Search results

Has not been an RA member for 30 days, isn't even an RA member right now. Otherwise I'd second.

OH YEAH! Sideshow Bob.

I always loved that joke but could never remember where it came from, was it Seinfeld or somewhere else?

Very well, once again. Is Exhibit C an honest representation of the transcript you submitted to Rhindon Blade? (Obviously discounting the blocking out of your name and the arrow for emphasis.)

Better?

The defence opened this line of questioning by insinuating that there were no evidence evidence of sedition and treason, this is to merely show that while the witness may not have any further evidence, such evidence does indeed exist. My question is about the actual discussion between the...

That was directed at you, one look at your recent comments to me will make it obvious. I thought quoting each and every one would add to an already torturously long thread. And maybe give you some dignity. I do wonder how you'll twist this so you can call me an idiot again. Though one can't...

Thank you. Now looking back on Exhibit C... Is this the evidence you submitted to Rhindon Blade? (Obviously discounting the blocking out of your name and the arrow for emphasis.) And if so, I ask the following the questions to which a simple yes or no will suffice. Does the accused freely...

And where and when did I dispute this? Also, temper, temper BLUE WOLF... You know such sudden rise to anger is a sign of desperation.

Thought so, can't name one.

Please, show me one RL trial where the defence asked the witness to empty their pockets for further evidence.

This witness has already provided evidence in Exhibit C, which why the defendant is on trial. Why would the witness need to provide more and why is the Defence asking for this? Relevance? Also, is the Defence going to ask a question or are they just going to bloviate until his accusers die of...

It's up the Defence to find their own proof that absolves them, not to beg witnesses on the stand for a freebie. I'd do a facepalm and wonder if you even know what you're doing, but it's been pretty obvious for a while now.

I think in your case, you're trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll. WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?1 WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!11

Objection, all of these questions relate to exhibit C. Asking the witness to provide more evidence is either irrelevant or at worst, insinuating that exhibit C is irrelevant. The onus is own the defence to defend themselves against exhibit C, not for the witness to prove their own relevance.

The witness reveals the nature of the relationship in exhibit C, in how readily the accused boasts of his exploits. Any further questions on the nature of the relationship between the witness and the accused, and also the defence, is a pathetic game of 20 questions. And serves only to defy the...

Objection, asking the witness to describe his/her relationship with the accused is clearly meant to reveal the identity of this witness.

If you need to resort to name calling and making fun of serious mental defects, I'm not even going to respond.

A single ELECTED official. We place far more faith in one person for a lot more, than our judges. I think this judge-bashing is completely contemptible, especially as it wasn't even that long ago judicial reform was proposed. Where were you again when that happened? You were around, asked to...

Will my previous objection be ruled on? Yes or no?

Why not? It works so well on American idol...

The prosecution has a right to argue for its own objection. The defence does not have a right to chip away against a Court ruling. I await the presiding judge's response.

Which the Court has determined to its own satisfaction. Now will the defence respect the Court's ruling?

Revealing any position the witness may or may not hold in government, (not that big of a government personnel wise too) is personal question with no other intention but to reveal the identity of this witness. A witness who the Court has ruled, should have his/her identity protected. I await the...

Says the guy who belittles Internet Arguments then starts and continues them.

The Court has ruled that the identity of this witness shall not be disclosed, you are asking for specifics that would reveal the identity of this witness. Plain and simple.

Don't put words in my mouth.

The prosecution is glad that the defence finally recognizes it's effort in this trial however the rules of this Trial have already been established and would like the defence to recognize the rulings of this Court or be held in contempt.

If it's so silly then why are you still arguing? Just admit defeat, plead guilty and move on. Be the bigger man.

Read my mind.