Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Pending Death Thegreatfired v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 24

Motion to continue Questioning

Your Honor,
The defense wishes to ask a few more questions to Mr. Russell.
 
The court does not know the precise questions you intend to ask. However, you have thus far only submitted a single question.

In the interest of efficiency and the orderly progression of these proceedings, you are always expected to consolidate all questions, when asked to present your questions. If genuinely new relevant follow-up questions arise that could not reasonably have been anticipated earlier, the Court will ofcourse permit them.

Otherwise, the Court will weigh the relevance and necessity of additional questioning against the burden imposed on the witness and the efficient administration of these proceedings.

So please present the questions you want to ask.
 
Your honor,
this has not been prior court precedent. In another active case, Aero Nox v. Ministry of Urban Development (2026) CV 23, the plaintiff was allowed multiple lines of questioning, some within the same degree of thought to former minister Russell. I was merely working off of the idea of prior precedent in the thought process of my questioning, so it would be outlined in a logical fashion.

My remaining questions to Mr. Russell are as followed:

1. How long did AgentSquid inspect the property before you took over the case?
2. Is there any specific reason for Agent Squid giving the case to you?
3. Did your report match with observations noted by Agent Squid in the initial inspection attempt?
 
Alright. Since other judges have appear to have permitted broader questioning, I will allow some additional leniency here. However, counsel is advised that for future witnesses, the Court expects you to consolidate your questions to the greatest extent practicable. While foundation is important, the Court must also consider the efficient administration of these proceedings.

The objection on the basis of speculation is sustained. As phrased, the question calls for the witness to speculate as to Agent Squid’s motives or reasoning for reassigning the case. To the extent the testimony would instead be based on out-of-court statements made by Agent Squid, it would raise hearsay concerns if offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Accordingly, the question is stricken. Any testimony regarding Agent Squid’s reasons or state of mind can be elicited directly from Agent Squid when called as a witness.
 
Mr. Russell (@Methedex ) please answer the following questions within 48-hours:
1. How long did AgentSquid inspect the property before you took over the case?
2. Did your report match with observations noted by Agent Squid in the initial inspection attempt?
 
MilkCrack said:
Mr. Russell (@Methedex ) please answer the following questions within 48-hours:
1. How long did AgentSquid inspect the property before you took over the case?
2. Did your report match with observations noted by Agent Squid in the initial inspection attempt?
Click to expand...
Agent was deployed to the location, i'd say probably within 10 minutes or so Agent messaged me saying something along the lines of they did not want to do the inspection anymore as the property owner was answering his questions weirdly.
2. Yeah, agent squid mentioned they could not find a power pylon or production monitor on site, this was the question that the property owner replied to agent with *guess you will have to find out* when asked about what areas are public and where the required devices for the inspection would be. After doing the inspection myself I came to the same conclusion. The IRA law at the time made it mandatory to have those devices on any industrial property in order to pass the inspection. So not having them was noted as a result as it was the reason for failure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Methedex said:
Agent was deployed to the location, i'd say probably within 10 minutes or so Agent messaged me saying something along the lines of they did not want to do the inspection anymore as the property owner was answering his questions weirdly.
2. Yeah, agent squid mentioned they could not find a power pylon or production monitor on site, this was the question that the property owner replied to agent with *guess you will have to find out* when asked about what areas are public and where the required devices for the inspection would be. After doing the inspection myself I came to the same conclusion. The IRA law at the time made it mandatory to have those devices on any industrial property in order to pass the inspection. So not having them was noted as a result as it was the reason for failure.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION: HEARSAY

Your Honour, these are out-of-court statements and constitute hearsay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top