, the court asks they say such, so that we may keep the case moving.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defense has earlier requested an additional 48 hours, that time starts now.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

@TedHastings_AC12.

I have a couple more questions for you:

1) Can you please clarify the statement, “UnityMaster was too busy to do the announcements himself, but not busy enough to not send messages on discord.” What do you mean by this specifically?

2) Can you also elaborate on Unity’s actions when it was known that two MPs were elected unconstitutionally?

3) Finally, given your experience of having to do a VoNC announcement yourself, would you say that the reasons you had to do so may have been the same reasons super had to take the same action as you?

Thank you.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I apologise for the delay on answering. I have been extremely busy. I will get the response submitted within the next few hours

 

[TeddyTaps230]

1) Can you please clarify the statement, “UnityMaster was too busy to do the announcements himself, but not busy enough to not send messages on discord.” What do you mean by this specifically?

For clarification, Unity got elected as speaker and was mostly talking in the discord. There was the odd moment of silence but he was there. When we discussed the VoNC however he stated he did not have time to do the announcement, but he still managed to make time to message me that message.

2) Can you also elaborate on Unity’s actions when it was known that two MPs were elected unconstitutionally?

Unity was almost gloating in parliament chat about the fact that he knew two members were elected unconstitutionally. He was however reluctant to provide any names of these people, instead he simply kept on taunting the fact that he knew who these people were.

3) Finally, given your experience of having to do a VoNC announcement yourself, would you say that the reasons you had to do so may have been the same reasons super had to take the same action as you?

I would. It is difficult to follow through with a VoNC that parliament has decided on, when the speaker themselves is not able to make the time to announce it even though they are active on the discord server. I know during this period of super making the announcement, as a member of the public myself at the time, unity was actively talking in political discussion, but seemed to be unable or reluctant to announce the VoNC hearing himself.

 

[bharatj]

@TedHastings_AC12 thank you for your statement, I have no further questions.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor, I motion to strike Ted's testimony from the record for hearsay.

The definition of hearsay:
"the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

Ted can't give testimony written or spoken by another person. He is basing his whole testimony off of rumors. His whole testimony is ‘Unity said this”. For unity’s words to be used in court that needs to be provided through written evidence or unity’s own testimony.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Firstly, what is the Plaintiff's source for such a definition? The one provided is obviously not listed in our laws and procedures; therefore, I would like to test its legal validity before accepting and ruling on it.

Secondly, the Defense may respond to the objection if they so choose.

I expect answers from both parties within 24 hours. Due to the overload of cases I have to deal with, I am somewhat forced to be more strict when it comes to timing. From this point forward, extensions will be limited if given at all, and we will be pushing forward at a much faster pace. This is of course not either party's fault, this is just the reality of the situation we are in. I hope both parties can understand.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor, I cited the top result for hearsay however I also offer Cornell universities definition of hearsay based off of US law.

"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts."

I believe it applies to BC for the sinple reason that rumors with no evidence should not be used to make a court decision. Allowing hearsay also sets a very dangerous precedent that should not be set.

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

Hearsay may be a concept that is disallowed in real legal practice, but not all real life legal matters are applicable to BC.

In the case of Ted’s testimony, the account being described as “hearsay” is a summation of lengthy and a multitude of conversations. Screenshot evidence of such accounts may be found, but to ask a witness to produce screenshot evidence of so many conversations is unreasonable.

The purpose of a witness is to inform the court based on experience of an individual related to the case. In this case, Ted has summarized interactions with Unity as requested.

Labeling any witness testimony that is general or a summary of experiences invalidates the purpose of a witness in BC. While witness testimony may not be considered evidence, it does inform the court regarding a situation, and the validity of that practice should not be questioned by equating it to evidence.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

After some long thought about this objection, I have decided to sustain the objection; however, I will not be striking the full testimony from the record. I will only be striking questions 1 and 2 of the recent testimony. The second definition provided by the Plaintiff is a much more official one, one that I am familiar with, and one that I do accept in this courtroom.

Moreover, hearsay is clearly met within the following lines of the testimony
Question 1:
"he stated he did not have time to do the announcement"
Question 2:
"Unity was almost gloating in parliament chat"
"he simply kept on taunting the fact that he knew who these people were."
It is clear that each of these lines shows the witness referring back to out-of-court statements which are being used to prove a truth.

On another note, the Defense's response to the objection claims that the testimony is only a "summation of length and a multitude of conversations." Whilst, that may have been the counsel's goal when asking the questions originally, any summation of conversations that were not brought to court in some way, by its definition, is hearsay. Additionally, the idea that "ask[ing] a witness to produce screen evidence of so many conversations is unreasonable," is in itself unreasonable, in my opinion. This is court. I think it is only fair to say that if you want to make a point, you need to have evidence to back it up. If you don't have evidence, there is no point in making a point.

However, I understand that this, of many new motions and objections, is very new to the court. As I said before, I am very willing to hear such things and implement them as we go along, but they are complicated and it is good that we have these moments to work them out.

So to wrap up the objection, I will be striking both questions as a whole from the testimony.
The Defense is more than allowed to reask their questions to try and get a less objectionable answer, ask additional questions, or cede their time. I ask the Defense to speak up with their next steps so we can keep this trial moving.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

@TedHastings_AC12 can you please rephrase your previous testimony?

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Objection your honor. Bharatj is asking a vague and ambiguous question that puts undue burden on the witness. I agree with you your honor when you say that you want to keep this trial moving however I will not stand idly by when the defendants lawyer asks a single question asking the witness to rephrase 2/3 of their testimony.