Poltsamaa
TNPer
I assume so!!
TNP vs. Fulhead Discussion
- Thread starter Fergi the Great
- Start date
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
!!=Polstamaa's trademark, ladies and gents
Was he a TNP nation as well at the time?
Was he a TNP nation as well at the time?
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
Was this before or after TNP Law 14 was passed?
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
Then I am against Fulhead Land. If the Law was active during the time that Fulhead Land had a nation in the Lexicon, then he falls under the law.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Poltsamaa:
I updated the title of the thread, since I noticed that the date at the end of the Legal Code text (1 December 2006) wasn't the same as the earlier date (from March) that was in the subtitle.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Problem is, the law was never used against him during the war and the present trial has no connection to the law you reference!!
If it is deemed the war is still somehow in progress then the Security Council are at liberty to deal with Fulhead Land as they see fit under Law 14!! If the war is over, then they screwed the pooch on that one!!
Poltsamaa
TNPer
OK, thanks!! I could not see anything indicating a change had been made, hence my query!!
Does this discussion remind anyone else of the "What have the Romans ever done for us" sketch in the film Life of Brian?
TNP discusses the trial of Fullhead Land.
TNP discusses the trial of Fullhead Land.
To write something new
Is beyond Poltsamaa’s skill
He just imitates.
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
This is... strangely similar. NOW, SING!!!
Always look on the bright side of life.
*whistles*
Always look on the bright side of life.
*whistles*
Katinaire
TNPer
I don't know Gross and Flem....I don't see any laws cited in the bringing of charges against FL. Shouldn't there be a law cited that he has broken...like saying he violated Law 14(except that's a Security Council thing, not a court thing) or Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the Constitution?? Is there a law dictating what can and cannot be in a sig line of an RA member? Do you want to go ahead and draw one up now so he can be charged with violating it at some point during this farce of a trial? I should think that if you are bringing charges, there needs to be a law broken first. And if you can't cite the law broken then why are charges being brought? In a real court this case would have been thrown out immediately for the incompitency of the prosecution.
"He was drinking coffee, talking on a cell AND driving under the speed limit which while not against the law was really annoying as I was driving into work today so I want him thrown in jail for a year or so--you know, to really teach him a lesson-- and then a couple years of parole to make sure he gets out of that habit."
"Let's have a trial then and tie up the legal system and lots of people's time and attention. We'll figure out a way to find laws he may have broken during the trial or shoot, we'll just pass some new ones that he'll be guilty of but until then let the proceedings continue."
Doesn't anybody here watch Law & Order?? I never thought I would say this but thank goodness lawyers and judges go through all of that schooling so things like this don't happen in real life.
"He was drinking coffee, talking on a cell AND driving under the speed limit which while not against the law was really annoying as I was driving into work today so I want him thrown in jail for a year or so--you know, to really teach him a lesson-- and then a couple years of parole to make sure he gets out of that habit."
"Let's have a trial then and tie up the legal system and lots of people's time and attention. We'll figure out a way to find laws he may have broken during the trial or shoot, we'll just pass some new ones that he'll be guilty of but until then let the proceedings continue."
Doesn't anybody here watch Law & Order?? I never thought I would say this but thank goodness lawyers and judges go through all of that schooling so things like this don't happen in real life.
The point, Katinaire, is that the main pillar of the defence case has been that the laws of TNP do not refer to players, only nations. Therefore, says the defence, the player Fullhead Land is at liberty to attack us any way he wants so long as he does not use the TNP nation Fullhead Land to do it.
Now this was not the intention of those who drew up the constitution - but if the general case is proven it makes a convenient legal wall to hide behind.
Therefore it strengthens the prosecution's case if they can show that the laws of TNP do, in fact, refer to "players". Once that foundation is laid, I suspect the prosecution will go on to suggest that the player who registered for the RA - Fullhead Land - who declared his TNP nation as Fullhead Land and his UN nation as Lexiconhead, committed treason against TNP during the Lexicon/TNP war.
Now this was not the intention of those who drew up the constitution - but if the general case is proven it makes a convenient legal wall to hide behind.
Therefore it strengthens the prosecution's case if they can show that the laws of TNP do, in fact, refer to "players". Once that foundation is laid, I suspect the prosecution will go on to suggest that the player who registered for the RA - Fullhead Land - who declared his TNP nation as Fullhead Land and his UN nation as Lexiconhead, committed treason against TNP during the Lexicon/TNP war.
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
TNP Law 14 refers to players, though.
Katinaire
TNPer
That it does Apollo. But it also says that the government of this region has no confidence that anybody can role-play two different nations in two different regions. They don't believe in the ability to play duality. It's either us or them. It cannot be both regardless of whether you have been successfully playing both beforehand. I think the best scenario would be to have an IC set of laws and an OOC set of laws. While there will be overlap, at least then you could hold OOC courts instead of what they are trying to do here which is hold an OOC court IC.
And Flem, regardless of what the prosecution or defense are trying to do, there still has not been clearly stated what laws, if any, that FL broke. The prosecution is simply being allowed to grill him for no reason. Hence the last part of my previous post. Sure they list charges but they don't say how those charges are in violation of the laws of the region. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean it's automatically illegal. However that seems to be the whole premise of this trial. And then we see these laws being drafted and pushed through that would give the prosecution a law for him to have broken.
If I were DD, I'd put the whole trial on pause until the prosecution came up with 1) a law that was broken and 2) evidence that FL actually broke it. Until then all they have is somebody's panties that got in a bunch.
And Flem, regardless of what the prosecution or defense are trying to do, there still has not been clearly stated what laws, if any, that FL broke. The prosecution is simply being allowed to grill him for no reason. Hence the last part of my previous post. Sure they list charges but they don't say how those charges are in violation of the laws of the region. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean it's automatically illegal. However that seems to be the whole premise of this trial. And then we see these laws being drafted and pushed through that would give the prosecution a law for him to have broken.
If I were DD, I'd put the whole trial on pause until the prosecution came up with 1) a law that was broken and 2) evidence that FL actually broke it. Until then all they have is somebody's panties that got in a bunch.
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
This statement is untrue. While you can't roleplay in a region TNP is at war with, you can roleplay in any other region such as Feudal Japan as they are not invader and are defender.
It isn't a matter of roleplay or duality. It's the fact that he held a nation in both the North Pacific and the Lexicon, whom, at the time, were at war with each other. However, I do say that we investigate his Lexicon character a bit more to understand Lexiconhead's position in the Lexicon. Such questions should be answered:
What did Lexiconhead believe?
Was he neutral, anti-war, or pro-war?
Did he break any laws in the Lexicon?
When was Lexiconhead founded?
What government positions did Lexiconhead obtain?
And so on and so forth...
Poltsamaa
TNPer
From someone who imitated a Monty Python sketch?!
To write something new
Is beyond Poltsamaa’s skill
He just imitates.
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
OOH! Burn! :boom
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Not true, you continue to misrepresent the case!! The defense case is that the Constitution of TNP does not refer to "players", it does not!!
Actually, the Constitution does not state this is an offense, therefore it is not a breach of the Constitution!! Law 14 applies to a state of war which has now elapsed, it also does not make reference to a need for a trial if Law 14 is activated!! But, I'm sure the actual law and Constitution are irrelevant to you!!
Hey, you guys wrote the Constitution, I'm just abiding by it!!
One law in TNP cites "player"!! A law specific to wartime situations!! Read the law and learn!! If the government wanted to remove Fulhead Land during the war they were within their rights to do so under Law 14 during the war with The Lexicon!! For some reason, no one even noticed the law and now we have a circus of a trial with no crime specified and no evidence of "treason" by the member nation on trial as per the Constitution!!
Its not my fault you guys screwed up!! I thought you all knew the laws of the region, you wrote them!!
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The best analogy in RL to this debate is whether a criminal defendant with a multiple personality disorder can be held liable for their criminal conduct.
Some have argued in RL that unless the dominant personality of the person at indictment is the same dominant personality at the time of the crime, the person cannot be held liable.
However, the courts, while generally recognizing that the presence of a MPD is relevant, it is not a absolute defense to a criminal charge, as the person who has MPD cannot be said to be insane, and therefore incapable of committing a criminal act. A MPO does not mean the defintion of insanity under the so-called "M'Naughton" rule.
What Polts and the defense are arguing is that FL was not the dominant personality of the person that the time the criminal offense was committed, but that Lexiconhead was, and that at the time of the indictment FL was the dominant personality, and that having a MPD is the equivalent of insanity. Otherwise stated the assertion that FL does not know what Lexiconhead was doing is the equivalent of the assertion in RL of a MPD.
It doesn't work. The fact that TNP Law 14 uses the term "player" coupled with the references to the role of a player elsewhere in the Legal Code, and the Constitution, clearly points to the recognition of the concept of a "player" within TNP jurisprudence. So a player can contend he or she has a MPD, but that isn't a defense.
Some have argued in RL that unless the dominant personality of the person at indictment is the same dominant personality at the time of the crime, the person cannot be held liable.
However, the courts, while generally recognizing that the presence of a MPD is relevant, it is not a absolute defense to a criminal charge, as the person who has MPD cannot be said to be insane, and therefore incapable of committing a criminal act. A MPO does not mean the defintion of insanity under the so-called "M'Naughton" rule.
What Polts and the defense are arguing is that FL was not the dominant personality of the person that the time the criminal offense was committed, but that Lexiconhead was, and that at the time of the indictment FL was the dominant personality, and that having a MPD is the equivalent of insanity. Otherwise stated the assertion that FL does not know what Lexiconhead was doing is the equivalent of the assertion in RL of a MPD.
It doesn't work. The fact that TNP Law 14 uses the term "player" coupled with the references to the role of a player elsewhere in the Legal Code, and the Constitution, clearly points to the recognition of the concept of a "player" within TNP jurisprudence. So a player can contend he or she has a MPD, but that isn't a defense.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Then prosecute under Law 14...oh wait, you missed the boat on that one!! Law 14 has no bearing on the current case no matter how much you try to say it does!!
Perhaps you can point out the relevance of Law 14 to the treason trial and while doing so, inform me as to why you did not follow Law 14 in the first place?!
MPD is not a good analogy as the Defense contends that Fulhead Land, member nation of TNP and Lexiconhead are separate role play entities, not personalities of the same entity!! As the Constitution cites member nations and nations and this is a role play game, it is an entirely valid point!!
If you can prosecute Fulhead Land under Law 14, then be my guest!! My job as Defense attorney for this trial is to ensure my client recieves a fair and lawful trial and that his case is presented in the best possible manner!! If you wish to prosecute separately using Law 14, you need to prove a state of war still exists and then then the result is in the Security Council's hands as far as I can tell using Law 14 as it stands!!
Continued attempts to enforce the wording of Law 14 as some sort of overriding dictate is kind of pointless when tyou refuse or neglect to enforce the law as it is designed to be used in the first place!!
Perhaps you can point out the relevance of Law 14 to the treason trial and while doing so, inform me as to why you did not follow Law 14 in the first place?!
MPD is not a good analogy as the Defense contends that Fulhead Land, member nation of TNP and Lexiconhead are separate role play entities, not personalities of the same entity!! As the Constitution cites member nations and nations and this is a role play game, it is an entirely valid point!!
If you can prosecute Fulhead Land under Law 14, then be my guest!! My job as Defense attorney for this trial is to ensure my client recieves a fair and lawful trial and that his case is presented in the best possible manner!! If you wish to prosecute separately using Law 14, you need to prove a state of war still exists and then then the result is in the Security Council's hands as far as I can tell using Law 14 as it stands!!
Continued attempts to enforce the wording of Law 14 as some sort of overriding dictate is kind of pointless when tyou refuse or neglect to enforce the law as it is designed to be used in the first place!!
Katinaire
TNPer
Apollo, it is a matter of duality in this case because this is an RP or IC court. Therefore OOC matters such as players and real life should be left out of it. In an IC court only character nations can be brought to trial. While this is a little weird seeings how normally it would be the leader of the nation who would go to trial this is the way the game has evolved.
These are the charges against FL. Item 1 does NOT cite how this would break a law nor is the practice of duality ever defined in TNP law as far as I know. Neither have I seen proof or prosecution regarding this issue. However by wording alone it acknowledges the ability to play duality AND it does not stipulate during a time of war....just that they think he did it(oh wait, you mean that couldn't have been roleplaying because you didn't like what he said???).
Item 2 has no proof presented and in truth would fall under law 14 which should then be handled by the Security Council and not this court. However, this again is where the US or THEM scenario comes in. You are right that there are other regions out there he could be a member of, so are you suggesting that if one of his other regions declares war on TNP or vice versa whether he had anything to do with it or not, he must leave that region or face being kicked out of here? And of course no law was cited as being broken.
And Item 3 is entirely contingent on Item 2 being true. I have followed this case and read all of the posts and am at a loss as to how they are planning on showing(let alone proving) that he is guilty of item 2. Here at least they mention an oath that was violated and I presume at some point, perhaps, we will get to see how Item 2 violates that oath.
This is why I call this trial a farce. Item 1 doesn't seem to have a law broken, Item 2 should have been handled by the security council and Item 3 would be taken care of at the same time. And yet here we are months later still waiting for coherent prosecution in a case that should never have been started to begin with.
Until the powers that be pull off their blinders we should just rename this the Salem Fulhead Trial or McHersford Hearings....there is just as much legal merit and fear-mongering being presented.
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
Then consider that, in character, the leader of Fulhead Land has domain over Lexiconhead's territories and that area is protected by enemy, yet hte Lexicon does not know that Fulhead Land is protected by their enemy. This shows that he has two faces: A Lexiconian one and a TNP one. I say that Fulhead LAnd be put on trial in the Lexicon and Lexiconhead be put on trial in the North Pacific.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
I don't think roleplay caters for some random people defining how someone else's roleplayed nations work!! But keep grasping at straws!!
Winter Vacationers
TNPer
I have no idea what IC connections there are between Fullhead and Lexiconhead. But just because one has a UN nation doesn't mean there is any IC connection with an unrelated nation that happens to be in TNP.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Law 14's relevance has to do with how jurisprudence in the region may apply statements of law that ave been adopted to deal with the issues that are present.
I wasn't in office when the charges were laid and when the indictment was filed. I wasn't in office when the trial began, either. Therefore, the question as to why Law 14 wasn't used in the indictment should be directed to those who were in office, but that may prove difficult in that AlHoma has been missing since before the election, and his last known TNP nation has CTE'd.
The indictment cannot be revised in include Law 14 because the statute of limitations has run, so we're left with the indictment being based on the charge of violating the application oath for the Regional Assembly. But that don't mean it has no significance here; it can be used as guidance by the Court, and that is why it is beng mntioned.
I wasn't in office when the charges were laid and when the indictment was filed. I wasn't in office when the trial began, either. Therefore, the question as to why Law 14 wasn't used in the indictment should be directed to those who were in office, but that may prove difficult in that AlHoma has been missing since before the election, and his last known TNP nation has CTE'd.
The indictment cannot be revised in include Law 14 because the statute of limitations has run, so we're left with the indictment being based on the charge of violating the application oath for the Regional Assembly. But that don't mean it has no significance here; it can be used as guidance by the Court, and that is why it is beng mntioned.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Wow, so a completely unrelated law can be applied as "guidance" but not actually used in the charges!!
The oath does not specifiy player, so I see no violation of the oath by Fulhead Land, TNP member nation!! I have ssen no evidence of any such violation!! As I said, a few in this region are grasping at straws, not because they want to see justice under the laws of TNP done, but because they have a predetermined result in mind and will do anything to make sure the result is achieved regardless of the means or how many laws they have to break to do so!!
Lastly, Law 14 does noe require indictment, only a decision from the Security Council!! So not only is the use of the Law as a guide a load of crap, but the fact that if the Law was even used itself it had no place in a trial in TNP!!
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
I believe this will always be a problem in NationStates, but you have to have some sense! And plus that's just retarded? Who would want this conversation with themself:
I guess it is more how idiotic it can become. What if Fulhead Land was sent on a mission to spy on Lexiconhead and bring him to TNP's court? That would be difficult to expain when Hersfold sees two IP Addresses.
I guess it is more how idiotic it can become. What if Fulhead Land was sent on a mission to spy on Lexiconhead and bring him to TNP's court? That would be difficult to expain when Hersfold sees two IP Addresses.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
What is more ridiculous is your suggestion the TNP member nation, Fulhead Land, would ever hold a military/intelligence position in this region!! also, I'm not sure there are any extradition agreements with The Lexicon with regards to bringing Lexiconhead to trial in TNP, but I guess you could ask!!
If Fulhead Land, TNP member nation, wants to roleplay with Lexiconhead in that manner it is his prerogative!! Seems kind of pointless to me!!
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
Okay the "!!" is really getting annoying, Polts.
But it is a bit futile, you have to admit.
But it is a bit futile, you have to admit.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
*Fulhead Land wonders where this line of questioning leads or if its mearly time wasting
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
I really hope this thing turns out for the best. Yet, we don't quite know what the best is at this point.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
That old chestnut!! A traditional fallback when one's argument runs aground!!
Poltsamaa has been exclamating for 2 years and ain't going to stop now!!
I would have thought from your comments that having Fulhead out of town by sunset would have been your idea of "best"!! You seem fairly focussed on that end result and trying to fashion evidence and fact to suit that end result!! I've not noticed you open-mindedly analysing the situation at all!!
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
I have a write to change my mind!! Just like everyone else, I can decide one thing at one moment and think it over the next!! I then redecide!!
Hooray for the Poltsclamation mark!!=!!
Hooray for the Poltsclamation mark!!=!!
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
That old chestnut!! A traditional fallback when one's argument runs aground!!
Poltsamaa has been exclamating for 2 years and ain't going to stop now!!
Just a question, if Polts becomes a Court Justice, then will Fulhead/Lexiconhead have to have a new defence counsel? (if he wants one)
Byardkuria
TNPer
2-minute skimming of the ICR* reveals
Rule 509. Appointment of Defender.
A- A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. (Source: TNP Constitution, Article I, Clause 7.)
I believe the only valid perceived cause for concern would be the question of Polts's impartiality in the event of an appeal - however, there is an ICR allowing for appointment of a judicial officer in such a case. While Polts certainly could step down as defense counsel, forcing him to do so would appear to violate procedural due process.
* IOW, not an official opinion - I did not correlate this with other passages, or look for conflicting and overruling information in the LC and Constitution.
Rule 509. Appointment of Defender.
A- A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. (Source: TNP Constitution, Article I, Clause 7.)
I believe the only valid perceived cause for concern would be the question of Polts's impartiality in the event of an appeal - however, there is an ICR allowing for appointment of a judicial officer in such a case. While Polts certainly could step down as defense counsel, forcing him to do so would appear to violate procedural due process.
* IOW, not an official opinion - I did not correlate this with other passages, or look for conflicting and overruling information in the LC and Constitution.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
I will not be stepping down as I made a promise to Fulhead Land to defend him against the charges now before the Court!!
In the event of an appeal of the verdict of the current trial, I would remove myself from contention to preside over such an appeal!! Although I believe I would be capable of dealing with the appeal based on the evidence and fact alone, I would prefer not to have any appeal decision clouded with the assumption of bias no matter how unbiased the decision may be!!
In the event of an appeal of the verdict of the current trial, I would remove myself from contention to preside over such an appeal!! Although I believe I would be capable of dealing with the appeal based on the evidence and fact alone, I would prefer not to have any appeal decision clouded with the assumption of bias no matter how unbiased the decision may be!!