The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya

Your honour, in the interests of securing my client the fair trial guaranteed him by the Bill of Rights, I must protest at the way the depositions of Pierconium and Lord Ravenclaw has been allowed to take place.

There are two reasons for my objection.
The first is that the principal that testimony ought to be given before counsel of each party has been broken. Defence has had no chance to examine the witnesses, or ask questions or … well, anything really. The deposition is presented by PM to the justice only, and posted on the thread as a fair accompli.

Court rules state:
8. When conducting a deposition, counsel for each party must be present along with the witness being questioned.
9, Opposing counsel will have the opportunity to object to questions posed to the witness
I have had no such opportunity.
In addition this extraordinary manner of deposition is contrary to court rules:
7. Witness depositions may be taken over instant messenger or in a forum thread separate from the trial thread. A deposition may only be conducted in a forum thread if a deposition over instant messenger is not feasible.
10. At the completion of a deposition, each party must submit a complete copy to the Moderating Justice in private for review. The Justice will review all objections and publish an official record version of the deposition in the trial thread, with appropriate edits in accordance with any sustained objections.
11. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of Evidence Submission. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.
Now, your honour is allowed to deviate from these rules:
13. Depositions which deviate from the above procedures may be admitted at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.
“Deviation” seems to assume that minor variations are considered allowable. This method of deposition has completely torn up the rule book and made it up on the fly. Something your honour said you did not wish to do.

In addition, we note that Pierconium’s submission does not contain the oath required by court rules:
5.Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.
6All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." (bolding mine)
Your honour for this reason we object to the testimony and ask that it be struck.

Now I understand your desire to make sure the prosecutor has something to base their case on. But court rules should not be flouted or evaded so readily.

My other objection is also to afford my client a fair trial. Both Pierconium and Lord Ravenclaw were called as defence witnesses. Pierconium, to his credit, tried to schedule deposition but we were all thwarted by Guy’s disappearance. So be it.

But Lord Ravenclaw was contacted at your honour suggested by PM to give his availability on a doodle poll. This took place on 18th October. He ignored totally our approach.
Your honour, the simple principle of a fair trial demands that a witness called by both sides in a trial should not be allowed to appear for the prosecution but ignore the defence with no opportunity for examination or cross examination.
Your honour, we do not seek preferential treatment – just a level playing field. If the witness will not appear for the defence, he should not appear for the prosecution. Fair’s fair. Therfore we, once again, object.


We do NOT want an extension, on principle. Counsels of both parties should abide by the timetable set by the court, with REASONABLE flexibility. If they cannot, they should run with what they have managed in the time allowed AS THE DEFENCE WILL BE DOING.
 
Those were not depositions. Witness statements were given, as described in the Court rules:

5. Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.
...
11. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of Evidence Submission. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.
12. If the opposing party wishes to cross-examine a witness providing a statement, a deposition must be scheduled.
Click to expand...

If you wish to depose Pierconium or Lord Ravenclaw, I would be happy to give an extension to the evidence submission period.
 
dangers of posting at 3am. I see now why you allowed what you did. Please disregard the above long post in favour of this one:

Your honour, in the interests of securing my client the fair trial guaranteed him by the Bill of Rights, I must protest at the way the depositions of Pierconium and Lord Ravenclaw has been allowed to take place.

There are two reasons for my objection.
The first is that we note that Pierconium’s submission does not contain the oath required by court rules:

5.Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.

6All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." (bolding mine)

Your honour for this reason we object to the testimony and ask that it be struck.

Now I understand your desire to make sure the prosecutor has something to base their case on. But court rules should not be flouted or evaded so readily.

My other objection is also to afford my client a fair trial. Both Pierconium and Lord Ravenclaw were called as defence witnesses. Pierconium, to his credit, tried to schedule deposition but we were all thwarted by Guy’s disappearance. So be it.

But Lord Ravenclaw was contacted at your honour suggested by PM to give his availability on a doodle poll. This took place on 18th October. He ignored totally our approach.
Your honour, the simple principle of a fair trial demands that a witness called by both sides in a trial should not be allowed to appear for the prosecution but ignore the defence with no opportunity for examination or cross examination.
Your honour, we do not seek preferential treatment – just a level playing field. If the witness will not appear for the defence, he should not appear for the prosecution. Fair’s fair. Therfore we, once again, object.


We do NOT want an extension, on principle. Counsels of both parties should abide by the timetable set by the court, with REASONABLE flexibility. If they cannot, they should run with what they have managed in the time allowed AS THE DEFENCE WILL BE DOING.
 
Is it even worth pointing out that Lord Ravenclaw's testimony establishes the validity of evidence that was requested by the defense?

If flemingovia would rather not be able to present or make arguments derived from a piece of evidence that he is the one who asked for, I mean, that's his call. It seems like the more sensible approach would have been not to request it, though, and since he did not do that, his protest here seems somewhat... farcical.
 
Additionally, I will protest that I am asking for nothing but reasonable flexibility on timetable. I am not asking for an extension longer than 2 days, and that only because I am late coming into this trial due to the unexpected absence of my deputy, and because I was not included in prior communications regarding the scheduling of depositions by either party so had no prior opportunity to ensure testimony was able to take place, and because there are very clear issues that are running straight up against the deadline that it seems to me impinge on the fairness and adequacy of this trial if they are not resolved.

I have no intention of asking for a further extension of evidence submission beyond the 24th; I agree that such a request would be unreasonable. However, I think it is obvious that I am doing my best to keep to the court's established timetable, and I am asking only for reasonable consideration of the fact that I did not expect this to be dropped into my lap at the last minute and have had certain prior commitments (like a full workday) that could not and cannot be gotten out of or delayed.
 
Your honour, an extension to the 24th would take me right into the middle of my holiday. If this is granted I will probably need to withdraw from the case. Which I am sure would suit the prosecution, but would not be particularly fair on my client, particularly since when I was appointed it was with the knowledge that the trial would be over before i went away.
 
I was going to suggest that in the argument phase. Four reasons:

1. Holiday
2. It would give Asta time to concentrate on Zombies. You know she wants to!
3. It would give the court time to review the outstanding objections etc.
4. IT would give my client time to get back to me concerning the matter you, the Attorney general and I discussed on Discord.

By the way, I would be happy with a recess - shut down for a period - not an extension.
 
Eluvatar:
Pierconium's witness statement is struck as it lacked the oath.
Click to expand...
I object to the striking of the witness statement.

Pierconium took his witness oath in the deposition thread at 3:14 PM, US Eastern.

Recognizing that evidence submission was nearing an end, he then sent a PM containing his statement at 3:42 PM, US Eastern.

The requirement that he take his oath was met at the time the statement was made.
 
Yes.

I would also like to submit the following piece of new evidence, as authenticated by Aleisyr:
Yb8KIwl.png

For the record, I will swear that I had no prior knowledge of these additional telegrams, nor did my deputy, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any party related to bringing these charges to trial, including the former Attorney General nor the Security Council. This is the first I am hearing of their existence. I will not object if the defense requests another chance to question Aleisyr, given the last-minute nature of their presentation.
 
My argument to the full court is that the Adopted Court Rules state:
5. Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.
6. All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
7. Witness depositions may be taken over instant messenger or in a forum thread separate from the trial thread. A deposition may only be conducted in a forum thread if a deposition over instant messenger is not feasible.
...
11. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of Evidence Submission. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.
Click to expand...
Bolding is mine.

At no point do the rules state that the witness must swear more than one oath, or that they must swear an oath for every different type of testimony they present. Rather, the rules state explicitly that the witness must swear their oath before they present any testimony at all, regardless of what kind of testimony they present, and then goes on to elaborate the forms that their testimony can take and any additional requirements specific to each kind.

As soon as Pierconium swore his oath, all his testimony was bound under that oath. Because he did so before sending his statement to the moderating justice, the requirements of evidence submission were met and his statement should stand. Similarly, if an oath were first sworn in a PM making a witness statement, no additional oath would be required during a deposition under the law.
 
Timetable, as revised:
Eluvatar:
Timetable
  1. Plea Submission - 2016-10-05 - 2016-10-06
  2. Evidence Submission - 2016-10-06 - 2016-10-22
  3. Recess - 2016-10-23 - 2016-11-02
  4. Evidence Submission - 2016-11-03
  5. Argumentation - 2016-11-04 - 2016-11-06
  6. Deliberation - 2016-11-06 - 2016-11-10
Click to expand...
 
I have received a revised form of Pierconium's witness statement which has an oath or affirmation.

I am not posting it at this time as Court is in recess.

I have closed the deposition topics to reflect that as well.
 
Now that the recess is over, I would like to announce that a plea agreement has been reached in this case.

The defense has agreed to plead guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.

The prosecution has agreed to drop all other charges.

I am not sure if the court intends to require the defendant themself to post in here to confirm their plea, or if confirmation by the defending attorney is sufficient.
 
My client has instructed me to take a deal. However, I will poke him to post in this thread

Can I ask whether there will be any pre-sentencing submissions?
 
Also, your honour, i think it is only right that the defence should respond after the prosecution has made its recommendation. Might I ask whether the Attorney General intends to address the court?
 
I will allow up to two days for recommendations. Notwithstanding any deadline, if the prosecution submits a recommendation, the defense will have 24 hours to respond.
 
Apologies for my absence; as I'm sure you can imagine, events this week rather took my attention away from this trial. The sentencing recommendation from my office is as follows:
  • Suspension of voting rights for three months; no loss of office as the defendant does not currently hold any office in TNP;
  • Delayed enforcement of this sentence, due to the defendant not currently being a citizen or having voting rights, such that the suspension of voting rights begins when the defendant next becomes a citizen - or next attains voting privileges, if the franchise is ever extended to non-citizens.

I am unsure if a more extensive defense of my recommendations is required or desired by the court, but I am willing to provide one if asked.

Eluedit: fixed list tag on request
 
Your honour, in entering this recommendation to the court we are conscious that my client has entered a guilty plea on the understanding, offered by the prosecution and confirmed by the justices, that the sentence to be imposed by the court involves a loss of potential voting rights for a finite period.

The defence would recommend that the period is kept short, and that enforcement of this suspension is not delayed, as the Attorney General has recommended.

Your honour, New Kenya is an impressionable nation who did a foolish thing. He was foolish to suppose that he could win an election in TNP, and doubly foolish to seek to involve Pierconium in his fantasies.

However, he is keen to remain part of TNP – when he appointed me his counsel it was in the hope that this would be possible – and keen to be a productive member of our society. In short, he is precisely what our regional government is seeking at the moment to encourage. It would be a shame if an overly harsh sentence were to discourage his rehabilitation.

Furthermore, delaying the enforcement indefinitely means that whenever New Kenya applies for citizenship, be it in a few months or fifty years, he will be unable to vote for three months because of something he did as a foolish youngling. In effect, this discourages him from ever being rehabilitated or applying for citizenship ever again. This flies in the face of our regional policy of encouraging participation and involvement.

The defence recommends that an appropriate punishment for the crime would be a token suspension of voting privilege for one month, with no delayed enforcement. This sends out the message that he is guilty, while also emphasising the trivial nature of his offence, which in the opinion of the defence should not have been brought to court in the first place.



(if you want to stop reading here, that is fine. But I would like to outline why the specific offence New Kenya was accused of is trivial).



Your Honour, New Kenya never offered a serious threat to our region. It would be harsh indeed to punish him severely when far more damaging threats to our region have gone uncharged or unpunished. I refer to the likes of Upper Kirby or Galapagos Islands. The Security Council certainly never considered him a serious threat to the region; the tone of the discussions showed that as does the fact that even during the trial most of the SC, including the delegate and Vice-Delegate continued to endorse New Kenya. The Army, the Executive Government and the Security Council never considered him a threat, and we believe the sentence should reflect this.

The defence also contends that the details of the charge that New Kenya has pleaded guilty to should warrant a very low sentence. Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct is defined in our legal code as

planning, attempting, or helping to commit … the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...

The "oath" specifically referenced by the prosecution in the indictment is that New Kenya took on joining the NPA in January 2016:

I, _________ request to join The North Pacific Army. I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad. I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military. I pledge to respect the chain of command and my fellow officers at all times. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
Click to expand...

Let us examine this oath in detail, and see what part of the oath my client is guilty of conspiring to break?

I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad.
Click to expand...

Your honour, to this New Kenya is clearly guilty. He did not serve our regional security or military interests. The guilty plea reflects this.

However, in sentencing I would urge you not only to reflect what New Kenya did, but what he did not do. In his foolishness, he offered what he could not deliver; but in doing that he divulged no regional or military secrets. He did not directly jeopardise the delegacy or our constitution. It is doubtful that he could have done so, even had Pierconium decided to aid him.

I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military.
Click to expand...

No actual evidence was offered that New Kenya broke any military rules of TNP. The only law he was ultimately charged with breaking is that of conspiracy.

. I pledge to respect the chain of command and my fellow officers at all times.
Click to expand...

NK did not break the chain of command of the NPA in his actions. He neither followed nor broke a direct order.

. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
Click to expand...

Your honour, here the defence is willing to concede New Kenya’s guilt and the appropriateness of sentencing him. New Kenya’s approach to Pierconium was certainly not loyal to the Constitutional Government.

But if the court is willing to see lack of "loyalty" as the basis for a severity of punishment then there are thousands of instances that might find themselves in court. Because many of us have sounded off about the Constitutional government, and could be considered “disloyal”. I myself was barred access to the NPA for a while because of fears that I was not loyal enough. It did not land me in court … but after this trial, it could do.

Your honour, if we start to interpret "gross misconduct" as a matter of "Loyalty", and if we further interpret "loyalty" as "talking to or about people" then the protections to free speech accorded us by the bill of rights are severely strained.

Your honour, the contention of the defence is that the only part of his NPA oath that New Kenya can be considered to have broken is that he was not loyal to TNP and did not serve our region’s security. The danger to our region was minimal and the "threat" laughable. We would maintain that in order to preserve the Bill of Rights declaration that punishment should be proportionate to the crime, a lenient or token punishment should be handed down.
 
Can I ask whether some of the open objections will still be considered by the court (in particular the actions of the Attorney General redacting evidence before it was released to the defence)?

If it is not to be considered and ruled upon I will need to submit a request for review. this sort of thing ought not to be allowed in a trial in TNP.
 
court_seal.png


Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific​
In the case of The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya

Order drafted by Eluvatar, joined by Altmoras and Kialga​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses 7 and 8 of the North Pacific Sentencing Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):

7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

SillyString:
Apologies for my absence; as I'm sure you can imagine, events this week rather took my attention away from this trial. The sentencing recommendation from my office is as follows:
  • Suspension of voting rights for three months; no loss of office as the defendant does not currently hold any office in TNP;
  • Delayed enforcement of this sentence, due to the defendant not currently being a citizen or having voting rights, such that the suspension of voting rights begins when the defendant next becomes a citizen - or next attains voting privileges, if the franchise is ever extended to non-citizens.

I am unsure if a more extensive defense of my recommendations is required or desired by the court, but I am willing to provide one if asked.

Eluedit: fixed list tag on request
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

flemingovia:
Your honour, in entering this recommendation to the court we are conscious that my client has entered a guilty plea on the understanding, offered by the prosecution and confirmed by the justices, that the sentence to be imposed by the court involves a loss of potential voting rights for a finite period.

The defence would recommend that the period is kept short, and that enforcement of this suspension is not delayed, as the Attorney General has recommended.

Your honour, New Kenya is an impressionable nation who did a foolish thing. He was foolish to suppose that he could win an election in TNP, and doubly foolish to seek to involve Pierconium in his fantasies.

However, he is keen to remain part of TNP – when he appointed me his counsel it was in the hope that this would be possible – and keen to be a productive member of our society. In short, he is precisely what our regional government is seeking at the moment to encourage. It would be a shame if an overly harsh sentence were to discourage his rehabilitation.

Furthermore, delaying the enforcement indefinitely means that whenever New Kenya applies for citizenship, be it in a few months or fifty years, he will be unable to vote for three months because of something he did as a foolish youngling. In effect, this discourages him from ever being rehabilitated or applying for citizenship ever again. This flies in the face of our regional policy of encouraging participation and involvement.

The defence recommends that an appropriate punishment for the crime would be a token suspension of voting privilege for one month, with no delayed enforcement. This sends out the message that he is guilty, while also emphasising the trivial nature of his offence, which in the opinion of the defence should not have been brought to court in the first place.



(if you want to stop reading here, that is fine. But I would like to outline why the specific offence New Kenya was accused of is trivial).



Your Honour, New Kenya never offered a serious threat to our region. It would be harsh indeed to punish him severely when far more damaging threats to our region have gone uncharged or unpunished. I refer to the likes of Upper Kirby or Galapagos Islands. The Security Council certainly never considered him a serious threat to the region; the tone of the discussions showed that as does the fact that even during the trial most of the SC, including the delegate and Vice-Delegate continued to endorse New Kenya. The Army, the Executive Government and the Security Council never considered him a threat, and we believe the sentence should reflect this.

The defence also contends that the details of the charge that New Kenya has pleaded guilty to should warrant a very low sentence. Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct is defined in our legal code as

planning, attempting, or helping to commit … the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...

The "oath" specifically referenced by the prosecution in the indictment is that New Kenya took on joining the NPA in January 2016:

I, _________ request to join The North Pacific Army. I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad. I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military. I pledge to respect the chain of command and my fellow officers at all times. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
Click to expand...

Let us examine this oath in detail, and see what part of the oath my client is guilty of conspiring to break?

I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad.
Click to expand...

Your honour, to this New Kenya is clearly guilty. He did not serve our regional security or military interests. The guilty plea reflects this.

However, in sentencing I would urge you not only to reflect what New Kenya did, but what he did not do. In his foolishness, he offered what he could not deliver; but in doing that he divulged no regional or military secrets. He did not directly jeopardise the delegacy or our constitution. It is doubtful that he could have done so, even had Pierconium decided to aid him.

I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military.
Click to expand...

No actual evidence was offered that New Kenya broke any military rules of TNP. The only law he was ultimately charged with breaking is that of conspiracy.

. I pledge to respect the chain of command and my fellow officers at all times.
Click to expand...

NK did not break the chain of command of the NPA in his actions. He neither followed nor broke a direct order.

. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
Click to expand...

Your honour, here the defence is willing to concede New Kenya’s guilt and the appropriateness of sentencing him. New Kenya’s approach to Pierconium was certainly not loyal to the Constitutional Government.

But if the court is willing to see lack of "loyalty" as the basis for a severity of punishment then there are thousands of instances that might find themselves in court. Because many of us have sounded off about the Constitutional government, and could be considered “disloyal”. I myself was barred access to the NPA for a while because of fears that I was not loyal enough. It did not land me in court … but after this trial, it could do.

Your honour, if we start to interpret "gross misconduct" as a matter of "Loyalty", and if we further interpret "loyalty" as "talking to or about people" then the protections to free speech accorded us by the bill of rights are severely strained.

Your honour, the contention of the defence is that the only part of his NPA oath that New Kenya can be considered to have broken is that he was not loyal to TNP and did not serve our region’s security. The danger to our region was minimal and the "threat" laughable. We would maintain that in order to preserve the Bill of Rights declaration that punishment should be proportionate to the crime, a lenient or token punishment should be handed down.

Click to expand...


The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 2, Clauses 7 and 8, The Court sees fit that The Swedish Republic of New Kenya will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct with suspension of voting rights in a limited period as further defined:

If they apply for citizenship in the next 10 months, they will have their voting rights suspended for 2 months. Otherwise, if they join within the next year, they will have their voting rights suspended until this day next year. Otherwise, they will face no suspension of voting rights.

The Speaker of the RA will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration and The North Pacific Election Commission.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya.
 
Thank you, your honour. Unless specifically instructed by my client the defence will not be issuing an appeal against this sentence.

Might i request an answer to my other post above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top