Comment to the Post entitled “Objection”

In the body of the post “Objection” the question was finally asked: ” Could the General Court:
(a) merely ask the witness ‘whether there were other – actual – reasons for terminating the contract than
reasons given in the official/formal declaration’,
(b) set aside other questions that were intended to clarify this issue?

I defend the thesis that:
(A) The General Court could not set out other questions because the
(B) The General Court did not ask for the facts, but what might or may not have arisen, from facts which the General Court did not want and refused to ask.

It is rare to commit an act of unfair competition in such a way that it convenes its employees and says to them: ” Note: we will terminate the contract officially as if because, but in fact it is because. Just don’t tell anyone about it. Especially in the General Court.”

Instead of establishing the evidence (so-called induffable) the General Court asked, in a way, a witness: ‘Do you think there were indications of other reasons for termination than those given in the statement’. This was a witness potentially guilty of an act of unfair competition. This witness could therefore “pass with the truth” or lie. He may not have known, and he testified according to how he judged it. But the General Court should determine whether that witness was aware of facts/indiossible evidence which the witness himself did not see as evidence of anything else.