The North Pacific vs. Fulhead Land

AlHoma

AlHoma

TNPer
Entered this day 20, August, 2006

We the state do hereby charge the following

1. That the nation known as Fulhead Land did set aside the practice of duality on several occasions to speak as the child nation of a nation external to this region.

2. During the period consisting between July 9th and August 10th the aforementioned Nation did provide direct support to a region at war with this region in the form of parent/child national statuses.

3. That the aforementioned nation did violate their Registered Voter oath (to later be converted into Regional Assembly) by providing such support as described above.

Brought by AlHoma
Minister of Justice
 
The filing as delivered is duly noted by the Court.

The presiding Justice has been notified by PM. As well, aa juror pool is being drawn at this time - it will be posted upon completion.

Byardkuria
Chief Justice of the Court of The North Pacific
 
Who is the justice?

As defendant I hereby move for this case to be dismissed on the following grounds:

1)The Nation "Fulhead Land", the nation subject to RV status and the nation mentioned in the aformentioned oath, is not now and has never been a member of The Lexicon, nor a citizen of The Lexicon.
While I freely admit to having a Lexiconian nation, I do not practice the idea of having seperate forum accounts for seperate in game entities and I also ask the court to note that this is not required by law.

2) the charge of

1. That the nation known as Fulhead Land did set aside the practice of duality on several occasions to speak as the child nation of a nation external to this region.
Click to expand...
Is not a legal charge as, even if that allegation is found by the court to be true, it is not breaking any laws or the constitution. I would also like the court to note that the subject of "duality" is mentioned nowhere in TNP law or the constitution and as such it cannot be used as a crime.
 
This case will be before Justice Democratic Donkeys, who is planning to attend to it this evening, due to RL time issues today. He will also be responsible for disposition of any motions which have or will arise.
 
Objection to the above motion, your honors.

Charge 1, as mentioned in the post by Attorney General Alhoma, is to make it clear that this case cannot be dismissed on the grounds of duality, as Defendant Fulhead Land is now attempting to do. The prosecution has been provided with evidence to debunk these claims, and I request that the Court deny the motion above to allow this evidence to be presented.
 
Hersfold:
Objection to the above motion, your honors.

Charge 1, as mentioned in the post by Attorney General Alhoma, is to make it clear that this case cannot be dismissed on the grounds of duality, as Defendant Fulhead Land is now attempting to do. The prosecution has been provided with evidence to debunk these claims, and I request that the Court deny the motion above to allow this evidence to be presented.
Click to expand...
Please have patience. I am assembling a post.
 
Fulhead Land:
Who is the justice?

As defendant I hereby move for this case to be dismissed on the following grounds:

1)The Nation "Fulhead Land", the nation subject to RV status and the nation mentioned in the aformentioned oath, is not now and has never been a member of The Lexicon, nor a citizen of The Lexicon.
While I freely admit to having a Lexiconian nation, I do not practice the idea of having seperate forum accounts for seperate in game entities and I also ask the court to note that this is not required by law.

2) the charge of

1. That the nation known as Fulhead Land did set aside the practice of duality on several occasions to speak as the child nation of a nation external to this region.
Click to expand...
Is not a legal charge as, even if that allegation is found by the court to be true, it is not breaking any laws or the constitution. I would also like the court to note that the subject of "duality" is mentioned nowhere in TNP law or the constitution and as such it cannot be used as a crime.
Click to expand...
Alhoma:
2. During the period consisting between July 9th and August 10th the aforementioned Nation did provide direct support to a region at war with this region in the form of parent/child national statuses.

3. That the aforementioned nation did violate their Registered Voter oath (to later be converted into Regional Assembly) by providing such support as described above.
Click to expand...

Therefore, under Rule 504c of the Interim Court Guidelines a trial will be held against "Fulhead Land". The Chief Prosecutor for this case will be AlHoma (ICR 503a).

The Defendant will have 5 days from this post to file a response in this thread. (ICR 508b). In this response the Defendant should name counsel if they desire representation. Otherwise representation will be appointed. (ICR 509). The Defendant will be notified both in Personal Message on this board and by telegram in Nationstates. (ICR 508a). A plea should then be entered by the defendant or his counsel. (ICR 510)

In response to the motion filed by Fulhead Land; direct your attention to the reasoning put forth by Hersfold. Motion denied.


Edit:

Rule 507. Gag Orders.
A - Once a criminal charge is brought forth, neither the accuser, the defendant, or any party legally recognized as representing them, may reveal or discuss any details of the charge except in areas where specifically asked to do so by the presiding officer of the trial or a legal appointee of the Court. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
B - If discussion about the charge, or subjects related to the charge, is already ongoing at the time that the charge is made, the accuser, the defendant, and any party legally recognized as representing either of them, are forbidden to continue participating in the discussions. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
C - That ban shall continue until the case is resolved and closed by the proper legal official, as mandated by the Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws of the Region. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
Click to expand...


I also ask that any discussion be started in a separate thread to avoid cluttering this topic. Thank you.
 
Well, as the two competent people declined, you will have to make do with incompetent, Fulhead Land!! :lol:

Serious business aside, I would ask that any evidence to be presented by the prosecution be PMd to me at the earliest convenience!! I am currently conversing with my client regarding our defense and will post a response shortly!! I ask the court's indulgence as I have just been handed this case with no notice!!
 
<_< I wanted a defence counsel, not a hole in the head...


:lol: welcome to the team Poltsamaa!

I want to ask the court to make sure that my 5 days begins now, as I ahve only just been appointed legal representation.
 
I have received the evidence via PM!! I thank AlHoma for his prompt response to my request!!

I will be posting a response to the charges as soon as consultation with my client is complete!!
 
The defense enters a plea of "Not Guilty" to all charges!! We will contest all charges and await presentation of prosecution evidence!!
 
While I do thank the defense for their response I note that it is now the job of the honorable Democratic Donkeys to select a jury.
 
I petition the court to get moving or drop these "charges"!! The Defense was requested to repond to the charges in 5 days and we did so, only for our response to be "acknowledged" in a manner that portrayed it as out of order and were told to wait for the jury to be hand-picked by the prosecution!!

How much longer do we have to wait for this kangaroo court to get moving?! Your hand-picked jury will already have its verdict, so what is the hold up?!
 
My apologies. College started recently and has been taking a majority of my time. I have always let real life take precedence over an internet one. The Jury will be assembled today if all goes well.

I will be selecting the Jury randomly and there are no kangaroos here.
 
Your Honor, I object to the representative for the defense asserting on 2 occasions that the prosecution is selecting the jury. As it is clearly spelled out in the Court's Operating Document, the judge in charge of the trial is required to randomly choose the jury pool. I would also like to note the prosecution's strict adherance with the rules of procedure and ask that defense team adhere to the same rules.
 
I have not once said the court was operating outside the document you mention!! I am saying the procedure is a joke!! Therein lies the difference!!

The judge in this case is tied to the government and therefore the prosecution!! The randomness of jury selection is, therefore, questionable!!

I raise real concerns about the ability of my client to have a fair trial in this Court!! I believe it is impossible for my client to receive a fair trial under the current methods!!

I have not operated outside of court proceedings, and any assertions that I have I would ask be retracted!!
 
I agree with the sentiments expressed by my counsel and would like to remind the court I have a right to a swift and fair trial!!
 
Post by of The US split to discussion in accordance with previous actions by the Judicary. Please, no off-topic posts.
 
Rule 507. Gag Orders.
A - Once a criminal charge is brought forth, neither the accuser, the defendant, or any party legally recognized as representing them, may reveal or discuss any details of the charge except in areas where specifically asked to do so by the presiding officer of the trial or a legal appointee of the Court. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
B - If discussion about the charge, or subjects related to the charge, is already ongoing at the time that the charge is made, the accuser, the defendant, and any party legally recognized as representing either of them, are forbidden to continue participating in the discussions. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
C - That ban shall continue until the case is resolved and closed by the proper legal official, as mandated by the Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws of the Region. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
Click to expand...

Your Honor, I request that the defense council be required to respect the order of the court. Specifically in the "The North Pacific vs. Fulhead Land Discussion Thread" both the defendant and defense attorney have posted violating the gag order.
 
Azazel
Ateista
Lazy Wizard
nish81
Unitat


These nations have been randomly selected to be the Jury in the case of TNP Vs. Fulhead Land.

When they reply their masks will be adjusted and they will be expected to sign in. Potential Jurors who do not reply to their summons via PM within 24 hours will be stricken from the roster and a new randomly selected Juror will be chosen from the pool. Thank you.
 
AlHoma:
Rule 507. Gag Orders.
A - Once a criminal charge is brought forth, neither the accuser, the defendant, or any party legally recognized as representing them, may reveal or discuss any details of the charge except in areas where specifically asked to do so by the presiding officer of the trial or a legal appointee of the Court. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
B - If discussion about the charge, or subjects related to the charge, is already ongoing at the time that the charge is made, the accuser, the defendant, and any party legally recognized as representing either of them, are forbidden to continue participating in the discussions. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
C - That ban shall continue until the case is resolved and closed by the proper legal official, as mandated by the Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws of the Region. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
Click to expand...

Your Honor, I request that the defense council be required to respect the order of the court. Specifically in the "The North Pacific vs. Fulhead Land Discussion Thread" both the defendant and defense attorney have posted violating the gag order.
Click to expand...
I haven't discussed the charges or anything related to them!! I discussed the jury selection process without any direct reference to this case at all barring the comments split from this thread which oddly enough is where I am supposed to discuss the case!!

I ask the prosecution cease with baseless accusations designed to discredit the Defense in order to compensate for their feeble case against my client!!
 
Your Honor, Subsection B of the law is quite clear on this matter

B - If discussion about the charge, or subjects related to the charge, is already ongoing at the time that the charge is made, the accuser, the defendant, and any party legally recognized as representing either of them, are forbidden to continue participating in the discussions. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
Click to expand...

Therefore I request that the defense be ordered to abide by the rules of the court.
 
I repeat!! I have not discussed the specifics of this case outside this courtroom!! Discussing regional legal procedures in general is not a violation of the gag order!! I again ask that the prosecution stop seeking to compensate for their feeble case by trying to throw up a smokescreen to discredit the Defense!!
 
All Jurors have proven to be ineligible (in 2 cases they had served as jurors in the last 3 months), or they have not responded.

Ermarian
Teruchev
Groclant
Zemnaya Svoboda
ben hitler

Have been summoned for Jury Duty.


1. I see no violation of the gag order as the specifics of the case are not being discussed.
2. I am not handpicking the jury and neither is the Prosecution.
3. Poltsamaa, you can come to me with your concerns about bias on the Jury when the Jury is selected. Right now you are wasting energy because half of them don't even reply. When a Jury is selected you may present your concerns and if they have merit then the Juror in question will be replaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top