TNP v Teflon JAL

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
Will Teflon JAL survive again. Or will he finally....I mean FINALLY...be found guilty of the crimes for which he is charged?
 
A guilty verdict would be unthinkable. I'm sorry but at some point we need to show respect for our history and traditions. The court is an honored body and tradition of TNP, and if you want to find JAL guilty then create a separate body. But I will not support such a disrespectful insult to TNP history.
 
:D

I am excited to see what happens. I wonder who is defense and who is prosecution? I haven't looked yet...

Edit: "Gracious Maximums", hmmm did I miss when this new nation joined? Never heard of them. And JAL is defending himself. He ought to know well enough by now how to go about getting off the hook.
 
There are a heap of good lawyers here. If I was on trial, I admit I wouldn't know who to choose. Perhaps I'd put together a legal team of five or so lawyers. :)
 
mcmasterdonia:
There are a heap of good lawyers here. If I was on trial, I admit I wouldn't know who to choose. Perhaps I'd put together a legal team of five or so lawyers. :)
Click to expand...
I doubt you'd ever be trialed :)
 
No. I have had my moment defending JAL. Why should I have all the fun?
I think every TNPer should have the experience of defencing JAl at least once. And given the number of times he is put on trial, it looks like eventually everyone will get a turn.
 
Realistically, if he cannot be convicted this time (OF SOMETHING), there is something seriously wrong with the legal system.

That said, we already knew that. I look forward to seeing what happens next.
 
I do so love these peanut gallery threads. They, however, do not have any effect on how the Court will treat the matter.

That is not to say that the Court is not entertained and amused by it all.

Carry on.
 
If I were JAL I would use the "I didn't do it" defence (defense). Consider: The only proof there is is his own admission, and JAL has a long history of saying just about anything for the lutz.

Deny everything. Put the onus on the Prosecution to prove his guilt. Play the "I am being persecuted" card.
 
Hire Mall as a consultant the "everyone lies on the internet defense" coupled with anyone can make a puppet account and say they're "known user" defense. Seemed to get H&H off.
 
Kiwi:
Realistically, if he cannot be convicted this time (OF SOMETHING), there is something seriously wrong with the legal system.
Click to expand...
If I had a nickel for every time someone said that....
 
"A legal team of Douria, Mall, Cormac, and myself"

Comment from peanut gallery: Douria = Treize an ASSISTANT AG/PROSECUTER IN TNP. Conflict of intrests?

Chief Justice Roman, comments to the peanut gallery about accepting this?
 
As long as T_D isn't prosecuting the case as well, I don't see any conflict of interest. GM is the prosecutor, so it all looks fine to me.
 
TD does have access to the private areas of the AG's office, so hopefully that situation is remedied for this case.

By remedied, I am not proposing a solution just saying there need be one.
 
A four person legal team is going to get very cluster-fucky - which is probably the aim.

A decent opening tactic to start with. I just hope we can stick with Roman's ambitious timetable.
 
punk d:
TD does have access to the private areas of the AG's office, so hopefully that situation is remedied for this case.

By remedied, I am not proposing a solution just saying there need be one.
Click to expand...
Treize_Dreizehn is dismissed as Assistant AG.

This is due to potential conflict of interest with the defense.

Thank you for your service, Treize.
Click to expand...

Well...that was one way to solve the issue.
 
Considering that I've been somewhat clear as to my reticence to get involved in the thread where most of this is being discussed... I actually find that to be something of an over-reaction. But given that Chas and I haven't been able to connect on IRC over the last few days(despite my and him trying), I also can understand.

Also given that I'm not prosecuting this case and have stayed out of the discussions for it outside of literally saying I'd be on Durks side, I don't really see the conflict of interest. Though keeping me out of that forum for the interim seems reasonable.
 
"A legal team of Douria, Mall, Cormac, and myself"

My this is going to be entertaining. you have to hand it to JAL, he's a clever s.o.b.
 
I think it is more adding to the atmosphere of confusion and obfuscation. the more variables are involved, the greater the scope for chaos.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
"A legal team of Douria, Mall, Cormac, and myself"

Comment from peanut gallery: Douria = Treize an ASSISTANT AG/PROSECUTER IN TNP. Conflict of intrests?

Chief Justice Roman, comments to the peanut gallery about accepting this?
Click to expand...
As COE notes, as long as Douria isn't acting as part of the prosecution also, then JAL can choose anyone he wants to defend him. JAL could ask the Easter Bunny to defend him as long as the Easter Bunny isn't also prosecuting him.
 
I have a new possible line of defence (defense), based on the Douria ruling:

"Whether JAL did it or not, it was all a while ago and he has been a good boy since, so let's forget it ever happened, eh? What do you say?"

This will be gladly accepted by the Three Stooges on the bench.
 
Or ... inspired by GM's comment on the Douria ruling:

"Look, if you find him guilty you will have to be nasty to him, and nobody wants that. Plus it will cause a lot of paperwork. Let's just pretend nothing illegal happened. What do you say? Eh?"

The Douria ruling is opening up new lines of defence (defense) all the time, isn't it.

Of course, JAL is not as liked as Douria, so none of these defences (defenses) will work in his case. Sorry.
 
Interesting opening salvo in the defence (defense). Whatever else, JAL has made thousands of posts, greatly enriched the culture of the forum and, before he went seriously doodle-alley, was active in defending this region in our early wars.

Surely the court cannot be stupid enough or brazenly biased enough to base a decision on the assertion that Douria has made a positive contribution to the region then, in the next breath, deny such an assertion about JAL?

But I bet they do. Objectivity is not this bench's strong suit.

Watch this space.
 
There is a distinction between 'is making' and 'has made'.
 
flemingovia:
But I bet they do.
Click to expand...
Told you so.

It did not take the justices long to deliberate over it, either.

One of the fundamentals of justice is that it should be impartial. Given the blatant discrepancy between the treatment given to douria and jal, I would suggest that jal's legal team appeal for redress to the delegate (bill of rights 2) because jal's rights have been broken in this regard:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer
Click to expand...

Oh, and any kangaroo court should be put on hold while this takes place.
 
Nierr:
There is a distinction between 'is making' and 'has made'.
Click to expand...
mmh. I would argue that in his own way he still does. He certainly adds to the diversity and vibrancy of the place.

I would not like to see TNP without JAL. I cannot say the same for Douria, yet HE is the one for whom the laws are bent because of his contribution to the region.
 
To each his own then.

Prediction: Each of JAL's legal team will ask for charges to be dismissed due to lack of evidence. Each will be denied.
 
I think it is a matter of pride. this bench wants to be the one to give JAL a hangin' - then they can brag about how they achieved something no previous court was capable of.

It isn't justice, but it IS entertaining.

Carry on.
 
We'll see. I think my motion was pretty clear. So we'll know if they decline it out of hand if the court is hostile to my client or not. Personally I think this case is VERY weak. I'm sorta surprised they even accepted the indictment. Hell the evidence isn't even labeled right. Two of the pieces have their labels reversed.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
We'll see. I think my motion was pretty clear. So we'll know if they decline it out of hand if the court is hostile to my client or not. Personally I think this case is VERY weak. I'm sorta surprised they even accepted the indictment. Hell the evidence isn't even labeled right. Two of the pieces have their labels reversed.
Click to expand...
True, two of the links are labelled incorrectly in the indictment. How horrible. *rollseyes*

But you are correct, the case is weak. That tends to happen when evidence is removed. Was that done at your direction?
 
Gracius Maximus:
Treize_Dreizehn:
We'll see. I think my motion was pretty clear. So we'll know if they decline it out of hand if the court is hostile to my client or not. Personally I think this case is VERY weak. I'm sorta surprised they even accepted the indictment. Hell the evidence isn't even labeled right. Two of the pieces have their labels reversed.
Click to expand...
True, two of the links are labelled incorrectly in the indictment. How horrible. *rollseyes*

But you are correct, the case is weak. That tends to happen when evidence is removed. Was that done at your direction?
Click to expand...
As Douria's legal counsel I would like you to clarify whether or not you are accusing my client of some sort of impropriety.
 
flemingovia:
Surely the court cannot be stupid enough or brazenly biased enough to base a decision on the assertion that Douria has made a positive contribution to the region then, in the next breath, deny such an assertion about JAL?

But I bet they do. Objectivity is not this bench's strong suit.

Watch this space.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
flemingovia:
But I bet they do.
Click to expand...
Told you so.

It did not take the justices long to deliberate over it, either.

One of the fundamentals of justice is that it should be impartial. Given the blatant discrepancy between the treatment given to douria and jal, I would suggest that jal's legal team appeal for redress to the delegate (bill of rights 2) because jal's rights have been broken in this regard:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer
Click to expand...

Oh, and any kangaroo court should be put on hold while this takes place.
Click to expand...

With respect, Sir Flemingovia, I think you should reconsider the comments you have made here in an attempt to discredit the court.

Douria has not been indicted for a crime in this region. His positive contributions were being weighed in relation to legalities of his admission to the RA.

JAL has been indicted for a number of crimes. He has been charged because the actions of which he has been accused are offences the RA has voted to criminalize via the Criminal Code and Penal Code. The positive contributions of JAL may be relevant to the court at some stage, but they pale in insignificance to the matter at hand, which is the question of whether he commited those crimes of which he has been accused, which it is their role to ascertain.
 
Is chasmanthe part of the prosecution team on this case? If so, he should have been listed in the opening post.

If he is not part of the prosecution's team, then it is quite improper for him to have sought to influence the justices by posting in the official trial thread, and I trust his comments will be split out from the official proceedings.

As for my comments discrediting the court... I do not think the justices need any help from me in that regard. "

Oh, and by the way, the RA also voted on admission procedures, yet the court had no problem with, de facto, setting these aside. Nor did they have a problem with, again de facto, overruling the express wish of the Regional Assembly. So when you cite the sovereign will of the RA in this regard, you are on very thin ice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top