Clockwork Objections
I prepared for something and it went down like clockwork.
I'm being questioned on the stand, the defense attorney says "You say you didn't
quit, is that correct?"
Yes, that is correct.
"Well I have this notice of resigna-"
HOLD IT- What's the date on that notice?
"Objection, relevance."
(Me, pointing at him like a goober and looking at the judge) Objection, rule of
completeness!
"Objection? He's not a lawyer.
OBJECTION, RELEVANCE..! ...I think.
Judge, looking like he has a headache calls for order and says to entertain me and
what IS the date.
"October 1st, 2023"
Judge is like "Okay" *points to him* overruled, you can't say he quit last month
for a two year old notice. *points to me* You're sustained for your first, but
"Relevance, I think"? Explain.
He was trying to object my objection not because I was wrong but because of my
profession. In debate this is ad hominem, I don't know what it falls under in
court, so my objection was that my not being a lawyer was not *relevant* to my
point that he was trying to present something not just out of context but I thought
we dismissed that during discovery..?
Judge: "Huh... Sustained, but leave objecting to your legal council-"
