4/8 How To Do Examination for Discovery

A great primer

General Rules

  • Tell the truth, you will be caught by the opposing lawyer or justice
  • Be ready for undertakings to provide additional evidence
  • Maintain composure, some lawyers will attempt to invoke an attitude
  • Simply ask questions in a truthful way
  • Listen attentively for the entire question
  • Do not dodge the question
  • “I Don’t know.” is a valid reply
  • No private conversations with your lawyer
  • Speak with your lawyer about unique situations

Another useful lesson is:

This one lists Discovery as being a help to reach a settlement.

My situation calls for me to identify the decisions and choices people in the civil service had legally before them to make. It is their right, by the natuire of their jobs, that they can choose from a number of choices in performing that job. Some choices will turn out better than others. If they choose wrong, or even very poorly, and a person suffers a foreseeable injury or damage because of their choices, they may be found guilty of Misfeasance in Public Office.

…misfeasance in public office is an intentional tort, which requires the plaintiff to prove a specific mental state. 
To establish misfeasance in public office the defendant must be a person acting on behalf of a public body. The rationale underlying the tort is to protect the reasonable expectation that those in public office will not harm the public through an unlawful exercise of their office. 

Ontario Bar Association Presentation

I submit that several public offices exceeded their rights to harm me. Proof of that harm is obvious… I have no wife, no family, no savings, no chance of a job with a criminal record, weeks in jail, concurrent vexatious attacks with use of both civil and criminal courts to rule on the identical issues with identical evidence.

I have a great interest in how a citizen can influence others to do their bidding, and how others were able to manipulate witnesses to answer questions in court in a pre-determined way. Tampering with the testimony of any witness who will testify in court is a serious offence. Others will of course claim they were just doing a public service by defining a legal concept such as contracts and what makes a piece of paper into a contract. But, those others are not lawyers and should they present themselves as if they are a real lawyer knowing the legal aspects of contracts then they open themselves to being sued in a court..

There can be no trial by “ambush” and so this process lets both sides feel out the other for how strong a case they have.

It’s hard to imagine any jury finding 7 arrests of a taxpayer “normal'” or “deserved” or “legal”. But I still have to provide them with the facts of how the poor decisions resulted in a complete destruction of my personal life. Luckily some key decision makers cannot avoid the proof of their actions since they were in their personal notebooks and testimony contained in court transcripts and video interviews.

Even one lie or exaggeration told to another person in authority can mean you are guilty of the criminal act of perjury, lying in a court room or in a sworn legal document such as a Plaintiff’s Claim or Defence..

If, for example, you go to someone in authority and say “Bob Lepp is dangerous to me and all of the public and he helps people with guns to make threats of physical harm in telephone calls to a civil department.”… then, you better be able to provide proof that he did just that. If you just made it up on the spot, you probably forgot that records are kept of all telephone calls and especially those where physical threats are voiced. Also, a gun threat must be reported to authorities. And how could a person KNOWINGLY claim that I was involved in the gun threat call if they KNOW it was NOT reported to authorities. Freedom of Information proved no such call was recorded or reported to authorities.

So, if you have nothing to hide, Thursday May 11 is for you, even though your are NOT a witness in my suit.

Leave a Reply