TNP v Teflon JAL

I think Roman is going to allow a "motion to dismiss" after such motions are allowable if I'm reading this correctly

n the mean time, the Prosecution and the Defense should otherwise gather and exchange information and deposition as is the normal procedure during Discovery. Then, after all the admissible evidence from both sides is in, and as the Trial Phase begins, we will all sit down and have a very civil discussion as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence. And then and only then will the Court entertain motions by the Defense to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence or go to trial based upon the existing admissible evidence.

So, Mr. Mall, I am doing you a very big favor here by allowing motions to dismiss at the beginning of the trial phase and based upon the evidence obtained (and which is admissible) or not as the case must be. Believe me when I say that if I determine that the admissible evidence and testimony is insufficient I will have no problem with dismissing the case if there is insufficient evidence on any or all of the charges. But we first must see what the evidence does and does not contain.
Click to expand...

Bold mine. It seems that if Roman is waiting until all the evidence is in, that would be after Discovery. The rules clearly state motions to dismiss cannot be submitted at that time. If Roman is making that statement, that seems to be in direct opposition to the rules if I'm reading his statement correctly. It admittedly, veered left and right a few times so I may not have it right. If my read is correct, I suppose the CJ is creating this rule "a presiding justice may suspend any court rule should he/she desire......................[inser significantly long pregnant pause].....................................................................in the interests of justice."

NOTE: In my opinion, we've had too many comments from the parties in this case plus the presiding justice. This is a public gallery and while it is entertaining to have the judge and attorneys post here, I don't think it's wise for the case. My comments are not seeking clarification by the court but from my fellow RA members not associated with the case.
 
punk d:
NOTE: In my opinion, we've had too many comments from the parties in this case plus the presiding justice. This is a public gallery and while it is entertaining to have the judge and attorneys post here, I don't think it's wise for the case. My comments are not seeking clarification by the court but from my fellow RA members not associated with the case.
Click to expand...

Everything that the Defense has done, both in this thread and elsewhere, has been in the best interest of our Client. Posts by the Prosecution or Court Justices are another matter.
 
Mall:
For what it's worth I don't think we accused you of bias, rather we pointed to your statement as evidence that the rest of the Court is biased *shrugs*

My client is innocent of the charges placed before him, I have no doubt that the Court will either determine that for itself or ultimately dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
I know the comment in question of which you speak.

Let me explain it again - I tend to be a bit more tolerant of certain things than any other justices present or past. I did not intend the statement to imply, in any was, shape or form, bias on anyone's part. I apologise if there was any misunderstanding about that.

I was merely stating the fact that I tend to be more tolerant that most people most of the time when it comes to applying rules, which I tend to also consider the spirit of the rules/laws when applying rules/laws.

If I personally have any bias, it is in that I always presume that a defendant is innocent until proved otherwise and the latter decision only occurs after the facts and only the facts have been carefully weighed in light of the Law. And that is the way any just decisions are arrived at.

As a rule in deliberations, lack of evidence and evidence insufficient unto the point that it does not support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt are indeed grounds for dismissal.
 
I guess comments from the people in the trial will continue.

As I said, entertaining but probably not the best for the functioning of the trial.

*continues eating popcorn*
 
punk d:
I guess comments from the people in the trial will continue.

As I said, entertaining but probably not the best for the functioning of the trial.

*continues eating popcorn*
Click to expand...
As opposed to a trial that was not functioning at all?

Like I said, this trial will continue until either a lack of evidence or insufficient evidence requires a dismissal after Discovery is concluded or a decision is rendered and, as such, it is continuing. Even Mall has clearly expressed looking forward to the trial phase under the new leniency specific to this trial.

In this manner, the Defence will have the opportunity to make any motion they wish at the proper time when it is appropriate. It nullifies all complaints on all sides as to the conduct of the trial to the point that the next thing I will be accused of by the Defence is being biased towards the Defendant, which, I might add the fact that I am neither biased for nor against.

Like I said, there is a method to the madness and no matter how abusive the Defence gets, it only moves the trial forward with regular punctuations of exciting entertainment. The Defence is obliged to not be disruptive by the very fact that they are being encouraged to be disruptive. Cooperation advances the trial and lack of cooperation advances the trial. Either way, it will be entertaining and we get the trial out of the way.

And a good time will be had by all.
 
Mall:
punk d:
NOTE: In my opinion, we've had too many comments from the parties in this case plus the presiding justice. This is a public gallery and while it is entertaining to have the judge and attorneys post here, I don't think it's wise for the case. My comments are not seeking clarification by the court but from my fellow RA members not associated with the case.
Click to expand...

Everything that the Defense has done, both in this thread and elsewhere, has been in the best interest of our Client. Posts by the Prosecution or Court Justices are another matter.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The Prosecution does not claim to post in the best interests of your client.
 
punk d:
I think Roman is going to allow a "motion to dismiss" after such motions are allowable if I'm reading this correctly

n the mean time, the Prosecution and the Defense should otherwise gather and exchange information and deposition as is the normal procedure during Discovery. Then, after all the admissible evidence from both sides is in, and as the Trial Phase begins, we will all sit down and have a very civil discussion as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence. And then and only then will the Court entertain motions by the Defense to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence or go to trial based upon the existing admissible evidence.

So, Mr. Mall, I am doing you a very big favor here by allowing motions to dismiss at the beginning of the trial phase and based upon the evidence obtained (and which is admissible) or not as the case must be. Believe me when I say that if I determine that the admissible evidence and testimony is insufficient I will have no problem with dismissing the case if there is insufficient evidence on any or all of the charges. But we first must see what the evidence does and does not contain.
Click to expand...

Bold mine. It seems that if Roman is waiting until all the evidence is in, that would be after Discovery. The rules clearly state motions to dismiss cannot be submitted at that time. If Roman is making that statement, that seems to be in direct opposition to the rules if I'm reading his statement correctly. It admittedly, veered left and right a few times so I may not have it right. If my read is correct, I suppose the CJ is creating this rule "a presiding justice may suspend any court rule should he/she desire......................[inser significantly long pregnant pause].....................................................................in the interests of justice."

NOTE: In my opinion, we've had too many comments from the parties in this case plus the presiding justice. This is a public gallery and while it is entertaining to have the judge and attorneys post here, I don't think it's wise for the case. My comments are not seeking clarification by the court but from my fellow RA members not associated with the case.
Click to expand...
Mind you, this is in no way directed at you personally, so no offense is given...(pregnant pause)...

So, I'm just supposed to sit there and be the TNP's official punching bag? Those days are over, pal.

Perhaps we should simply do away the the court and all laws and let anarchy rein and let the mob rule while anyone with a shred of decency and self respect should just sit back and be common toilet for the mob?

I'm not concerned at all about hurting the feeling of over sensitive, self righteous, politically correct types. What I am concerned with is accomplishing the tasks set before me. I try not to bother myself with transient spates of righteous indignation out of political consideration or to score 'jump on the bandwagon just to be popular' points.

I have just as much right to defend myself from insults as anyone else does. I also have as much right to express my opinions as anyone else does. But apparently expressing opinions that do not go along with the opinions of certain people is bad thing, even if those people's opinions are self serving or bull-headed.

I find it deliciously ironic that in this region, those who do the most work and sacrifice for it also receive the most abuse for doing so. :cheese:
 
This is a strange trial. In the past the prosecution, Justices and Defence have mainly discussed things in the courthouse, leaving the public gallery for comments by ... well, the public. In seems slightly indecorous and potentially damaging to the proceedings for parties involved to be bickering so publicly.

Could I suggest you create a private chambers where such things could be done, as happens in RL?

The public gallery ought to be for public comments.
 
flemingovia:
This is a strange trial. In the past the prosecution, Justices and Defence have mainly discussed things in the courthouse, leaving the public gallery for comments by ... well, the public. In seems slightly indecorous and potentially damaging to the proceedings for parties involved to be bickering so publicly.

Could I suggest you create a private chambers where such things could be done, as happens in RL?

The public gallery ought to be for public comments.
Click to expand...
Perhaps all parties are vying for a mistrial.
 
flemingovia:
This is a strange trial. In the past the prosecution, Justices and Defence have mainly discussed things in the courthouse, leaving the public gallery for comments by ... well, the public. In seems slightly indecorous and potentially damaging to the proceedings for parties involved to be bickering so publicly.

Could I suggest you create a private chambers where such things could be done, as happens in RL?

The public gallery ought to be for public comments.
Click to expand...
I fully agree that is is strange for those involved in the case, in particular the justice to be posting here.
 
Flem would know. He has been an expert in conduct unbecoming for years. :p
 
Let me tell everyone something right now.

I have not taste for the abuse I have and am currently receiving which attempts to influence my handling of the case. That goes for all the endless communications made publicly or privately in any mode or manner you can imagine.

I will not bow to public opinion in how I handle things because that is a spineless thing to do. Perhaps everyone here wants spineless judges who simply decide cases based upon what mob rule demands. If that is the case, just let me know and I will decide how to handle this whole affair from there.

As for me, I am willing to accept the ire of the perpetually irate as a badge of honor for at least having a pair and not caving in to public opinions as it concerns justice.

Damned if I wish there was a legal way to issue a gag order on this case.
 
If you have no taste for it then maybe you should stop eating it. Why the heck do you keep coming into this thread? You are a glutton for it.

This forum was specifically created for people to whine, question, and curse the Justices, you are really not supposed to be using it.
 
My issue is more that you keep coming here to discuss things and defend yourself as if you are a politician. There is no popularity contest and this is not politics.
 
TNP v. JAL has been dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that a fair trial cannot be had at this time.

If the AG wishes to bring new charges on different or additional evidence, then so be it.

Any attempts to bring this case up again on the original indictment is illegal despite the carping of certain individuals how have been petitioning the presiding justice in one or another manner.

I will not see someone convicted as a result of public opinion as opposed to the fact and I will not tolerate any attempts to coup the court or the authority of the Chief Justice as a means to personal power.

The authority of the Chief Justice or a Presiding Justice will not be undermined by political consideration or power struggles as long as I am Chief Justice. If you want to have McJustice without regards to real justice, then that is you right.

People get the justice and government they deserve whether they want it or not.
 
Congratulations Roman. You've given into the pressures of the defence counsel and handed them exactly what they want. Once again, Durk will walk free.
 
King Durk the Awesome:
Is Silly String even legally able to override Romanoffia, given that Romanoffia is CJ? Or are we just winging it now in good ol tnp?
Click to expand...
We both know that it is always 'winging it' here in TNP.
 
I am unsure of the legality of a junior judge overruling the Chief Justice.

I also think the precedent cited by SillyString still leaves us in a certain grey area, since the earlier ruling dealt with jeopardy rather than prejudice, which are related but legally subtly different things.

But I am mostly concerned that we have not heard from Ator People throughout this trial, and especially now. the Justices need to be talking together through this, and presenting a consensus, or at least a majority view.
 
flemingovia:
I am unsure of the legality of a junior judge overruling the Chief Justice.

I also think the precedent cited by SillyString still leaves us in a certain grey area, since the earlier ruling dealt with jeopardy rather than prejudice, which are related but legally subtly different things.

But I am mostly concerned that we have not heard from Ator People throughout this trial, and especially now. the Justices need to be talking together through this, and presenting a consensus, or at least a majority view.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he is discussing it with them in private.
 
What's worse to me is that the "precedent" cited to supposedly overrule Roman is in reference to civil trials(and was made during a civil trial). It even says "plaintiff" rather than "prosecutor". I don't think it applies here, and I'm fairly certain Roman is well within his rights and responsibilities to end the trial as he did.
 
I had believed that Gaspo had done the same thing Roman did in TNP v. Unibot and I just checked the records and indeed, he dismissed the case without prejudice.

However, in Roman's dismissal post he actually said this (added color for effect):
4.) Hence, the Trial of TNP v. JAL is dismissed without prejudice due to the fact that this trial cannot be conducted, ever, without public opinion causing the recall of a Justice who does not bend to public opinion and trolling tactics used by defence attorneys that promote public ire with anything the Court Does.

It is the opinion of this Presiding Justice that this case can never be tried due to the abuse that will be levelled at the Court, the fact that the Court lacks anything resembling the Independence required to deliver Justice, that Justice under any circumstance under our current legal system can no longer be obtained for those reasons.

Case dismissed with prejudice.
Click to expand...

I believe Roman will need to clear this up as both are two different things. I believe though that this post illustrates one of the problems Roman had during the trial. Roman really reacted to various things rather than pausing, taking a breath, and thinking about the consequences of his actions. He also spoke about a "mob rule" but really the defense attorneys got under his skin and he didn't take the steps he could have to quiet them down.

What is the most troubling aspect of the dismissal was that Roman stated (paraphrased) that a fair trial can't happen in TNP. I question whether we want our chief justice to hold such an opinion. It's definitely not easy to get a conviction in TNP, but it's not impossible and I like a system that if it is weighted, is weighted towards the defendant. In any even, I believe Roman needs to clear up his ruling.*

*Note: This is once again my opinion. The court has no obligation to do what I or anyone else thinks it should do. I would again suggest the parties and justices not to continue to comment in the public gallery thread.
 
flemingovia:
I also think the precedent cited by SillyString still leaves us in a certain grey area, since the earlier ruling dealt with jeopardy rather than prejudice, which are related but legally subtly different things.
Click to expand...
I can state definitively that when making the prior ruling, its impact on both civil and criminal trials was discussed and agreed to. Although the review dealt with a civil case, the wording of the decision proper (specifically the bit under the heading "decision", and not the description prior to it which dealt with that specific case) was structured to apply universally.

We also acknowledged in the discussion then that this would render prior dismissals with prejudice invalid, and would prevent future ones from being made. This was agreed upon as a good thing.

Can you clarify what you perceive as the difference between prejudice and jeopardy? My layperson's understanding of the terms is as Wikipedia describes,
If jeopardy is attached to a case, a dismissal or a resolution is "with prejudice" and the case can never be litigated again.
Click to expand...

If jeopardy cannot attach, a dismissal cannot be with prejudice.
 
Perhaps there is a difference (as so often) between british and American legal terminology. In the UK "prejudice" refers to the future ability of the Crown Prosecution service to bring back those specific charges. Jeopardy refers more generally to the accused's risk of being put on trial again on a different charge including the earlier accusations. Not a good explanation, but the best I can do at the moment.*

And whatever was "discussed" between justices at the time of earlier rulings, what makes a difference in setting precedent is the actual wording given in a ruling. It has been said often enough in TNP that we have to rule based on the actual words, not by guessing or recollecting the intent of those who spoke them.

* so one can have charges dismissed with prejudice, but still be in jeopardy.
 
It's my understanding that in US parlance, that's not exactly incorrect, but the two are tightly linked. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, one is no longer in jeopardy for that offense.

And yes, we must rely on the wording - which was deliberately made broad in order to apply to both civil and criminal cases. The only reference to "plaintiff" is in the prior section, the description of its application to that case.

The wording is unambiguous. "Jeopardy only attaches to a case when an official and binding verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty has been delivered. Verdicts of the court are only official and binding when the trial has been conducted in a legal and constitutional way, without violating any of the defendant's rights." It makes no reference to plaintiff, or to civil or criminal, or to anything but trials and verdicts.
 
I am going to modify and correct the Dismissal (clarification) which will be functionally a new dismissal to remove any ambiguity due to terminology.

It will be a simple dismissal that lacks any prejudice in dismissal.

However, it will have exactly the same effect since a new indictment will be required that contains more evidence than the dismissed indictment.

That means, the same indictment cannot be used again and the evidence set must contain more evidence than the current indictment contains.

Then, I will be more than happy to recuse myself from even sitting on any case arising from a new indictment. It might also be well advised for Silly String to also recuse herself should there be a TNP v. JAL, Part II on the grounds that she is predisposed to over-stepping her authority as a junior justice.
 
I have corrected the dismissal and added a recommendation by the Court.

You will note that the Presiding Justice and Chief Justice has recommended that it is advised that Justice Silly String recuse herself from any reincarnation of TNP v. JAL should the AG choose to open prosecution in the matter again, mainly due to the fact that we cannot have Junior/Associate Justices interfering with trial procedures and with Presiding Justices' authority, as well as interfering with the authority of the Chief Justice.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8142785&t=7193181
 
While I am happy to acknowledge the dismissal, the Court can not state that a future indictment must have more evidence, that is up to the Court at that time to decide. If an indictment is accepted, as this one was, based upon the evidence provided at that time then it is a legitimate indictment.

A future Court may decide not to listen to rabble-rousers that erroneously point to an indictment as needing to provide evidence at a level equivalent of the trial determination itself. Precedent in TNP has indicated that indictments are generally held to the preponderance of the evidence or even in many cases the lower level of some credible evidence. In reviewing several previous cases, at no point has the bench stated that the evidence within the indictment must be wholly complete to the level that has been demanded here.
 
Gracius Maximus:
While I am happy to acknowledge the dismissal, the Court can not state that a future indictment must have more evidence, that is up to the Court at that time to decide. If an indictment is accepted, as this one was, based upon the evidence provided at that time then it is a legitimate indictment.

A future Court may decide not to listen to rabble-rousers that erroneously point to an indictment as needing to provide evidence at a level equivalent of the trial determination itself. Precedent in TNP has indicated that indictments are generally held to the preponderance of the evidence or even in many cases the lower level of some credible evidence. In reviewing several previous cases, at no point has the bench stated that the evidence within the indictment must be wholly complete to the level that has been demanded here.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are absolutely correct about the resubmission of the exact same indictment.

The Court can actually accept any indictment regardless of the evidence contained in it. I should have refined the relevant statement a little more to reflect that it would be silly for a rejected or dismissed indictment to be considered in its exact form a second time, but that is up to whatever Justice might decide to accept it a second time.

If someone wants to resubmit it, I will recuse myself, no, I will refuse to sit in judgment on the matter and let a THO be a glutton for punishment in my stead in that capacity.

What the whole matter means is that we need a severe revision of the Court Procedure Rules, specifically, but not limited to, with eliminating the 'Pre-Trial' phase altogether and allowing the various motions to be made by council/prosecution as the objections, etc.,,, come up in Discover (depositions, etc., as normally done) and during the trial phase as normally done.

Either that, or move the so-called 'Pre-Trial' phase from before Discover to after Discovery where it logically belongs. Discover is not part of a trial and occurs before any motions before the bench are made in anything resembling a rational legal system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top