realist wrote:
Clairez wrote:
IANAL...so I have a question.
If a lawyer had a real case that they were prosecuting state to state as la Taitz wouldn't affidavits be worthless unless the person signing one was unavailable to the various courts (as they were dead or home bound due to illness etc.)?
I thought that all witnesses would have to be available to be cross-examined by the defense or is that inaccurate?
A real case would make it to discovery. If there were witnesses who an attorney believes would not be available for trial, you take a deposition, preferably with a legal videographer, and usually a court reporter as well.
As to the cross-examination, you are correct. Most, if not all, of Orly's daffydavits are not even affidavits. An affidavit would begin with words to effect of... name, etc., And if called as a witness I would testify as follows:
Most of Orly's are just rambling BS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Orly's so-called "affidavits" are worthless and inadmissible as evidence.
If a witness is unavailable for trial due to death, illness or beyond subpoena reach of the court, parts of his/her deposition can be
read -- literally -- into the trial record. It must be a deposition taken under oath, before a qualified court reporter, and with notice to other parties so that they may attend and cross examine the witness. If a litigant designates a question and answer for reading, the other parties are entitled to also designate testimony on the same subject, including cross examination, for completeness, context and even impeachment.
These days many depositions are video recorded (in addition to the court reporter). Must be a certified legal videographer at the camera. What is really cool is that (for extra $$$) the transcript and the video can be "sync-ed" so that the transcript appears -- like closed captioning -- at the bottom of the video.