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.
The judges (who was addressed in the text as your honor) order implicates that they were addressed as fact witnesses
The text indicates that the order implicates that they were witnesses, so my statement was correct
( z1 implicate :ARG0 ( z2 order :ARG2 ( z3 person :ARG0-of ( z4 have-org-role :ARG3 ( z5 judge ) ) :ARG1-of ( z6 address :ARG2 ( z7 honor :ARG1 ( z8 you ) ) :location ( z9 text ) ) ) ) )