It looks like there was a bit of confusion as to whether I am a lawyer.
I confirm I am. I therefore refile my request for Amicus Brief in my full qualifications as an attorney.
I would like to speak to the ethical implications of situations such as these in Redmont, in order to better equip the court in its understanding of interpreting where damages should lie for such an act.
1. Event Coordinators should apply rules practically and with common sense.
2. I observed the presence of complaints of not revealing rules and later enforcing them, along with hostile communications.
I, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII, Bishop of Redmont, Vicar of Tuk, Successor of the Prince of the Tukostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Tukostolic Church, Patriarch of Hamilton, Primate of Redmont, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Reveillian Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of...
OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION
Question includes information that questioner seeks to confirm and in a way that suggests a positive response (“Would you agree that…”).
This is a textbook leading question, and therefore should be struck before witness answers any questions.
Could I please get clarification on question 3? I am unsure of what mistakes we are referring to.
Also, could it be confirmed that I will be answering question 1?
+Benedict
I, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVII, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the...
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE and NOTHING PENDING
Witness failed to answer the question at hand, and the second sentence of answer contained irrelevant information.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.