I interpret the order and the amended order to mean that Your Honor, in a sense, has addressed them as fact witnesses. I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fact witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication. And you initially had indicated that you did not feel that the reporter's privilege stood in this kind of a case.
I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fat witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication.
I interpret the order and the amended order to mean that Your Honor, in a sense, has addressed them as fact witnesses. I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fact witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication. And you initially had indicated that you did not feel that the reporter's privilege stood in this kind of a case.

Based on that paragraph can we conclude that this sentence is true?
I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fat witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication.

Options: 

 - yes

 - it is not possible to tell

 - no
no
I interpret the order and the amended order to mean that Your Honor, in a sense, has addressed them as fact witnesses. I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fact witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication. And you initially had indicated that you did not feel that the reporter's privilege stood in this kind of a case.

Based on that paragraph can we conclude that this sentence is true?
I don't think you actually come out and use the word "fat witnesses," but as one reads the order, that's the implication.

Options: 

 - yes

 - it is not possible to tell

 - no
user
no
assistant