Good idea calling the other party as a witness?

[penniless]

Both of us are self represented

Would you say I would be better to call the Respondent to the stand, as a witnesses, to counter his arguments ahead of time using the contradictions from his affidavits and other documents that supports my side of the story? Or should I wait till he tells his story and cross examine him.

I see the benefits as being

1. Shortening his side of the trial
2. Discrediting him as soon as possible
3. Try to control the case and the flow by me asking the questions
4. If he does try to make arguments to which i have called him on, makes him look foolish.
5. Looks like he is wasting the courts time by trying to rehash things.
6. He is likely to contradict himself even more and throw his testimony off by trying to remember what I asked him and what he said.
7. Showing the judge that I believe in my side of the testimony, by have the gull to call the respondent as a witness
8. I also have the ability to have a second chance to question him based on his answer

[wretchedotis]

the applicant must only ask questions that may be answered yes or no.

The respondant may ask leading questions.

Or at least, that is my understanding.

Assuming that is correct, be careful where you tread.

[Teenwolf]

the applicant must only ask questions that may be answered yes or no.

If this is true, then the court system is absurd!

[Tayken]

Both of us are self represented

Would you say I would be better to call the Respondent to the stand, as a witnesses, to counter his arguments ahead of time using the contradictions from his affidavits and other documents that supports my side of the story? Or should I wait till he tells his story and cross examine him.

I see the benefits as being

1. Shortening his side of the trial
2. Discrediting him as soon as possible
3. Try to control the case and the flow by me asking the questions
4. If he does try to make arguments to which i have called him on, makes him look foolish.
5. Looks like he is wasting the courts time by trying to rehash things.
6. He is likely to contradict himself even more and throw his testimony off by trying to remember what I asked him and what he said.
7. Showing the judge that I believe in my side of the testimony, by have the gull to call the respondent as a witness
8. I also have the ability to have a second chance to question him based on his answer

I would check on your theories of cross examination with a lawyer. You may find yourself in a heap of trouble if you do your questioning wrong and at the wrong time.

You present your theory of the case first and call witnesses and complete your presentment. Then the Respondent goes next. If you call the Respondent to try and establish your theory the respondent can lead answers right into their theory of the case without having even presented it yet to the court. The Respondent will just provide yes/no answers to your questions.

NO ONE can ask "leading questions". So you will have a respondent, with an un-presented theory of their case and you will be asking questions. Not sure how this benefits you as the respondent will have heard your whole theory of the case, know their theory of the case and all answers will support their un-presented theory of the case. Also, it gives them the opportunity to adjust their theory of the case prior to presentment to the court and enforcing it.

A good offense some times is a good defense. There are benefits to being an "Applicant" and that is usually only on the very first motion. After that the advantage as a respondent becomes stronger as they establish their theory in response.

Good Luck!
Tayken