I believe, and I could be incorrect, that typically, in the English language, when you have a sentence that ends with a question mark the correct way to *answer* it, and I stress answer, is with a statement, not another question. So with that, allow me to rephrase in case the Defense was unclear the first time.
Rhindon Blade, is it not true that the endorsement scanner stated in Exhibit B was, in fact, a public scanner that anyone who merely signed up as a member of the Commonwealth Forums can access at any time. Is this very page being presented here not the scanner in question?
Additionally, is it your opinion that simply providing this link on a public forum is an act of treason, as you suggested previously, Mr. Blade? If not, then how is the Defendants actions then with Wee Tiddler any different then this very minute when the link was again provided?
Also, let me add, that if you think Wee Tiddler did indeed violate any laws or intended to violate any laws, which he would have had to in order to make a conviction of Treason or Sedition against the Defendant plausible, when then is he not also on trail? Your opinion will do just fine in this matter if you are not an expert in that subject, the Prosecution seems to enjoy it very much so, please, do humor the Defense with the same embellishment.
If the witness again refuses to answer the questions being asked of him, in full, the Defense must demand that the Court remove him and any evidence he brought with him. After all, it seems the Prosecution has more to hide than the Defense.