Search results

I guess I just don't see why we make that big of a distinction between the two - I read 3.1 to place emphasis on the And, such that the two are construed to be intertwined for purposes of the constitution.

Discovery has now ended. One piece of evidence has been submitted, and seeing no objection, I will admit the single forum post submitted. No witnesses have been deposed during this week, nor has any other evidence been submitted. The Court does not like to see allegations backed by so little...

Ok so I got drunk. Here's my thinking, though... I'm mostly in agreement with Sanct, but with a couple differences. When I see the Constitution say "Assume the duties of Delegate", I read that as the Duties being everything the Delegate has to do. 3.1 says that the Delegate shall be Head of...

Working on this now, sorry for delay. Should have something tonight, RL is just rearing its head.

My objection is that, frankly, more complete overhaul is needed, and doing it tiny bit by tiny bit creates the very real potential for a more broken situation along the way. Sweeping reform is needed, not bit-by-bit work, as pertains to the Criminal Code.

So in other words, you're only satisfied if the courts spell everything out in childish detail, but it's irrelevant because "rules are made to be broken." Duly noted.

TNP Nation: Gaspo Attorney General: Abstain Justice 1: Abbey Anumia Justice 2: Sanctaria Justice 3: Abstain

The rejection of evidence is fundamentally presumptive following the inability of one party to exercise a right which they attempt to exercise, to cross-examine that witness. Simple fact. Basic logic, not even a legal principle. Is it a loophole because something so fundamental isn't spelled...

Your post makes literally no sense. The whole point of affidavits is to allow someone to offer testimony that is simple in nature. If you want to cross-examine, the Affidavit is not accepted until cross-examination has been conducted, as mandated by the need for a Deposition. If there is an...

Headed into civil procedure class. Will do it then.

Since this seems to be exceedingly complicated, let me spell it out in the simplest possible language. If there's an affidavit, fine. The opponent gets to cross-examine if they want. If they do want, then there must be a deposition. If there cannot be a deposition, as in my citation above...

"Rules are made to be broken". This from someone who wants to be a judge. Interesting. And as to the unavailability of an individual for Depositions, I would direct you to Clause 7 of Article 6, which is reproduced below: Seems to me the courts are actually smart enough not to build grossly...

The problem I have with this change is that it's only a part of what actually needs to happen, and doing just this without doing the rest of it will make things worse in the interim, rather than better.

No, I'm sorry, you are completely, factually wrong, and it terrifies me that you think yourself qualified at this point to pass judgment. Here's what the rules say regarding affidavits: Bolding mine. Read the goddamn rules, particularly if you claim to know them well enough to manage...

Your statements regarding affidavits are completely inaccurate. The court rules specifically make accommodations for allowing any party to require a deposition if the contents of an affidavit are unacceptable. The point of Affidavits is for, say, a party to say "Yes, I saw this chat log, and...

I'll have a response and a draft ruling tomorrow - I think there's an underlying theme to both of your opinions which reconciles with what I'm thinking.

I would prefer an adjournment.

Best wishes.

Last night was fun. Any more questions?

I have no issue with that.

Well yes, of course. I guess it never occurred to me that that language needed clarification.

I didn't answer this yet, I don't think. Or maybe I did - I don't remember. Anyways, I feel it is only reasonable for me to finish working as Elu's attorney in TNP v. Eluvatar - I don't abandon things halfway done if I can avoid it. I will ask the Delegate to appoint a special prosecutor - if...

There exists no such exception, as far as I am aware, in TNP law.

Any issues with a witness' impartiality may be addressed through cross-examination. Any bias should be obvious at that time - objections to witnesses testifying at all should be based on them having no relevant knowledge, being redundant, or other matters which make their entire testimony...

Regarding PunkD's motions... Gag order The Defense vehemently objects to this stifling of free speech. Gag orders are used to prevent contamination of a jury pool, or disclosure of secret materials. The former is not an issue here, and the latter is irrelevant as there are laws in place which...

The Defense will answer the prosecution's...creative motions shortly. The following are duly submitted. Motion to Dismiss Charge of Impersonation The Impersonation statute was enacted April 18th, and the events in which Eluvatar stands accused of impersonating The North Pacific took place in...

I'll look at the trial thread and get back to you, but without the full content of both parties' investigations, particularly the prosecution's, I can't really know what things were missed - I can imagine a thousand things that could have been missed, dependent on a million factors I don't know...

Nah. Just on spring break, and home with family. We like to party.

I'm drunk again; I promise an answer prior to voting, though.

So, you can be removed either: a) if you fail to log in for 30 days OR b) you fail to vote for 20 days AND miss four votes. So you could fail to vote for 20 days but if there are no votes, then the other requirement would not be met. If you missed 4 votes spaced over 5 days, and then there...