I’m not a judge but I used to do hearings when I worked in a prison and similar principles apply.
Let’s say a prisoner was written up for smoking in the bathroom. And at his hearing he says he wants to call Barack Obama as a witness.
Now if I responded by saying, “Stop being a wiseass and get serious” he could wait until the end of the hearing and then file an appeal. Why? Because he requested a witness and I didn’t address his request.
So here’s what I would actually say:
"You want Barack Obama, the President of the United States, as a witness at this hearing?
“Yes.”
“Was President Obama present during this incident or have any direct knowledge about it?”
“Well, no.”
“Is there some testimony that President Obama could offer as an expert on the subject of smoking in unauthorized areas?”
“Not really.”
“Can you tell me then what testimony President Obama could make that would be relevant at this hearing?”
“He could testify about what it’s like to be persecuted by your enemies.”
“Any testimony he’d offer on that subject would be on how he was persecuted by his enemies. How would that be relevant to your case?”
“I have enemies just like he does.”
“Are your enemies different from President Obama’s enemies?”
“Yeah, my enemies are here in this prison.”
“Does President Obama know your enemies?”
“Not personally.”
“Well, I that case I do not see how President Obama would be able to offer any testimony that is relevant to this hearing. I am therefore denying you him as a witness. If you have enemies that you think caused you to be reported you will have to establish this based on your own testimony or the testimony of people who have direct knowledge of this.”
Silly? Heck, yes. But you had to go through the proper steps.