The North Pacific vs. Fulhead Land

Thank you Mister Defense Attorney.

So, Hersfold, I am to understand that the defendant has come close, in your opinion, to violating the terms of his oath to the region? In addition, the defendant, after the events of the summer of 2005 has not proactiveley contributed to the governance of this region?
 
Apparently I was mistaken in my previous statement, which I apologize to the defense for, however I still do not recall such participation and would ask that the defense please present that as evidence so I may more formally retract my statement? Thank you.

Anyway, yes, Fulhead Land is or was involved with The Lexicon Army, a known invader group, and was involved in direct conflict with the North Pacific Army at at least one point. The nation Lexiconhead was declared as Fulhead Land's UN Nation on MoIIA records as of Feburary 11th, as seen in this PM which I present to the court as evidence supporting my statement:
Fulhead Land:
all correct asides the UN. my UN nation is Lexiconhead

Hersfold:
This is a standardized message.

The Ministry of Immigration and Internal Affairs is re-organizing their data. Please verify if the information below is correct.

Your TNP Nation: Fulhead Land

Your UN Nation: None

Regional Assembly: Yes

If information is correct, please send a reply noting this. If this information is incorrect, please send a reply including any changes. If -----Classified---- is listed as your UN Nation, you MUST name your UN nation.

Please also note if you wish for your UN nation to remain confidential, and if you are a currently active member of the NPA or NPIA.

FAILURE TO REPLY WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF REGISTRATION, AND IMPEACHMENT CHARGES IF APPLICABLE. You have approximately one week to respond. Thank you for your cooperation.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lexiconhead was actively involved against the NPA, and I sought to press charges after the region was liberated, as such an action would violate the RA Oath. The Attorney General at the time refused to prosecute the case, thus ending the conflict without setting any legal precedent.

As to the second question, I am afraid I cannot accurately comment until I have been proven wrong, as stated above. However, I cannot recall any such contribution.
 
At this time I would like to introduce Prosecution Exhibit B.

The following was taken from the Lexicon forum:
QUOTE (July 10 2006 9:42 PM)
Well congratulations again enemies of The Lexicon!
You once again show yourselves to be incompetent and foolish in the face of our superior knowledge and skills.

Let me make one thing clear to those who wish to harm us. You will fail. We are untouchable, our security is excellent and if you even come close to thinking about trying us, you will feel our wrath. You have been warned.

So in the words of our fearless leader

**** Off!
Click to expand...
This post was made by the account "Fulhead Land". I ask that the court and jury note that the same account name is used and righfully claimed as the defendant's. Clearly the poster is threatening the use of force against the region.

Witness Hersford, is the proceeding quote the same one that members of the NPIA submitted to your office?
 
*Hersfold politely notes that we haven't seen an Exhibit A yet... ;)

Yes, that is the same quote. I believe you also have a link to that post, should the court require it.
 
Yes, we certainly do!!

Hersfold, as a long time member of The North Pacific and someone heavily involved the operation of this region, I'd expect you to have an above-average understanding of the Constitution of The North Pacific!! Do you believe this to be the case?!
 
I have a fairly good understanding of the laws of the region, yes... but I'm not sure how that relates to the charges.
 
Just answer the questions please, witness!! You need not bother yourself with why I'm asking them!!

As you claim to have a "fairly good" understanding of the Constitution, I can assume you are familiar with Article II, Section 1?! To make it easier for you I'll quote it for you!!

ARTICLE II. Membership and Registration.

Section 1: Requirements.

In order to remain as legal members of The North Pacific, a Nation is expected to adhere to the following requirements:
1) Each member Nation will abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code enacted pursuant to Article IV of this Constitution.
2) Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

The bolded sections are emphasised by the Defence!! Hersfold, does the Constitution clearly state that the "member nation" of The North Pacific is held to the laws of the Constitution?!

I need only a yes or no answer!!
 
Hersfold:
Yes, and I do note that "Fulhead Land" is a member nation of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
I again ask that the witness please just answer my questions and refrain from editorial comment!!

So, as the constitution clearly states that a member nation of The North Pacific is held to the laws of the region via the same document, the actions of other nations operated by the same "leader" are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution!!

Therefore, any actions taken by a nation resident in The Lexicon cannot be held accountable to the laws of The North Pacific!! Do you believe this conclusion to be correct?!
 
I do believe I have freedom of speech, Mr. Attorney. To cite another portion of the Constitution:
TNP Constitution:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Under advice from a colleague, I will refrain from answering the question for the moment. A response will be forthcoming soon.
 
Hersfold:
I do believe I have freedom of speech, Mr. Attorney. To cite another portion of the Constitution:
TNP Constitution:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Under advice from a colleague, I will refrain from answering the question for the moment. A response will be forthcoming soon.
Click to expand...
While you are under cross-examination, you will answer my questions and only answer my questions!! I ask the Court to instruct the witness refrain from further editorialising or outbursts!!

I also object to the witness receiving coaching from a "colleague" while in the witness box!! I again ask the witness to answer my question or request that the witness be held in contempt!!
 
Objection carried. Hersfold, please refrain from providing personal input with your answers. Hersfold, you do not have the right to do anything beyond answer questions asked of you. Anything else is contempt.
 
Understood, your honor. However, I do note that the defense has asked me for my opinion on the current question. I assume I am permitted to speak my piece then?

To the Defense: I will answer your question when I have come up with a response for it. Paitence is a wonderful virtue which you seem to lack at the moment.
 
Hersfold:
Understood, your honor. However, I do note that the defense has asked me for my opinion on the current question. I assume I am permitted to speak my piece then?

To the Defense: I will answer your question when I have come up with a response for it. Paitence is a wonderful virtue which you seem to lack at the moment.
Click to expand...
I hereby request that the witness be held in contempt for refusing to answer my question and for the latest outburst!!

The witness has no access to legal counsel while in the witness box and I fail to see why they cannot answer a simple question truthfully seeing as they have had ample time to do so!!
 
Hersfold, you were not asked for your opinion. A simple yes/no would suffice for the question, which was "Do you believe this conclusion to be correct?!" Answer the question.
 
Your honor I do object to the defense badgering and barating the witness in particular

So, as the constitution clearly states that a member nation of The North Pacific is held to the laws of the region via the same document, the actions of other nations operated by the same "leader" are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution!!
Therefore, any actions taken by a nation resident in The Lexicon cannot be held accountable to the laws of The North Pacific!! Do you believe this conclusion to be correct?!
Click to expand...

While the first statement may be true, the second is most definiteley not. As the line of questioning by the defense is seeking to dismantle further testimony of the states case by tackling a prime issue in this trial I ask that the line of questioning be halted until such time that the state presents it's case for the collusion and direct support between the defendant's nations
 
I again ask the witness to answer my question and request the prosecution stop hindering my questioning of this witness!! The prosecution has a chance to re-examine the witness and had ample opportunity to put their case forward in their opening address!!
 
I will answer the question after the prosecution's objection has been responded to. I see no point in answering a question that may be ruled invalid.
 
I have seen no badgering of the witness, and the defense is berating him for not answering a simple yes or no question. Stop stalling.

While the first statement may be true, the second is most definiteley not.
Click to expand...

I believe that the second statement is the premise the Defense is operating under to prove their client innocent of charges.

As the line of questioning by the defense is seeking to dismantle further testimony of the states case by tackling a prime issue in this trial I ask that the line of questioning be halted until such time that the state presents it's case for the collusion and direct support between the defendant's nations
Click to expand...

The Defense Counsel is attempting to prove his client not guilty. It is his job to attempt to convince the Jury of his position, I will not allow you to suspend a line of questioning because you cannot handle it at the moment.

If I do not see a post from Hersfold, where he answers the question asked of him by the defense during cross-examination, then Hersfold will be held in contempt.
 
Therefore, any actions taken by a nation resident in The Lexicon cannot be held accountable to the laws of The North Pacific!! Do you believe this conclusion to be correct?!
Click to expand...

Any action taken by a nation residing in another region cannot be held accountable to our laws, yes.
 
So, is it then fair to say that this Court can only deal with actions taken by a member nation of The North Pacific?! In this case, member nation Fulhead Land?! Can it also be concluded that the actions or even the identity of "Lexiconhead" is entirely irrelevant to this case based on the Constitution itself?!
 
Not to my knowledge. It's possible the nation has entered on recruiting runs, but as far as I am aware it has not remained in the region for any extended length of time.

(Basically, no, Lexiconhead has not been in TNP)
 
To your knowledge, has The North Pacific member nation, Fulhead Land, been involved in unendorsement campaigns in The North Pacific during the conflict with The Lexicon?! To your knowledge, has The North Pacific member nation, Fulhead Land, been involved in endorsing an "invader" from The Lexicon during the above mentioned conflict?!

As head of the NPIA I'd expect you to have some knowledge of these events if they took place!!
 
I also make a request to the Court that the members of the jury be masked so as not to access the "discussion" thread on this trial as certain members of the intelligentsia are using to to post opinion in a hope to influence the jury!! It is not unreasonable to ask for a media lockdown on a trial such as this!!
 
He certaintly appeared to support them in the post cited above by the prosecution. Nothing the NPIA could find conclusively denied anyone's involvement with the campaigns against FEC and GBM.

(Basically: It is possible.)

Admin Note in reference to the above request: Doing so would most likely require a rather major re-organization of the Courtrooms and the juror's masks - depending on how severe this proposed lockdown is, it may require the disabling of the juror's PM systems and viewing rights to all other forums.
 
Hersfold:
He certaintly appeared to support them in the post cited above by the prosecution. Nothing the NPIA could find conclusively denied anyone's involvement with the campaigns against FEC and GBM.

(Basically: It is possible.)
Click to expand...
I'll reiterate the question, please answer it this time!!

To your knowledge, that is, do you have evidence of The North Pacific member nation, Fulhead Land, being involved in unendorsement campaigns during the conflict with The Lexicon or of The North Pacific member nation, Fulhead Land, actively endorsing an invader from The Lexicon?!

The above quoted post from the leader of The Lexicon member nation The Lexiconhead as submitted by the prosecution does not show that The North Pacific member nation was involved in any unendorsement campaign or in endorsing an invader from The Lexicon!! What it does show is the leader of the Delegate nation of The Lexicon warning anyone seeking to invade their region to exit via the nearest door or suffer the consequences!!

So, please answer my orginal question to you!!
 
Once again, there is no evidence stating if he was or was not involved in unendorsement campaigns. Since Fulhead Land is not a UN nation, there is no way he could have physically endorsed said tarter(s).
 
Hersfold:
Once again, there is no evidence stating if he was or was not involved in unendorsement campaigns. Since Fulhead Land is not a UN nation, there is no way he could have physically endorsed said tarter(s).
Click to expand...
So, that is a 'no' to both questions!! There is no evidence The North Pacific member nation, Fulhead Land, was involved in unendorsement capmapigns against the Delegate of the region during the war with The Lexicon nor is their any evidence of The North Pacific member nation, Fulhead Land, endorsing an invader from The Lexicon!!

So, what I have heard from the witness is:

Nations not member nations of The North Pacific cannot be answerable to the Constitution of The North Pacific!!

My client neither endorsed an invader from The Lexicon nor participated in unendorsement campaigns agains the Delegate of The North Pacific during the same conflict!!

Hersfold, is this a fair summary of the answers to my questions thus far?
 
Poltsamaa:
Nations not member nations of The North Pacific cannot be answerable to the Constitution of The North Pacific!!
Click to expand...
Um...

So, is it then fair to say that this Court can only deal with actions taken by a member nation of The North Pacific?! In this case, member nation Fulhead Land?! Can it also be concluded that the actions or even the identity of "Lexiconhead" is entirely irrelevant to this case based on the Constitution itself?!
Click to expand...
Not really, no.
Click to expand...

I did not completely agree to your conclusion. The answer to your latest question is no.
 
Hersfold:
Any action taken by a nation residing in another region cannot be held accountable to our laws, yes.
Click to expand...

You did say this, however!!

I'd say that is confirmation that non-member nations of The North Pacific are not answerable to the laws of the land as stated by the section of the Constitution earlier!! I also take your lack of response to the other conclusions I posted as tacit acceptance that they are a fair consclusion based on your testimony!!

Members of the jury, it has been clearly shown that the head of the NPIA does nto have any evidence to prove that my client was actively involved in unendorsement campaigns against the Delegate of The North Pacific during the conflict with The Lexicon, that the head of the NPIA has no evidence to prove my client endorsed an invader from The Lexicon during the same conflict and that the witness has acknowledged that trying to pin the actions of a non-member nation of The North Pacific to the laws under our Constitution is in fact a breach of the Constitution itself!! Therefore rendering prosecution exhibit B irrelevant to the case we are hearing here today!!

I have no further questions for this witness but reserve the right to recall them as a defense witness later in the trial!! The prosecution may re-examine the witness if they choose to do so!!
 
The prosecution has no further questions for this witness.

I would like to thank my coluge, the defense council for coming strait to the matter at hand. Prosecution exhibit B is prime evidence due to the fact that on several occasions the policy of Duality has been discarded by the defendant. If the defendant gives up duality at any point it can be understood that they have been, are, and potentialy will be acting as a agent of a foreign power.

The prosecution introduces Exhibit C

tnplf3.png


I ask that the jury please note the banner in the signatur portion of the messaged in addition to the title and signature line. The banner and signature line can admitadley be construed as someone rooting for their favorite football team or hometown hero. However the title gives little doubt, by the pictured's own admission, that they are in command of "The Lexicon". If we are to take everything at face value in this post, as should be considering that the location of this post was not in a out of Character section, but one in which the legalities of "The Lexicon" declaring war apon this region.

I ask that the judge verify that the contents of the exhibit have remained the same as those that I submitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top