The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II

Blue Wolf II:
As to Exhibit C more questions have come up since that admission period about the legitimacy of the evidence being submitted, the Defense is well within our rights to ask for it to be removed.
Click to expand...
Your question could easily have been asked when it was introduced, I think you should take the advice of the presiding judge and better coordinate with your other defence counsel... wherever he seems to have wandered off to.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I'm sorry, but the Defense will not revoke the request for removal of evidence at this time, please await the ruling of the Court, Mr. Sniffles.
Click to expand...
I am awaiting the ruling, I am not asking you to revoke your request, just doing my job by presenting the Prosecutions case for my own objection.
 
*Bangs gavel*

Both the Prosecution and the Defence need to watch their tone.

The Defence's complaint is sustained. The conduct of the witness is unacceptable. Rhindon Blade, you must answer the Prosecutions questions properly. If your conduct is not improved then you will be removed from the Court. The defence may treat the witness as hostile, should they wish.

With regards to the evidence, the defence's request for it to be thrown out is denied for the time being. However the Prosecution has 48 hours to provide an unedited version of the screenshot to me or it will be thrown out.
 
Your honor, I very much resent the way I have been addressed by BW - I'm a distinguished citizen of the region with a perfect track record and a witness of this court for the benefit of the wellbeing of the TNP government.

My opinion was additionally very explicitly asked for, it has been scorned by the askers:

JAL:
If this is indeed true [the public nature of the scanner] how does it prove or even indicate that any plot was carried out in any way?
Click to expand...

Rhindon:
I do not think your intentions [Blue Wolf's] were virtuous - moreover, WeeTiddler knew they were not.
Click to expand...

Rhindon:
JAL, when you used that public scanner, did you too mention to a TNP official that you were tied to a plot against the state, which was being initiated by the citizen who supplied that endorsement-harvesting scanner to you?
Click to expand...

The uncensored evidence will certainly be provided to you within the timeframe given.
 
The Defendant has been warned about his tone. However the Defendant is before this Court charged with very serious offenses. Though that does not in any way excuse his tone it does make it understandable. You, on the other hand, have been called as a witness -an expert witness at that- by the State. I would expect your conduct to be above reproach in the way you handle yourself here.

This subject is not up for further discussion.
 
The defence may treat the witness as hostile, should they wish.
Click to expand...

We will do just that, your honor.

Now then the Defense will rephrase our questions to the witness and give them in numerical order to prevent any confusion.

1.) Is it not true that the endorsement scanner stated in Exhibit B was, in fact, a public scanner that anyone who merely signed up as a member of the Commonwealth Forums can access at any time?

2.) Is this very page being presented here not the scanner in question?

3.) Is it the witness' opinion that simply providing this link on a public forum is an act of treason, as you suggested previously, Mr. Blade?

4.) If not, then how is the Defendants actions then with Wee Tiddler any different then this very minute when the link was again provided?

5.) Do you think Wee Tiddler did indeed violate any laws or intended to violate any laws, which he would have had to in order to make a conviction of Treason or Sedition against the Defendant plausible, and if so then is Mr. Tiddler not also on trail?

Please answer yes or no when plausible and then elaborate on each answer you give, Mr. Blade.



The defense would also like to clarify with the Court that the 48 hour deadline on Exhibit C has passed without the unedited version of that piece of evidence being released. Since it was never posted openly in the Court the Defense is in the dark about the status of that Exhibit. We will await the Courts response on this matter before reintroducing Exhibit C into our line of questioning.
 
Just a courtesy call to inform the court that I have been incredibly tied up with RL affairs over the weekend - been working on a huge inaugural event in my city - but now that its all blown over will issue a sufficient response to the questions presented within 12 hours. Its all rather out of my control, but thanks for your patience, and my apologies for the inconvenience.
 
1) Nowhere in Exhibit B does it indicate that the scanner is the Commonwealth's public one. Nowhere was I informed of which specific scanner he referred to. But since you've decided to reveal it to us all now - my guess is that, yes, this is the scanner in question. After all, you were the one who supplied it, and have just confirmed this to us all.

2) Refer to Answer 1.

3) No. It is not my opinion that the sharing of a public scanner is grounds for treason. However, if its purpose is to encourage maliciousness against the state...then it is. This concept is demonstrated here:

TNP Legal Code:
[Treason is]providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific
Click to expand...

4) BW, by sharing the link with this court, you did not commit treason - because you did not additionally provide any of us right now (as you did to WeeTiddler) with the very explicit encouragement to use the tool "for the purpose of undermining the lawful government".

5) I believe Wee Tiddler may have taken it one step further than FEC, and may have intended to violate laws, but was not able to do so due to the scheme's failing, and therefore did not. If he deserves a trial, it would be carried out in a separate session. Furthermore, I do not believe that in order for one to convict, unintentional or no, one needs to be a criminal.

Such are the straight views I have stood by since stepping into the courtroom, and if they were not understood by those not wanting to understand, I apologize for not presenting them as clearly as you may have wished.
 
Rhindon Blade:
Nowhere in Exhibit B does it indicate that the scanner is the Commonwealth's public one. Nowhere was I informed of which specific scanner he referred to. But since you've decided to reveal it to us all now - my guess is that, yes, this is the scanner in question. After all, you were the one who supplied it, and have just confirmed this to us all.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you have no actual idea what scanner WeeTiddler was at all talking about? Can it then be assumed that you "filled in the blanks" about the actual details of what happened between the Defendant and Mr. Tiddler? After all you seem to be gravely lacking in details other than a vague and out of context screen shot of a conversation in which you claim implies some sort of grand plot against the Government.

How can you be so entirely certain of what happened if you can't even answer the simple detail of what this so called "scanner" actually was and where it came from? How can you claim to be an “expert witness” if you don’t even know the full details of the conversation you were having with Mr. Tiddler?

Further more, the Defense is not disputing that the Defendant did, indeed, give Mr. WeeTiddler some sort of scanner and submit that it was the one linked in the above questions. Furthermore we submit that providing a publicly known and accessible scanner is not grounds for treason and that, if it is indeed grounds for treason, every TNP member who gives out that link to people that Mr. Blade deem as "the wrong sort of person" should stand trial for their "crimes".

Rhindon Blade:
No. It is not my opinion that the sharing of a public scanner is grounds for treason. However, if its purpose is to encourage maliciousness against the state...then it is. This concept is demonstrated here:


(TNP Legal Code):
[Treason is]providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Mr. Blade, please state for the Court the name of this group/region you claim the Defendant was aiming to support and please provide for the Court a full list of members in this so supposed group and/or region.

Furthermore, what proof do you have that the scanner was given out for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific? All Exhibit B really states is that Mr. Tiddler used the scanner in a means that was still within the legal boundaries of TNP. Is this now to be considered treason?

Rhindon Blade:
BW, by sharing the link with this court, you did not commit treason - because you did not additionally provide any of us right now (as you did to WeeTiddler) with the very explicit encouragement to use the tool "for the purpose of undermining the lawful government
Click to expand...

Mr. Blade, you speak of Mr. Tiddler like he is some sort of criminal, however the Defense have seen no record of a Court trial, and can find no public record specifically outlining that Mr. Tiddler was a threat to TNP or a criminal that TNP citizens must avoid contact with.

In fact the only claim the Defense has yet seen that declares that Mr. Tiddler is some sort of an "untouchable" stems from you and you alone, Mr. Blade. Is it then that you feel that because its your personal opinion that Mr. Tiddler is some sort of a criminal that all those in close contact with him should be charged with treason?

Rhindon Blade:
I believe Wee Tiddler may have taken it one step further than FEC, and may have intended to violate laws, but was not able to do so due to the scheme's failing, and therefore did not.
Click to expand...

Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Click to expand...

Your statement sounds dangerously close to the definition for sedition. And yet no charges have been brought against Mr. Tiddler even though you clearly imply you think he was involved in this alleged "plot". The Defense finds this to be most curious




On a purely legal note, the Defense requests from the Prosecution a transcript of the full PM conversation that happened between Mr. Blade and Mr. Tiddler in Exhibit B. The single screenshot that the Prosecution provided seems to have been taken entirely out of context and as such the Defense would like to review the entire transcript in full. We await the Courts Ruling in this matter.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Your statement sounds dangerously close to the definition for sedition. And yet no charges have been brought against Mr. Tiddler even though you clearly imply you think he was involved in this alleged "plot". The Defense finds this to be most curious
Click to expand...
Objection. It is the job of the defence to ask questions not accuse the witness when they say something the defence doesn't agree with. I find this particularly galling especially since the defence is the one inciting others to destroy the Constitution.

On a purely legal note, the Defense requests from the Prosecution a transcript of the full PM conversation that happened between Mr. Blade and Mr. Tiddler in Exhibit B. The single screenshot that the Prosecution provided seems to have been taken entirely out of context and as such the Defense would like to review the entire transcript in full. We await the Courts Ruling in this matter.
Click to expand...

The Court, the defence, and the prosecution has already reviewed the material beforehand and has found it acceptable. I find the defence's request objectionable as the defence already has had the opportunity to ask for it and to review it. The Court has already asked the defence to better coordinate, which they seem to have ignored.
 
Mr Sniffles:
I find this particularly galling especially since the defence is the one inciting others to destroy the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Objection, implies guilt and is entirely opinionated. Also, ironic.

The Defense recants the early statement of which the Prosecution is referring to.

Mr Sniffles:
]The Court, the defence, and the prosecution has already reviewed the material beforehand and has found it acceptable. I find the defence's request objectionable as the defence already has had the opportunity to ask for it and to review it.
Click to expand...

There were only two screen shots accepted as evidence that were related to that conversation of which only one was submitted to the Court (Exhibit B). The Defense is requesting a full transcript of the conversation in coordination to the evidence the Court has already allowed up until now. This is not at all an unreasonable request.
 
Apologies, I've been a little busy.

The Prosecution did supply the unedited copy of Exhibit C as requested. Having reviewed the IM transcript I am satisfied that the evidence is genuine. I am also satisfied that there is sufficient reason, related to regional security and witness protection, for the unedited version to remain classified. As such the edited transcript of Exhibit C will stand.


mr_sniffles:
Objection. It is the job of the defence to ask questions not accuse the witness when they say something the defence doesn't agree with. I find this particularly galling especially since the defence is the one inciting others to destroy the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Sustained, Blue Wolf II, keep your questions on the subject of this trial. I would also note that is the Attorney-General, not the witness, who decides whether to press charges.


Blue Wolf II:
Objection, implies guilt and is entirely opinionated. Also, ironic.
Click to expand...

Irony is not against the law.
 
Blue Wolf II:
There were only two screen shots accepted as evidence that were related to that conversation of which only one was submitted to the Court (Exhibit B). The Defense is requesting a full transcript of the conversation in coordination to the evidence the Court has already allowed up until now. This is not at all an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...
The prosecution would like to clarify that three pieces of evidence were introduced but only two has been presented, that is, the evidence regarding RB's testimony.

The prosecution requests that the Court remind the defence to better coordinate, again.
 
you can't even answer the simple detail of what this so called "scanner" actually was and where it came from
Click to expand...

Fact: Tiddler was supplied with an endorsement gathering scanner. Moreover, you have admitted to supplying it, and have kindly revealed its details to us. As such, I am not as interested in the product brand of the weapon he was given (and neither is the court, I'm inclined to guess), as I am with the fact you have confessed to it, and provided us with the full information and a link to the very potential weapon you used. Case cleared.

BW:
every TNP member who gives out that link to people that Mr. Blade deem as "the wrong sort of person" should stand trial for their "crimes".
Click to expand...

Listen to what I've said, sir, and stop gnawing on that old bone! Intention, BW, intention. It seems you're having trouble grasping this concept - as an example let me draw your attention to the only difference between manslaughter and murder. Intention. Yours was treasonous, very clearly - you provided that link in an effort to undermine the TNP government, as Tiddler has admitted, as you have boasted in an IM chat, and as other witnesses have testified to.

BW:
Mr. Blade, please state for the Court the name of this group/region you claim the Defendant was aiming to support and please provide for the Court a full list of members in this so supposed group and/or region.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought that up.

Is it not true that you have revealed that the scanner in question is the possession of The Commonwealth's? In addition to using one of their products - and sharing it with dissenters in the region, is it also not true that on April 18th, as displayed in Exhibit B, you boasted... "We joined a rather large alliance called The Commonwealth and I am having fun controlling their armies. We're raiding TNP soon."

This is only speculation, a suggestion that might be worth considering. An interesting link that seems to have been formed. It could be that no one else in that region knew of your intentions, you may have been acting independently (but by saying "we", you're implying that there's more involved) and if so, you still futhermore intended to provide support at least two other highly-endorsed TNPers in a potential move against the lawful TNP government, Tiddler and FEC, the latter who refused to join.

BW:
Furthermore, what proof do you have that the scanner was given out for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific?
Click to expand...

It was the weapon of the very region whose armies you claimed you controlled and was going to use to raid TNP.

But more importantly, if you cannot gather the implications of the situation from what Mr. Tiddler has stated, he himself blatantly called it a "scheme", "Blue Wolf's master plan"...the operation that was dubbed "The Gunpowder Plot". I would like to encourage the Prosecution to submit the screenshot I forwarded on to them originally (BW3.jpg) - that confirms this.

BW:
Mr. Blade, you speak of Mr. Tiddler like he is some sort of criminal, however the Defense have seen no record of a Court trial, and can find no public record specifically outlining that Mr. Tiddler was a threat to TNP or a criminal that TNP citizens must avoid contact with.
Click to expand...

BW, consult the history books. Tiddler is very well known as a citizen of TNP that has been disgruntled with the government for a long time - he and Tresville were at each other's throats for a while (almost got himself banned too - I still have the orders to prepare for this in my inbox). This was one of the many messages he sent me in February (as posted in a topic I created that reached 1,000 views, everyone knew)...

WeeTiddler:
Why would anyone really want to stay in TNP? You got snotty arsey telegrams and threats from Tresville who is simply far too quick to mouth off. Manners cost nothing but they are not worthless and if you give crap to people and you often get it back. An people wonder why this region is dieing? because unless your part of the inner clique you get crap.
I am sending this to you as you appear to be one of the rare civilised and pleasant people on this site but with offensive and basically unfirendly 'fake tough talkers' like Tresville you are just going to turn people away.
**After all it is just a bloody game!!**
Anyway good luck to you and so long and thanks for all the fish.
Wee Tiddler
Click to expand...

I was his closest sympathizer.

WeeTiddler had previously created an additional topic in which he asked for the endo cap to be abolished.

You were present in that topic.

Not long after, you provided him with an endorsement scanner.

...(From a region whose army was going to raid TNP under your direction)...

Despite it being plain as day to all of us here...why?
 
Rhindon Blade:
As such, I am not as interested in the product brand of the weapon he was given (and neither is the court, I'm inclined to guess), as I am with the fact you have confessed to it, and provided us with the full information and a link to the very potential weapon you used.
Click to expand...

So, what you seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter if the scanner provided was not an endorsement scanner or a scanner of founderless regions, what really matters is that it was some sort of scanner that Mr. Tiddler did nothing illegally with, would that be an accurate statement, Mr. Blade? Yes or no, why or why not.
The fact the witness can not positively identify what scanner was used, what it was used for, or even where it came from throws doubt into their so-called "expert" opinion.

Looking at Exibit B, the Defense notes that Mr. Tiddler clearly states "there was no secret meetings, strategy, plan, or anything else." Please, Mr. Blade, how you have surmised from this statement that the Defenant is, in your opinion, guilty?

Furthermore Mr. Tiddler never broke any TNP law, he only got close to it by his own will, as admitted here: "I used it and got really close to the endocap." How is this a clear indication of the Defendant's supposed guilt?


Rhindon Blade:
Yours was treasonous, very clearly - you provided that link in an effort to undermine the TNP government, as Tiddler has admitted, as you have boasted in an IM chat, and as other witnesses have testified to.
Click to expand...

Please, Mr. Blade, point out the exact line where Mr. Tiddler admits that the endoscanner was used to "undermine the TNP government".


Rhindon Blade:
Is it not true that you have revealed that the scanner in question is the possession of The Commonwealth's? In addition to using one of their products - and sharing it with dissenters in the region, is it also not true that on April 18th, as displayed in Exhibit B, you boasted... "We joined a rather large alliance called The Commonwealth and I am having fun controlling their armies. We're raiding TNP soon."

This is only speculation, a suggestion that might be worth considering.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your speculation, Mr. Blade, but what it seems you're saying is that you actually have no definitive proof that there was any outside group involved in this alleged "plot" never mind what its name is or who is in it, would that be correct? Yes or no, why or why not.

Better idea. Objection, speculation.

Rhindon Blade:
But more importantly, if you cannot gather the implications of the situation from what Mr. Tiddler has stated, he himself blatantly called it a "scheme", "Blue Wolf's master plan"...the operation that was dubbed "The Gunpowder Plot"
Click to expand...

The Defense would like to point out at this point that the witness has plunged into a flight of fancy and that the actual quote as provided in Exhibit B was in fact: "To use the phrase 'plot' would flatter the scheme beyond measure."

The Defense would also like to point out that being a "disgruntled" is not a crime, nor is it expressly illegal to associate with them unless they are directly labeled as "enemies of TNP".

The Defense would like to clarify with the courts that the player known as WeeTiddler has not been labeled as such, we await word.

As for Exhibit C, Mr. Blade, what exactly was the nature of that nameless, faceless, blameless, mystery person? Are they in the NPA? Are they even a TNP citizen? Are they a disgruntled defender, or a turned raider? There seem to be many details missing as to whom this nameless, faceless, blameless, mystery person actually is and why anyone should take anything he/she/it says as the truth.

Rhindon Blade:
BW, consult the history books. Tiddler is very well known as a citizen of TNP that has been disgruntled with the government for a long time - he and Tresville were at each other's throats for a while (almost got himself banned too - I still have the orders to prepare for this in my inbox). This was one of the many messages he sent me in February (as posted in a topic I created that reached 1,000 views, everyone knew)...

WeeTiddler:
Why would anyone really want to stay in TNP? You got snotty arsey telegrams and threats from Tresville who is simply far too quick to mouth off. Manners cost nothing but they are not worthless and if you give crap to people and you often get it back. An people wonder why this region is dieing? because unless your part of the inner clique you get crap.
I am sending this to you as you appear to be one of the rare civilised and pleasant people on this site but with offensive and basically unfirendly 'fake tough talkers' like Tresville you are just going to turn people away.
**After all it is just a bloody game!!**
Anyway good luck to you and so long and thanks for all the fish.
Wee Tiddler
Click to expand...

I was his closest sympathizer.

WeeTiddler had previously created an additional topic in which he asked for the endo cap to be abolished.

You were present in that topic.

Not long after, you provided him with an endorsement scanner.

...(From a region whose army was going to raid TNP under your direction)...

Despite it being plain as day to all of us here...why?
Click to expand...

Objection, speculation.
 
Objections upheld. Rhindon Blade, you have already been warned by this Court about your conduct as a witness. The above testimony will be striken from the record and as far as the Court is concerned, and unless the Defence has an objection, we have finished with you as a witness.


Blue Wolf II:
As for Exhibit C, Mr. Blade, what exactly was the nature of that nameless, faceless, blameless, mystery person? Are they in the NPA? Are they even a TNP citizen? Are they a disgruntled defender, or a turned raider? There seem to be many details missing as to whom this nameless, faceless, blameless, mystery person actually is and why anyone should take anything he/she/it says as the truth.
Click to expand...

As per my last post, the identity of the other participant in the conversation from Exhibit C has been proved to the Court. It will not be disclosed for reasons of regional security.
 
The Defense does not object, your Honor, but reserves the right to recall Rhindon Blade to the stand.

The Defense is not inquiring about the name of the nameless, blameless, faceless mystery person but rather the nature of the nameless, blameless, faceless mystery person. Surely the Defense must be provided simple details on the background and state of mind of this nameless, blameless, faceless mystery person if we are to defend against their claims.
 
Sniffles:
We was one of the investigators looking into BW heinous plot. He discovered the evidence he is commenting on and he delivered the evidence he is commenting on.
Click to expand...

This was accepted by the court, your honor. And since then, the accused has asked me multiple times for my personal opinion (in order to refute them of course). Such substance is and has always been speculation - I even acknowledged it as so, but now the accused sees fit to 'object' to what he once encouraged from me. To what seems to be the most difficult of statements I made he seems to have sidestepped or simply shouted that absurd objection.

Despite that, I would respond to BW's post, but I don't wish to do so unless I am given the permission from his honor.
 
The Defense would like to call to the stand the other participant in the conversation shown in Exhibit C, AKA nameless, blameless, faceless mystery person.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Defense would like to call to the stand the other participant in the conversation shown in Exhibit C, AKA nameless, blameless, faceless mystery person.
Click to expand...
Objection, the Court has already decided not to disclose the identity of the informant. Will the defence respect the ruling of this Court or does the defence need to be held in contempt?
 
The Defense would like to know how the Defendant is to face their accusers if said person will not come forward in Court and take questions about their testimony, which, oddly enough, another witness introduced and not nameless, blameless, faceless mystery person.

It is impossible for the Defense to even have the opportunity to refute this so called evidence if we can‘t question the person who made these claims.
 
The Defendant may question the witness but the identity of the witness will be protected.

The Defendant may post the questions here and I shall pass them onto the witness to answer. I will then post their answers here.
 
The Defense asks if the witness swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


Also, the Defense asks permission from the Court to treat this witness as hostile.
 
The Defense asks this because the witness has already been sighted in the testimony of the Prosecution’s second witness as a person who would more than likely offer adverse testimony to the calling party, namely the Defense.

In fact the Defense is rather surprised the Prosecution themselves did not call this witness to the stand and instead left it up to the Defense to do so.
 
Mr. Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person please provide for the Court a full transcript of your conversation with Mr. Blade that partly appeared in Prosecution’s Exhibit C as well as your alleged conversation with the Defendant which also appeared in Prosecution’s Exhibit C. If you please, include date/time stamps and screen shots to prove that these transcripts are in fact legitimate and not a creation of your Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery mind.
 
Objection, the purpose of a witness testimony to answer questions. Not to provide evidence, will the defence recognize all, or any legal constructs or will they continue this random desperate attempt for attention?
 
The Prosecution opened this line of scrutiny when they introduced censored evidence, the Defense is merely trying to establish if the witness is in fact legitimate or not.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Prosecution opened this line of scrutiny when they introduced censored evidence, the Defense is merely trying to establish if the witness is in fact legitimate or not.
Click to expand...
And this witness, this evidence, all of which has already been approved by the Court, by this very presiding judge! Who else does the defence believe they are appealing to?

What if anything is the defence doing but perhaps trying to jigger some loose screw in the accused memory to finger this high value informant, already deemed legitimate by the Court.
 
No, once provided the Defense intends to present the evidence the witness submits as Defense Exhibit A. Any relation to the Prosecution’s Exhibit C is pure semantics as our Exhibit A would obviously introduce new evidence not previously seen in Prosecution’s Exhibit C.

In any case, if the witness can not properly establish that he is in fact the real Nameless, Blameless, Faceless Mystery Person then all this is a moot point.

The Defense has nothing to hide here despite the Prosecutions rather heated commentary.

Also, in case the Defense is mistaken but this is in fact our witness not the Prosecution's. We are allowed to question "it" how we wish within the rules of the Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top