190 cross examination questions.
for shelly gupta.
9 duty to supervise:
10 federal crimes.
11 where does he live?
12 does he reside in irvington at the (old building) on downey avenue?
13 has he been reported for any federal crimes?
14 how many?
15 to what agency?
16 how did your agency respond?
17 what was his training and supervision?
18 did he receive any instruction in the rights of the people he was in specting?
test
ok, i think i can multitask from here at work. as long as i don't hit update. it saved ok when i got home.
1. under the federal constitution?
2 what was his training as to the first second and third amendments if any?
3 what was his training as to the 4th amendment?
4 what was his supervision as to the 4th amendment?
5 did he swear to uphold either the state or federal constitution?
6. what is the appearance of impropriety?
7. what is recission?
8 what is disgorgement?
= so the plan is get 200 questions ready.
this is the character assasination part of the episode.
19 on december 12th she was a witness in my case. different lawyer.
21 she falsely testified as to the key fact in the case - whether or not there was a person living in a trailer with no electricity.
22 there was of course electricty in the trailer. she either knew that or was willfully blind. the parking lights are on and visible 24 hours a day.
23 then you called her as the key witness in my case later in december, it might have been the 30th.
24 did you participate in denying me a jury trial on that date?
25 is there a right to a trial by jury under sections 19 or 20.
26 were the proceedings against me quasi-criminal?
27 quasicriminal in an aspect?
28 does an attorney who is involved in quasicriminal proceedings have any heightened ethical duties?
29 i think you have some expertise in that area that i don't have.
30 you've been a prosecutor?
31 what ethical duties did you have as a prosecutor, above and beyond those of all lawyers?
32 does any of that carry over to your current job?
33 at trial, was there an allegation that you were trying to use the wrong standard of proof?
34 if the wrong standard of proof were used at trial, would that implicate the plaintiff's lawyer's ethical duties?
35 how far does zealous advocacy go?
36 can it go too far? where's the line, how do we know where that line is?
37 are you a hostile witness
38 can i ask you leading questions?
39 by the way, do you happen to know about any murders?
40 that is, do you have any evidence relevant to an unsolved murder? 41 not that we think you do, but how often do you get someone under oath, might as well ask, right?
42. Similarly, do you have any previously undisclosed knowledge or awareness of any unsolved felony or serious crime?
43 do you understand the allegation that you may be conspiring to
proceed under the wrong standard of proof, implicating constitutional values under due course of law?
44. would it be ethical for a plaintiff's lawyer to proceed like that, in that way?
46 what is weaponized candor?
47 in retrospect, do you still think it was a good idea to file a suit against me without talking to me first?
48 let me ask you the same question in a more general way. would you again sue a lawyer without talking to them about it first?
49 [if yes] what's the upside of doing it that way?
50 is there any potential downside?
45: list the 19 issues plus taking, or including taking. so i need to come back to those. but i can starty here.
1 taking - 5th A
2 taking - state constitution
3 disproportionate - 8th amendment timbs v indiana
4 disproportionate - state constitution is it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17