Deposition of REG - The North Pacific v Ihese

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
This thread shall be used for witness deposition of @REG in the trial The North Pacific v Ihese.

Per the Court Rules and Procedures:

1. The witness must make the following oath before questioning can begin: "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

2. Any Justice may moderate this deposition.

3. Questioning will proceed in the following order until both sides have exhausted their questions:
a. Prosecution may ask their questions and any follow-ups.
b. Defense will have the opportunity to object to the asked questions.
c. Moderating Justice will rule on any objections.
d. Witness will answer the questions, if no objections or they are overruled.
e. When prosecution questions and follow-ups are exhausted, defense may ask their questions and any follow-ups.
f. Prosecution will have the opportunity to object to the asked questions.
g. Moderating Justice will rule on any objections.
h. Witness will answer the questions, if no objections or they are overruled.
i. Return to a, if needed.

4. At conclusion of questioning, the Moderating Justice shall publish the official record of the deposition in the trial thread.
 

REG

M uerto
-
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
 

Vivanco

I don't know anymore.
-
-
-
Were you present at the time in which the nation by the name of "Tasihese" begun to make comments about Pigeonstan?
 

REG

M uerto
-
Were you present at the time in which the nation by the name of "Tasihese" begun to make comments about Pigeonstan?
I was most probably active with my main nation "Republica Guilleana".
I just didn't check my secondary nation "The City-State of Singapore" to supress the posts of Tasihese.
 

Vivanco

I don't know anymore.
-
-
-
Can you confirm if the owner of the nation Dictatorship 9 is relevant to the case?
 

Comfed

TNP Resident Cat
Deputy Speaker
-
-
Your Honour,

I will be questioning this witness.

To @REG: we have only your word to go by that Tasihese and the defendant (Ihese) are the same. Do you offer anything to support this claim? How do you know? Furthermore, you have made similar claims about Dictatorship 9. Can you offer anything to support this claim?
 

REG

M uerto
-
Your Honour,

I will be questioning this witness.

To @REG: we have only your word to go by that Tasihese and the defendant (Ihese) are the same. Do you offer anything to support this claim? How do you know? Furthermore, you have made similar claims about Dictatorship 9. Can you offer anything to support this claim?
Yes. Tasihese is Ihese.

This is a telegram from my alt, Setya.

 

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
@Comfed, absent further cross-examination by (time=1600696800) (slightly more than 24 hours from now), we will either move to re-examination or conclude this deposition.

@Vivanco, presuming there are no further questions, do you have any objections or expect to undertake any re-examination? If not, and no further questions are asked, then the deposition will conclude after the time indicated.
 

Vivanco

I don't know anymore.
-
-
-
Your honour;
At the current moment, I do not have any objections, and as of how the case stands currently, I do not expect to undertake any re-examination.
 

Vivanco

I don't know anymore.
-
-
-
Your honour, I would like to object.

Firstly, I would like to comment on the defense's comment on the witness' truthfulness even though they have taken an oath to say the truth, and therefore lying on the evidence asked for, since for the evidence shown in the RMB post and history by the witness we see that the original mention of Ihese for Tasihese is by either of the mentions, but by the now non-existent Green Tombstone.

Furthermore, I object to the question of the witness, for their role on this is to answer questions and verify already established evidence, not to make the witness provide a back up to their claims, for we must consider the principle of innocence unless proven guilty, and what is currently happening is the defense counsellor is not considering the witness' deposition as truthful enough to make them gather evidence, which should not be needed for they have taken the oath to say the truth. If the defense has any doubts on the witness and believes they would be committing perjury, they should act accordingly to the legally established method.
 

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
@Vivanco, setting to one side the issue of comment, I would ask you to clarify the nature of the objection to the question, as it seems to me that it must be open to the defence to challenge the truthfulness of a witness and, indeed, insofar as the defence case is contrary to the evidence of a witness, are bound to put that to the witness rather than leaving the witness unchallenged.

@Comfed you may withdraw the question or make submissions against the objection.
 
Top