OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE
On all of these objections, The Crown waited until long after the 24 hour period passed to raise these objections, especially for the intial questions.
Furthermore, they admit that they knew that they were past the deadline online.
Proof:
This objection is
overruled. Nowhere in any authorizing statute, rule, or binding precedent exists any statement requiring objections to be filed within the timeframe of the associated filing. For the same reason that parties must be allowed to raise their objections after the filing of the opposing party's opening statements or other such filing, objections must be allowed to stand any time they are reasonably raised.
Further, the initial order allowing for the twenty-four hour period of questioning did not include any mention of disallowing objections. Due to the lax timing and asynchronous nature of legal framework, I find it quite reasonable to allow for objections after the filing they are objected to has its deadline passed—even if such objections come "long after" the deadline in question passes.
Frankly, I am a bit confused as to why
both parties seem to have it in their head that objections cannot be raised after the deadline for witness questions has passed. There is no rule on point, and no authority has been raised by either party. This is particularly interesting when the Crown has raised a question of breach of procedure, without elucidating what procedure exactly was breached.
OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone would not, merely as a consequence of their previous role as Minister of Internal Affairs, have any knowledge regarding empirical evidence on legislator competency.
This objection is
sustained in part. The question "What evidence, if any, shows that higher playtime leads to better or more effective legislators?" is inappropriate and overbroad, and should be rephrased to speak to the witness's personal experience or understanding. The Claimant is invited to re-phrase this question for the witness to answer in a manner that testifies to the witness's personal experience or understanding. The original question and the witness's response is struck.
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question calls for the witness to speculate on the relative qualifications of hypothetical candidates. The witness cannot credibly testify on these fictitious scenarios, which are not naturally based on the witness’s perceptions as Minister of Internal Affairs. As such, this question also falls outside the scope of the witness's personal knowledge.
This objection is sustained. This question as written is a question of interpretation, and may only be answered by the trier of fact. The Claimant is invited to re-phrase this question in a way that speaks to the witness's personal experience or understanding. The question and its answer are struck.
OBJECTION - LEADING THE WITNESS
The question is phrased in a manner which asserts an affirmative answer and invites the witness to agree.
This objection is sustained. Claimant is invited to re-phrase this question into one that does not pre-suppose an affirmative answer to the question presented. Claimant may offer evidence supporting their proposition if they wish.
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question presupposes that Parliament has the authority or capacity to directly control the contents of the citizenship exam, which is a matter outside of the witness's personal knowledge. In fact, there is no reason to assume the witness, the previous Minister of Internal Affairs, would have any personal knowledge regarding the citizenship exam at all, which falls under the Ministry of Welfare. Additionally, this question assumes a particular answer to the question preceding it.
This objection is sustained in part. Claimant is invited to re-phrase the question into one that does not assume facts not in evidence or pre-supposes an answer. Questions should be neutral in character and not be pre-supposed on another piece of information in contest. To ask "why couldn't" Parliament do something supposes they tried and failed, or failed to do so without trying due to knowing they would fail. There are alternative wordings.
OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
As stated in the previous objection, the citizenship exam falls under the Ministry of Welfare, not the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While the witness could have some credible knowledge on the administration of the playtime requirement during elections, it is unclear how their speculation on the role of the citizenship exam would be of value to the Court.
This objection is overruled. The witness, as a member of Parliament, member of the Government, and Minister of Internal Affairs, could reasonably have helpful information regarding this question. I do not see this question—and the witness's answer—as possibly prejudicing the Court's conclusion in this matter or muddying the waters in any way. Further, as the Claimant alludes to, the connection between the citizenship exam and the playtime requirements requires a short logical step that is plainly evident.
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that the Ministry of Internal Affairs was responsible for deciding on the 4-hour per 30-day requirement.
This is sustained in part. The Claimant is asked to re-phrase the question into one that simply asks why the numbers discussed were chosen, unless the Claimant has evidence to offer to sustain their initial assertion.
OBJECTION - RELEVANCY
Whether or not Minister Thritystone is “aware of how Parliament came up with the 4-hour figure” is irrelevant and unlikely to be of interest to the Court.
This is overruled. The reasoning for why this specific number was chosen instead of any other (or indeed, any number at all) is a central question of this case and is of paramount import for this Court's deliberations.
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that Parliament tasks the Ministry of Internal Affairs with this responsibility.
This is overruled. The witness himself could easily say that the Ministry does not do as asked. Either the witness does this, or he does not and instead answers in the affirmative. Either way, no fact is assumed with this question. That this question is a follow-up to a previous question further supports this conclusion.
OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
There is no reason to assume Minister Thritystone has any credible knowledge of the relationship between playtime and legislative qualifications.
This is
overruled. Working as a member of Parliament and as a Minister, the witness could very well possess that knowledge. I see fit to allow the witness to testify as to whether or not he does—and if he does not, he may say so himself.
OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The Ministry of Internal Affairs is not responsible for the citizenship exam. Minister Thritystone is unlikely to have credible knowledge regarding who designed it or what role Parliament has played, is currently playing, or may play in the future in relation to it.
This is
overruled. Though true that the witness is not the preferred individual to ask such a question, it is possible that his station gives him the information required to answer. So long as the witness does not speculate, but testifies directly to his experience or understanding, I am satisfied with this question.
OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone should be asked only questions within the scope of his personal knowledge as the previous Minister of Internal Affairs. There is no reason to assume he can credibly provide testimony about the internal workings of the Government regarding the citizenship exam.
This is
sustained. Whether Parliament may or may not do something is entirely within the decision-making sphere of the Court, and I will not entertain lines of questioning that seeks to supplant our decision-making power or interpretative authority. If the Claimant's point is not a question of "can Parliament do this," the Claimant may re-phrase their question to reflect that intent plainly.
OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The witness’s speculation on the citizenship exam and its role within the Kingdom is unlikely to be of value to the Court.
This is
sustained in part. Instead of testifying over the failures of the exam, the witness's experience and understanding is focused on the policy of the regulation in question. The Claimant is invited to re-phrase the question so that the playtime regulation is the main subject of the question.
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The witness has been asked whether a theoretical player would be “qualified” under current laws. This question could not be credibly answered by the witness, as it is not naturally based on his perceptions. Besides being speculative, this question calls for the former Minister of Internal Affairs to give their interpretation of the law. Minister Thritystone was not called as a legal expert to provide an expert opinion on the law. Regardless, it is hard to imagine that the witnesses’ personal reading of election laws would serve this case.
This is
overruled. Witnesses should not testify as to conclusions of law. However, when an individual tasked with applying the law (here, a Minister) is asked about their application of the law and its obvious, reasonably foreseen effects, it is permissible for a witness to answer a question such as that posed. I do not see a reason to label this question as speculative, as it is straightforward with rigid guidelines as to its hypothetical construction, and is central to the matter of this case. Further, the question does not ask for qualitative opinion, but rather quantitative probing of the law as implemented at the time of the witness's tenure.
ENTREATY TO COMPEL
Your Honour, the witness has not yet answered the follow up questions that was posed. I ask that they be compelled to do so, and that the Plaintiff have the ability for further follow up, before we move on.
This writ is
granted. Claimant is instructed to take into account the above rulings, re-phrase the questions as directed (if they chose to ask them again) and then pose them anew (if desired or necessary by these rulings). Once this is done, the witness is compelled to respond within a reasonable timeframe.
ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE
The Crown agrees that the present witness's responses to all questions which survive objections should be entered into the record before this trial proceeds to cross-examination. Accordingly, the Crown petitions the Court to grant continuance for the Crown's cross-examination submission until the objections have been resolved and direct examination has concluded.
This is
granted. The Crown shall be granted one round of follow-up questions once the witness answers all outstanding questions as directed above.
The Court asks all parties to please numerate or otherwise make clear the order of objections so that the court may review them easily and without risk of confusion.
