Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

COMMUNITY ABW Court: MeanieJosh vs Goldie/ABW

King Du said:
it's your job to make clear to both of us what you're talking about...
Click to expand...
How can I make things clear to a guy who came into work late? That's not my job, that's on you, maybe if you hadn't over logged yourself with other cases you would've came better prepared.
 
Goldie said:
@ 'ing someone is simply @'ing someone. This is a court of law , you're gonna need way more than that to persecute anyone
Click to expand...
I'll let the judge and jury decide that.

I have one more question for the defence and I'll allow them to take over from there.

@Goldie During the 2nd people's mod election (think real hard to remember the correct one) was the poll not made private originally and then switched to public? And why?
 
should i make a list of objections this direct examination has violated?
  • Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
  • Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
  • Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.[2]
  • Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.
  • Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
  • Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
  • Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.
  • Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
  • Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
  • Compound question: multiple questions asked together.
  • Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.[2]
  • Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.



I could go on.......

upload_2017-12-21_14-30-19.jpeg
 
MeanJoshie said:
I'll let the judge and jury decide that.

I have one more question for the defence and I'll allow them to take over from there.

@Goldie During the 2nd people's mod election (think real hard to remember the correct one) was the poll not made private originally and then switched to public? And why?
Click to expand...


I do not recall lol


I'll be stepping down from the stand.


My co-lawyer @King Du aka Jackie Chiles will be taking over from here on out
 
King Du said:
should i make a list of objections this direct examination has violated?
  • Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
  • Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
  • Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.[2]
  • Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.
  • Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
  • Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
  • Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.
  • Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
  • Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
  • Compound question: multiple questions asked together.
  • Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.[2]
  • Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.


I could go on.......

View attachment 15496
Click to expand...
This is a text book gish gallop and it won't against me, less gifs and wikitionary quotes and more lawyering please.
 
MeanJoshie said:
This is a text book gish gallop and it won't against me, less gifs and wikitionary quotes and more lawyering please.
Click to expand...
what is a lawyer but not a student who is constantly looking up information to help them in their case??

like for example you could be looking up better evidence instead of attacking me

H023Xe.gif
 
Goldie said:
I do not recall lol
Click to expand...
Ah but it was:

Screenshot (69).png

There's the proof of it being private originally and then switched to public afterwards. Ladies and gentlemen the defendant cannot reliably remember the reasonings or purpose of the decisions he makes when it comes to polls. My testimony paints a clear picture of a site owner mishandling his duties and failing to uphold a standard practice of procedures. He asleep at the wheel that is ABW.

As the @AP21 says in the quoted "Now people will get to see who voted for who" And that makes things fair and balanced, I was not awarded that same impartiality during the 3rd people's mod election. Yet others in the aftermath of the election have been given the same option by the site owner himself, that is not fair and surely not balanced.

Let the defense have the floor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top