TNP vs. Fulhead Discussion

Apologies if you thought I was implying you would be anything but impartial, Polts. I personally hold you as irreproachable. But we've been playing long enough to know the first thing that would be brought up if you remained empanelled for an appeal.
 
Byardkuria:
Apologies if you thought I was implying you would be anything but impartial, Polts. I personally hold you as irreproachable. But we've been playing long enough to know the first thing that would be brought up if you remained empanelled for an appeal.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it that way, apologies if my reply came across that way!! I fully understand the predicament should I preside over any appeal Fulhead Land may make and would assume that I would be removed from contention to act as judge in any such appeal!!

I'd prefer someone else looked after it so as to avoid any presumption of bias tainting the result of the appeal!!
 
Well, this is the second "prosecutor" so far this trial and, with the behind the scenes support staff assisting, they have had ample time and resources to make their case!!
 
Polts, too bad time and resources aren't the only requirements. *cough*intelligence*cough* If I were you I'd be asking the prosecution what written laws FL broke. I still have yet to see that cited.
 
Katinaire:
Polts, too bad time and resources aren't the only requirements. *cough*intelligence*cough* If I were you I'd be asking the prosecution what written laws FL broke. I still have yet to see that cited.
Click to expand...
I thought they would have let me know by now!! :P
 
I thought it was pretty clear all along that we were trying FL for violation of article II of the Constitution. I must be missing something here.
 
Hmmm....Article II you say? I seem to have missed the mention of duality in that and the only thing I can see that he may have done was to change his UN nation without notifying someone.

If you are referencing the oath, then you must prove that IC, FL controlled a nation in a region that TNP was at war with AND explain why the government, who was aware of the situation apparently, refrained from stipping his voting rights at that time or since as it clearly states in that oath shall be done.

So good luck with that.
 
Article 1 Section 1 Clause 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...

They could refer to this.
 
I thought about that ^. But I still haven't seen any proof of that presented nor do I see it being brought about by the current line of questioning.
 
My understanding from the original indictment is that the charges are brought based upon
ection 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...

and upon
) In their request, Nations will be required to post a link to their TNP member Nation and their UN member Nation at NationStates.net, and in doing so, verify that they have taken the following oath:

"I, (Forum Name), as the leader of the (Official Full National Name), pledge to obey the Constitution and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society.  I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for reasons other than participation in North Pacific Army deployments that I may be stripped of my right to vote and required to reapply.  I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. I  understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. In this manner, I petition the Regional Government of The North Pacific region for membership in the Regional Assembly."
Click to expand...
(the italicized portion was not part of the oath at the time of the indictment), and upon this:
ection 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to 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 and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those 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 officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
Click to expand...

It really isn't that hard to figure out.
 
Then the prosecution had better get started presenting evidence that TNP member nation, Fulhead Land, breached the sections of the Constitution you cite!! I've seen nothing!! How this even got to trial is beyond me as the prosecution has nothing to base this on but circumstantial OOC "evidence" that is flimsy in itself if it were applicable!!
 
Man, I wish I were the prosecution. I would be kicking Poltsamaa's ass up and down the field.

No offense, Polts. I'm just saying I would have presented this a long time ago.
 
Apollo-Industria:
Man, I wish I were the prosecution. I would be kicking Poltsamaa's ass up and down the field.

No offense, Polts. I'm just saying I would have presented this a long time ago.
Click to expand...
It has been presented and shot down!! The sections cited refer to "member nation", the oath has been deemed (correctly!!), by the justice presiding, to be taken by the RP leader of the member nation of TNP!! The problem is not with the sections of the constitution cited, but that they do not apply to the evidence that the prosecution is trying to submit!! The actions, or lackthereof, of Lexiconhead are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution at the time of the alleged offenses or at the commencement of the trial!! Why do you think a case that is so clear cut to you is taking so long?! Why do you think we are up to our second prosecutor?! The prosecution has no evidence of any wrongdoing by TNP member nation, Fulhead Land, and therefore has no case when held up against the constitution of TNP!! That may be why!! As I said earlier, how this even got to trial based on the evidence presented by the prosecution is mind-boggling!!

So, far from kicking my arse up and down the field, you'd be throwing up the same clay pigeons for me shoot down!! Probably a good thing you are not the prosecutor, no offense!! ;)

You are right about one thing, this is a clear cut case!! A clear cut case of trumped up charges falling over because of lack of evidence!! And sadly, not for the first time either!!
 
tell you what why dont I just take some of this bold old pile of real life I ahve stacked up around me and throw it your way, then moan at you about answering questions ;)
 
Fulhead Land:
tell you what why dont I just take some of this bold old pile of real life I ahve stacked up around me and throw it your way, then moan at you about answering questions ;)
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, I didn't know that your life was so stressful. Mine has been absolutely joyous with "finals" coming about and what.

Clearly you have been more stressed out than a student on the verge of failing his classes.
 
Well, you'd know!! It was quite alright while sat around for weeks while the prosecution arsed about, cut Fulhead some slack and lose the attitude!!

Fulhead: Nice comeback!!
 
I am anly an observer, but I wish this trial can get to an end.

(There are some procedural changes that are need to speed up jury selection and trials in general, but it will be arkward to try to do so while this trial continues onwards. In my personal opinion the trial has not be in compliance with TNP Law 5 and the constitution, and both sides in the trial are equally responsible for that situation.)
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I am anly an observer, but I wish this trial can get to an end.

(There are some procedural changes that are need to speed up jury selection and trials in general, but it will be arkward to try to do so while this trial continues onwards. In my personal opinion the trial has not be in compliance with TNP Law 5 and the constitution, and both sides in the trial are equally responsible for that situation.)
Click to expand...
This trial isn't in compliance with election procedures?
 
Southwest Asia:
How?
Click to expand...
Since you asked... and I am by no means the legal expert here... but I would have cross-examined all my witnesses (on IRC or AOL or similar) during pre-trial depositions and submitted THOSE as evidence to the Court and the Defense. Doing it on the forum where you average about one question a day is simply not efficient.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Southwest Asia:
How?
Click to expand...
Since you asked... and I am by no means the legal expert here... but I would have cross-examined all my witnesses (on IRC or AOL or similar) during pre-trial depositions and submitted THOSE as evidence to the Court and the Defense. Doing it on the forum where you average about one question a day is simply not efficient.
Click to expand...
In fact, the posted draft Interim Court Rules (which are pinned and posted in the Court's own forum) calls for the use of that very procedure, and I remain totally mystified as to why that was not done.

It would have shortened this trial to days, not months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top