The North Pacific vs. Fulhead Land

Southwest Asia:
If the Defense is to be this brazen, then maybe this is a statement that will clarify:

The Prosecution calls Fulhead Land, also known as the controller of the nation of Lexiconhead, and also known as the accused.
Click to expand...
The Defense does not recognise this all-encompassing entity!!
 
The accused has been called to the stand. There is no way to be more clear than that.

And I recognize the entity put forth. They had better take the stand right now.
 
Two nations have been called to the stand!! Shall we extend the witness box to accommodate them?!

I have instructed my client not to take the stand until such time as they are specifically requested to do so!! Hence, my client will not take the stand as they are not leader of Lexiconhead!!

The defense has made itself quite clear on this matter, I suggest you remove me as defense attorney if you want to ride roughshod over my client , as I will not allow it to happen whilst this is my case!!

Otherwise, have the witness specify the nation they are calling to the stand, if they wish to call the leader of Lexiconhead they can do so later!! The leader of Lexiconhead is not the accused in this case and as a non-citizen of The North Pacific, cannot be referred to as such!!
 
The Prosecution would like to object to this game of semantics being played by the Defense for the following reasons:

1. Whenever the in-game leader of Fulhead Land, the leader who also is in charge of Lexiconhead and several related puppets, has been called to the stand, the Defense has avoided allowing this person to testify on the grounds that no such entity exists, because there apparently exists no such entity that leads the nation of Fulhead Land.

2. Whenever the actual person who controls the Fulhead Land account, and controls any related entities thereof, such a person has been said to not exist.

3. Whenever the prosecution has called the accused to the stand through in-game procedures, the Defense has objected on OOC grounds. Whenever the prosecution has called the accused to the stand on OOC grounds, the Defense has objected through in-game procedure.

The Defense is merely wasting time and I ask that the accused be held in contempt of court.
 
The Defense objects to this request as the Prosecution's reasons for calling for contempt are disingenuous!!

Not once has my client, Fulhead Land, member nation of The North Pacific, been called to the stand with out extraneous references to Lexiconhead or "player" or "controller"!!

As TNP law only relates to TNP member nations, referring to the accused as a "player" or "controller" of another nationstate is a direct breach of the Constitution of this region!!

This is not an issue of semantics, but an issue of maintaining a trial within the bounds of the Constitution!!

Hold me in contempt if you wish, remove me as defense attorney...it still does not make what you are doing legal!!
 
The Prosecution is merely calling the accused to the stand. The accused happens to be Fulhead Land, TNP member nation, who happens to also control the nation of Lexiconhead under the generally accepted definition of a puppet nation. The Defense is attempting to make it seem as if the Prosecution is calling two nations to the stand, when it is clear that the nation being called is Fulhead Land. The qualifier of controller of the puppet nation of Lexiconhead helps to clarify as to who is being called to the stand, as Fulhead Land openly claims that Lexiconhead is his member UN nation. Thus "the controller of the nation of Lexiconhead" is merely an additional title to clarify specifically who is being called to the stand.
 
The Defense knows not of this "controller" the Prosecution refers to!! My client in Fulhead Land, member nation of The North Pacific!! They have no connection to the similarly named, Fulhead Land, leader of the Lexicon, other than they share the same name!!

Under the Constitution of this region, the member nation is held to th laws of this region, not non-member nations or the mythical "controllers"!! Therefore I reiterate my objection to the Proecutions requested and also reiterate my request for clarification on who is baeing called to the stand!! The accused can only be a member nation of The North Pacific, so Lexiconhead cannot be referred to an the accused!!

So, is it Fulhead Land, member nation of The North Pacific or Fulhead Land, leader of the Lexiconian nation of Lexiconhead that is being called the stand!! I know of no hybrid nation that the Prosecution refers to nor do I know of these "controllers" they refer to!!

I will continue to instruct my client to not take the stand until this is clarified to my satisfaction!!
 
The Prosecution objects to the Defense's creation of two Fulhead Land nations through apparent magic.

The Prosecution would also like to note that as also per TNP Law, members of the Regional Assembly declare any UN nations that they happen to control. Since Fulhead Land declared that his UN nation was Lexiconhead, the Prosecution deems the title of "controller of the nation of Lexiconhead" to be appropriate.
 
Southwest Asia:
The Prosecution objects to the Defense's creation of two Fulhead Land nations through apparent magic.

The Prosecution would also like to note that as also per TNP Law, members of the Regional Assembly declare any UN nations that they happen to control. Since Fulhead Land declared that his UN nation was Lexiconhead, the Prosecution deems the title of "controller of the nation of Lexiconhead" to be appropriate.
Click to expand...

The Constitution refers to member nations, not "controllers"!! Therefore, the defendant cannot be a non-member nation of The North Pacific!! Referring to the accused as including a non-member nation of The North Pacific is in breach of the Constitution!!

I have not created two Fulhead Lands, there always has been two!! One, a member nation of The North Pacific and one the leader of the nation Lexiconhead resident in The Lexicon!!

Until the Fulhead Land that is required to take the stand is specified I cannot instruct my client to take the stand!!
 
*moves onto the stand*

Well that took a while. Sorry my suits a little crumpled but we have been in the courtroom for months..

I would also like it noted before we begin I am co-operating fully with the court rather than take my right to not testify against myself.
 
I guess it can be established that you, the TNP member, had control over the other nation of Lexiconhead? Why would you name your UN nation thus?
 
OOC: Taking the oath and stating a UN nation, regardless of its place in the game, was a necissary but OOC requirement. It has no bearing to TNP politics and yet it was a necissary requirement to comply with TNP laws.

IC: *Fulhead Land has no knowledge of lexiconhead or it government or policies
 
The question the Prosecution asked was:
"As a member of The North Pacific Regional Assembly, did you declare a UN nation at the time of application?"

The question was therefore declared to you as the nation of Fulhead Land in relation to your membership in the regional assembly. How, therefore, could you have declared that Lexiconhead was your UN nation as Fulhead Land, member nation of TNP, without having any knowledge of the nation in question?
 
OOC: It was an OOC decleration. I had to make it to be within the law of the region at that point. The rest of the constitution is only binding to the TNP member nation, so the UN nation, if outside the region, is not the issue.

IC: *Fulhead Land has no awarness of this Lexiconhead, and especially not as Lexiconhead being me! I am Fulhead Land, am I not?
 
The question wasn't whether you were Lexiconhead, but rather, that you being a member nation of TNP, how can you have declared that the nation which makes UN decisions for you to be Lexiconhead without knowing what the nation was.

OOC: Need I remind you that up until I ask about you controlling a nation, you were answering IN CHARACTER. Thus your first statements about Lexiconhead were all in character.
 
OOC:To repeat myself: It was an OOC decleration. I had to make it to be within the law of the region at that point. The rest of the constitution is only binding to the TNP member nation, so the UN nation, if outside the region, is not the issue.

IC: *Fulhead Land has no awarness of this Lexiconhead and its internal policies and systems
 
OOC: You declared, in character, in your testimony that your UN nation was Lexiconhead. Nowhere in the Constitution does it make provisions for being out of character. Declaring UN nations is in character.

IC: I'll ask again. I guess it can be established that you, the TNP member, had control over the other nation of Lexiconhead? Why would you name your UN nation thus?
 
IC: Fulhead Land has no control over Lexiconhead. I never said I was in control of such a nation. I have mearly answered your question as to what my ath said

OOC: The UN nation decleration is a OOC section of the oath and at no time was control of Lexiconhead implied by TNP member nation Fulhead Land
 
OOC: The UN Nation declaration is NOT OOC. Nowhere in the declaration does it say that it's OOC. Nowhere.

IC: How then, can you have declared Lexiconhead to be your UN nation?
 
Objection, the naming of a UN nation is blatantly OOC as is refers to a nation owned by a "player", not a "nation"!! At no point in the oath does the "member nation" or leader of the "member nation" claim ownership of the UN nation nor does it state that the leader of the member nation of The North Pacific has any control over that UN nation's political beliefs or system!! The witness has answered the question numerous times, the prosecution is badgering the witness and trying to use assumption as fact!!

Fulhead Land, member nation of The North Pacific has clearly answered the question asked and explained the reasons for his answer when required both in-character and out-of-character as deemed appropriate!!

I ask the judge to instruct the Prosecution to move on to the next question!!
 
Southwest Asia:
I ask the Defense to point out the specific place where declaring a UN nation is said to be OOC in the RA pledge.
Click to expand...
The Defense asks the Prosecution to point out how a player behind a character cannot be OOC!!

The declaration of the UN nation is extraneous to the actual oath!! It precedes the actual oath which is taken by the "leader" of the "member nation" of The North Pacific!! So, the OOC section where the "player" must declare their UN nation precedes the IC section whereby the leader of the member nation takes the oath to uphold the Constitution which mentions only "member nation" and "nation"!! Not player, not "controller", just "member nation" and "nation"!!

This clearly demonstrates what is OOC and IC by basic application of logic!!

In one instance the Prosecution states that the entire oath is OOC and therefore applicable to players, then they want to turn full circle and claim that none of the oath is OOC!!

At one point the Prosecution claims the oath is taken by the player, not the roleplayed leader of the member nation of The North Pacific and now they claim the entire oath, including the extraneous section declaring the UN nation, is somehow an in-character declaration of control of another nationstate!!

The Defense finds this twisted logic to be disingenuous and reiterates its call for the objection to be upheld by the judge as the question has been posed three times and my client has answered the question each time!! Further rewording of the question will not change the answers given!!
 
Objection. Never has the Prosecution claimed that the entire oath is OOC in any of the proceedings.

I also ask that the Defense's "logic" be ignored, as otherwise the actual TNP member nation itself is OOC, since it is declared before the oath.
 
Southwest Asia:
Objection. Never has the Prosecution claimed that the entire oath is OOC in any of the proceedings.

I also ask that the Defense's "logic" be ignored, as otherwise the actual TNP member nation itself is OOC, since it is declared before the oath.
Click to expand...
The declaration of the member nation and UN member nation is OOC, the nation itself is not OOC, don't be ridiculous!! The Prosecution has stated that the oath is taken by the player so therefore the entire oath, in their opinion, must be OOC if the player is taking the oath!!

The Defense, however, believes the oath to be an IC declaration made my the leader of the member nation of The North Pacific with OOC declarations of the nation that is resident in The North Pacific and the UN nation the player controls, if any, preceding the IC oath!! I believe this interpretation is more in accordance with the contents and the design of the oath taken to join the Regional Assembly!!
 
The Prosecution has never stated that the oath was taken OOC. Rather, it seems more illogical to assume that the oath has to be part OOC and part IC. Thus it seems more likley that the best interpretation that the court should take is that ALL of the oath is IC, including the beginning.
 
Southwest Asia:
The Prosecution has never stated that the oath was taken OOC. Rather, it seems more illogical to assume that the oath has to be part OOC and part IC. Thus it seems more likley that the best interpretation that the court should take is that ALL of the oath is IC, including the beginning.
Click to expand...
If the entire oath is IC then how can the player be taking the oath as you claimed earlier?! A player is OOC!! How can a leader of a nation in an IC oath claim ownership of a nation (which nobody taking the oath actually claims in the oath as it stands) when ownership of a nation is by a player and again OOC?! The Prosecution's arguements are flawed and their interpretation of the oath and the Constitution alters with each line of questioning because they are not seeking to prosecute under the law, but to twist the law to suit their desired outcome!! Ordinarily that would be what we, the Defense, would expect but to change the interpretations continuously throughout the trial shows that the case presented by the Prosecution is a sham!! Their interpretations are like moving the goal posts depending on what my client says!!

I reiterate my call for the Prosecution to cease badgering the witness by repeating the same question over and over!! The question has been answered and further changes of interpretation of the oath and Consitution by the Prosecution will not change the answers my client has given!!
 
The prosecution's stance is that the oath is taken by the leader of the nation, acting on behalf of the nation, thus it is entirely IC. The prosecution's stance, therefore, is that the "UN nation" is associated as a puppet of the main nation whose leader has binded said nation to the oath. The prosecution did not state that the oath was taken by the player in any of the questions asked.

The prosecution would like to request a ruling on this from the Judge.
 
Nowhere in the oath does Fulhead Land, member nation of The North Pacific, nor the leader of said nation state that they own or control the UN member nation Lexiconhead!! It is clear from the oath that the statement of the member nation of The North Pacific and the declaration of the UN nation precede the commencement of the IC oath taken by a national leader of a member nation of The North Pacific!!
 
Southwest Asia:
The prosecution's stance is that the oath is taken by the leader of the nation, acting on behalf of the nation, thus it is entirely IC. The prosecution's stance, therefore, is that the "UN nation" is associated as a puppet of the main nation whose leader has binded said nation to the oath. The prosecution did not state that the oath was taken by the player in any of the questions asked.

The prosecution would like to request a ruling on this from the Judge.
Click to expand...
The only oath the nation Fulhead Land has taken to become a member of the Regional Assembly is:

"I, Fulhead Land as Leader of Fulhead Land, and as a Registered Voter in The North Pacific, request membership in the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific."
Click to expand...

The oath was taken in character as Fulhead Land and was a requirement to become a legally recognized member nation. It mentions nothing about a player in control of said nation (or nations for that matter), merely an IC national figurehead. Nowhere in the oath does it bind the Member Nation to any UN Nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top