The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II

Blue Wolf II:
No, once provided the Defense intends to present the evidence the witness submits as Defense Exhibit A. Any relation to the Prosecution’s Exhibit C is pure semantics as our Exhibit A would obviously introduce new evidence not previously seen in Prosecution’s Exhibit C.
Click to expand...
It is the duty of the defence to find its own evidence, not to harass witnesses to empty their pockets.

In any case, if the witness can not properly establish that he is in fact the real Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person then all this is a moot point.
Click to expand...

The presiding judge has already established the identity of this witness, will the defence respect the rulings of this Court or will they continue these adolescent games?

Also, in case the Defense is mistaken but this is in fact our witness not the Prosecution's. We are allowed to question "it" how we wish within the rules of the Court.
Click to expand...
And the rules of the Court has already deemed what has been accepted into evidence and who this witness is. The prosecution has not established this, the Court has. And we wish the defence to acknowledge this.
 
The information provided to the Defence already is sufficient. The individual in question is a security asset of the state, whose identity has been proven to the satisfaction of the Court. It should be obvious that the identity of the witness is protected as to do otherwise would jeopardise regional security.

The portion of the conversation that is relevant to the trial has been released. Requesting further details in an attempt to uncover the identity of the witness will not be allowed.

The Defense may ask the witness questions about the transcript already provided. I should remind the Defense that their Counsel did not object to the evidence when it was originally provided to them and the Court.
 
The Defense at this time would like to issue a formal note of protest to the Court for its refusal to allow the Defense to question their own witness about a legitimate line of questioning.

The fact is that the rest of that conversations relevance can not be determined without first viewing it. The Defense is insulted that the Court came to the conclusion that "security" comes before the Constitution and will look into the possibilities of other legal actions.


With that, the Defense would like to ask Mr. Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person why this Court should believe anything he/she has to say? Do you not feel the very nature of your Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery status should cast doubt on the legitimacy of your claims?
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Defense at this time would like to issue a formal note of protest to the Court for its refusal to allow the Defense to question their own witness about a legitimate line of questioning.

The fact is that the rest of that conversations relevance can not be determined without first viewing it. The Defense is insulted that the Court came to the conclusion that "security" comes before the Constitution and will look into the possibilities of other legal actions.


With that, the Defense would like to ask Mr. Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person why this Court should believe anything he/she has to say? Do you not feel the very nature of your Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery status should cast doubt on the legitimacy of your claims?
Click to expand...
Do I even need to say anything about this?
 
The Defense objects citing conducting unbecoming of a Courtroom official and ask that the previous statement made by the Prosecution and those like it be stricken from the record.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Defense at this time would like to issue a formal note of protest to the Court for its refusal to allow the Defense to question their own witness about a legitimate line of questioning.

The fact is that the rest of that conversations relevance can not be determined without first viewing it. The Defense is insulted that the Court came to the conclusion that "security" comes before the Constitution and will look into the possibilities of other legal actions.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a line of questioning, it was a request for information. Information which has already been provided in the form of Exhibit C.

The Court does not believe that security comes before the Constitution, I recognise that the Defendant might -in this case- not be able to fully appreciate the balancing act


With that, the Defense would like to ask Mr. Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person why this Court should believe anything he/she has to say? Do you not feel the very nature of your Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery status should cast doubt on the legitimacy of your claims?
Click to expand...

I will ask the witness your question however; the theatrics are not need. Please just refer to them as the witness. Their status, I should also note, is as a state security asset.
 
Blue Wolf II:
If the Defense might inquire, which department is the secret witness a part of?
Click to expand...
First of all, what if any relevance?

Second of all, huh? What do you mean what department? And if it means which government department, then will the defence respect the value of the Court ruling over the anonymity of this witness or will they stop playing 20 questions over the identity of this witness?
 
If the witness is not part of the proper department/ministry/what-have-you, namely the one in change of Intelligence operations, then they legally can not be granted pass on the basis of regional security, since they were freelance and not acting on the orders of any Government official, and their identity must be revealed in accordance to the rules of the Court.

The Defense also requests review of the conduct of the Prosecution citing possible violations of the Interim Court Rules, even if those rules are more of a guideline than a legally binding document.

The Defense eagerly awaits the reply of the Court.
 
Blue Wolf II:
If the witness is not part of the proper department/ministry/what-have-you, namely the one in change of Intelligence operations, then they legally can not be granted pass on the basis of regional security, since they were freelance and not acting on the orders of any Government official, and their identity must be revealed in accordance to the rules of the Court.

The Defense also requests review of the conduct of the Prosecution citing possible violations of the Interim Court Rules, even if those rules are more of a guideline than a legally binding document.

The Defense eagerly awaits the reply of the Court.
Click to expand...
The defence has had a chance to disallow this witness, but calling them, asking a single question then throwing a temper tantrum does not count.

Once again, the prosecution objects to this game of 20 questions, what next? Does he/she have facial hair, what is the colour of their hair? The Court has decided on the anonymity of this particular witness, the prosecution asks that the decision stand.
 
Both of you, stop it. The Court has ruled on this witness and that is final.

The witness' answers to the Defenses questions are as follows:

With that, the Defense would like to ask Mr. Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person why this Court should believe anything he/she has to say?
Click to expand...

This court should believe what I have to say because I have sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is not an oath I took lightly, nor should anyone take such an oath without full intention to keep it.

Do you not feel the very nature of your Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery status should cast doubt on the legitimacy of your claims?
Click to expand...

No, I do not feel that my 'mystery status' should case doubt on my claims. The court knows my full identity, and it was the court's decision to keep my identity secure. For those with respect for the Court and the North Pacific governement as a whole, this choice of the Court should be trusted to be the correct decision for the common good. Therefore, there should be no reason to doubt my legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Please continue.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Mystery Witness, what Ministry, if any, do you operate under?
Click to expand...
Objection, once again the Court has made its ruling regarding the identity of this witness. Will the defence respect this ruling or will they continue to play these childish games?
 
This is not an attempt to find out the identity of the Secret Witness, and if it is its a fairly poor and hopeless attempt. Will the Prosecution please stop trying to deny every legitimate question asked of the Secret Witness with the argument that answering such question would somehow give away his identity? If the Prosecution was truly so concerned with the identity of the Secret Witness they shouldn’t have allowed Exhibits into evidence that used their mysterious name.

The Prosecution’s argument is no longer aimed at protecting the identity of the Secret Witness and has now shifted into outright obstructing the Defense.
 
Blue Wolf II:
This is not an attempt to find out the identity of the Secret Witness, and if it is its a fairly poor and hopeless attempt.
Click to expand...
The prosecution is glad that the defence finally recognizes it's effort in this trial however the rules of this Trial have already been established and would like the defence to recognize the rulings of this Court or be held in contempt.
 
Please Mr. Sniffles, do list the rules as outline by the Court which denies the right, afforded to the Defense by the Constitution, to ask simple and case related questions.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Please Mr. Sniffles, do list the rules as outline by the Court which denies the right, afforded to the Defense by the Constitution, to ask simple and case related questions.
Click to expand...
The Court has ruled that the identity of this witness shall not be disclosed, you are asking for specifics that would reveal the identity of this witness. Plain and simple.
 
How would the Defense even know what questions would or would not reveal the UltraSecret Witnesses' identity? We were not even provided with the simplest of details regarding the Witness so its fairly impossible for us to determine which question would or would not give away the Veiled Witnesses’ true nature.

Perhaps the Prosecution can prepare a list of questions for the Defense that we, the Defense, can ask and then seal the deal on making this Court into a complete and utter sham.
 
Revealing any position the witness may or may not hold in government, (not that big of a government personnel wise too) is personal question with no other intention but to reveal the identity of this witness. A witness who the Court has ruled, should have his/her identity protected.

I await the Court's ruling to my objection.
 
The intent of the question is to determine if the witness was acting on orders with full government support or simply freelancing on their own without any government backing.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The intent of the question is to determine if the witness was acting on orders with full government support or simply freelancing on their own without any government backing.
Click to expand...
Which the Court has determined to its own satisfaction.

Now will the defence respect the Court's ruling?
 
Will the Prosecution respect the guidelines of the Court and wait for the Judge to rule instead of assuming the role of the Judge and telling the Defense what to do?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Will the Prosecution respect the guidelines of the Court and wait for the Judge to rule instead of assuming the role of the Judge and telling the Defense what to do?
Click to expand...
The prosecution has a right to argue for its own objection.

The defence does not have a right to chip away against a Court ruling.

I await the presiding judge's response.
 
Mystery Witness, please describe for the Court the relationship you have with Mr.Rhindon Blade.
Click to expand...
I would say that my relationship with Mr. Blade could be described as a friendly one. I have talked with him on occasion both about Nationstates information, as is evident by Exhibit C...and about real-life things that have no effect on Nationstates at all...however, he is not, by far, the person I talk to most about Nationstates, and our conversations are mostly a random PM here and there. It was a good experience working with him to bring you to justice, Evil Wolf, and I am glad that it has allowed me to get to know Mr. Blade more.
Click to expand...
 
Haor Chall:
Mystery Witness, please describe for the Court the relationship you have with Mr.Rhindon Blade.
Click to expand...
I would say that my relationship with Mr. Blade could be described as a friendly one. I have talked with him on occasion both about Nationstates information, as is evident by Exhibit C...and about real-life things that have no effect on Nationstates at all...however, he is not, by far, the person I talk to most about Nationstates, and our conversations are mostly a random PM here and there. It was a good experience working with him to bring you to justice, Evil Wolf, and I am glad that it has allowed me to get to know Mr. Blade more.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Will my previous objection be ruled on? Yes or no?
 
Your objection was overruled. The question of Ministry involvement is relevant to the case and does not undermine the witnesses protection.
 
Mysterious Witness:
I would say that my relationship with Mr. Blade could be described as a friendly one. I have talked with him on occasion both about Nationstates information, as is evident by Exhibit C...and about real-life things that have no effect on Nationstates at all...however, he is not, by far, the person I talk to most about Nationstates, and our conversations are mostly a random PM here and there. It was a good experience working with him to bring you to justice, Evil Wolf, and I am glad that it has allowed me to get to know Mr. Blade more.
Click to expand...


Mysterious Witness, please keep your personal commentary about the trial to yourself, it is neither relevant to the question at hand nor welcome in this Court.

Mysterious Witness, please describe your relationship with the Defendant and how you came to meet him.
 
No, its meant to establish how the Witness even knows the Defendant. If the Witness can't establish that he had actual relations with the Defendant then how can the Court honestly believe a word that the Witness says? For all anyone knows the Witness could have just made up the conversation and then passed it on to Mr. Blade in an attempt to appeal to him as a friend.

Also, Defense requests that the Prosecution please make their objections in a more timely manner next time.
 
Blue Wolf II:
No, its meant to establish how the Witness even knows the Defendant. If the Witness can't establish that he had actual relations with the Defendant then how can the Court honestly believe a word that the Witness says? For all anyone knows the Witness could have just made up the conversation and then passed it on to Mr. Blade in an attempt to appeal to him as a friend.

Also, Defense requests that the Prosecution please make their objections in a more timely manner next time.
Click to expand...
The witness reveals the nature of the relationship in exhibit C, in how readily the accused boasts of his exploits. Any further questions on the nature of the relationship between the witness and the accused, and also the defence, is a pathetic game of 20 questions. And serves only to defy the Court ruling on the anonymity of this witness.

I await the Court's ruling.
 
Can I suggest, no actually, I'm telling both of you to stop with the unnecessary comments. When someone has posted an objection or anything else there is no need for the continued back and forth posting after it. When someone requests a ruling, I will rule on it. I do not need or want pages of additional and superfluous bickering to have to wade through.

When a ruling has been asking for, unless you have anything relevant to say, just wait for me to respond.
 
Sustained.

Blue Wolf, the witness is under the protection of the Court. You can ask them to confirm to the Court that they have met with the defendant but further information that exposes the witness will not be allowed.

I would point out that you asked the witness a question before and did not expound on it's relevance to your defence. Please try and keep your questioning relevant to the purposes of the trial.
 
Judge Haor Chall, for clarification, how is the Defense to establish that the Mystery Witness is actually telling the truth? Are we to rely completely on his word alone with no definitive proof that what he says is true?

The Defense asked for the full conversation in Prosecution’s Exhibit C in order to establish that it had not been edited in anyway or was hiding a key piece of evidence that would exonerate the Defendant but were denied on grounds of protecting the witness' identity.

We asked for the original transcript which that Secret Witness claims was between himself and the Defendant for the same reasons, but were denied on the grounds of protecting the witness' identity.

We asked how the Witness knew the Defendants to establish that the Witness was, indeed, telling the truth and not lying before the Court, but again we were denied on the ground of protecting the witness' identity.

Judge Chall, at this point in time it seems that the Protection of the Witness' identity is far more important that the ability of the Defendant to defend himself in Court.

Judge Chall, are their any questions we can ask the Secret Witness that they can actually answer with information that a reasonable person couldn't have already inferred from the Prosecutions Exhibit C? Or are we just limited to asking mundane and pointless questions which have no merit nor can ever possible help to clear the Defendants name for the duration of this Witness’ stand?

The Defense awaits the Courts response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top