The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II

It is only the Prosecution opinion that the alleged event actually occurred; the evidence suggests nothing to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defense requests the Prosecution please wait for the Courts decision before making more unfounded and bias claims.
 
Blue Wolf II:
It is only the Prosecution opinion that the alleged event actually occurred; the evidence suggests nothing to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defense requests the Prosecution please wait for the Courts decision before making more unfounded and bias claims.
Click to expand...
The prosecution and the past two pages of testimony from FEC, proves it did occur; as much as you may wish it now it didn't.

And the prosecution requests the defense to allow the trial to proceed, the claims by the defense are quite frankly what this entire trial is about. Now speaking out of turn may be the personal style of this defense counsel but if he would like to prove this event did not occur, there is the witness right in front of him to cross examine.
 
If the Prosecution like the Defense can put aside the request to further cross examine the Prosecution's witness in order to further prove the witness' testimony has no bearing upon this criminal procedure.
 
The prosecution asks the court to clarify just who is the designated counsel for the defense, or will it just be any and all who'd like to comment?
 
John Ashcroft Land:
Former English Colony:
Breaking the oath, at least the part about waging war, would seem to me to need some action to take place.  The first part, about being a responsible member, I can't say what breaking that part means. 

The other Laws you quoted earlier also seemed to mention planning for an overthrow of the elected government, and it was my understanding that was what he wanted to plan.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that such a regime change was actually planned, or only that he wanted to plan it? I would assert that freedom of thought is traditionally protected in the North Pacific and therefore wanting to plot something is entirely legal if not tactful.
Click to expand...
No, since I didn't agree to support treason, no treason occurred that I know about. But then, if I *had* agreed, I would have been up for trial also.
 
Former English Colony:
John Ashcroft Land:
Former English Colony:
Breaking the oath, at least the part about waging war, would seem to me to need some action to take place.  The first part, about being a responsible member, I can't say what breaking that part means.  

The other Laws you quoted earlier also seemed to mention planning for an overthrow of the elected government, and it was my understanding that was what he wanted to plan.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that such a regime change was actually planned, or only that he wanted to plan it? I would assert that freedom of thought is traditionally protected in the North Pacific and therefore wanting to plot something is entirely legal if not tactful.
Click to expand...
No, since I didn't agree to support treason, no treason occurred that I know about. But then, if I *had* agreed, I would have been up for trial also.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your time and honesty; I have no further questions at this time.
 
Thank you for your time FEC.

Right. I suggest that both the prosecution and the defence watch their tone. The defence may be correct that the article of evidence does not in itself prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt but it is unquestionably relevant to the case in hand and will therefore stand. The charges are proved or disproved on the basis of the trial as a whole, not one piece of evidence.

I do not have a problem with the defendant speaking for himself but he must not do so out of turn. I also suggest that the defence and his counsel co-ordinate better, as they seem to be arguing in different directions.

The trial is now in recess for twenty four hours, as requested by defence consel, to allow the review of new evidence.
 
The recess is over and the Court is back in session.

For the public record, the Prosecutions second request to submit new evidence has been denied.

The Prosecution may call their next witness.
 
The prosecution calls Rhindon Blade to the stand and ask that he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
 
Please state for the Court the positions you've held in the region of the North Pacifc, what specific position you held during the time of the incident (during April of this year,) and how you came to know about BW's plot to overthrow the Delegate?
 
I was serving in the Cabinet as the Minister of External Affairs at the time I became aware of BW's involvement in offenses against the government.

I received verbal confirmation of the plot from two sources.

One from Wee Tiddler, a citizen who has been highly disgruntled with the TNP government for a long time, and who was defending BW at the time. I've been sympathetic to him for a long time - he had come to trust me - and although it pains me to have seemingly 'used' that trust, there was a crime against the state involved, and it was my duty to show officials some pieces of PMs I have received from him. He confessed privately that BW was helping him quietly gain endorsements for the so called 'plot'.

The other confirmation was someone who was told by BW himself via messenger that he had plans (that April) to "raid TNP". This source is pretty sensitive, naturally.

This is how I become unquestionably sure of BW's now-failed attempt to overthrow the Delegate in April.
 
And it is from these sources that you can confirm the veracity of the following?
(The prosecution apologizes for the size and subsequent warping of this thread.)

The prosecution introduces the following as Exhibit B and...
bw1.jpg


Exhibit C
bw2f.jpg
 
Objection!

This testimonial has been specifically denied from being used as evidence by the Court as seen here:

Haor Chall:
For the public record, the Prosecutions second request to submit new evidence has been denied.
Click to expand...

Request that Exhibit B be removed from public record and from the Court.
 
Actually the following was part of the first introduction of new evidence. The prosecution thinks the defense team should better coordinate, though I believe it would be helpful to show the evidence rejected before the court just to prove this...
 
mr_sniffles:
Actually the following was part of the first introduction of new evidence. The prosecution thinks the defense team should better coordinate, though I believe it would be helpful to show the evidence rejected before the court just to prove this...
Click to expand...

Thank you for that insight.

In light of that statement the Defense would additionally like to request the Court dismiss the Case entirely due to lack of evidence and bring an end to this ridiculous show trial.

The Defense would also like to note that this evidence is not "alike" the evidence that was dismissed by the Court for being unconstitutional but, in fact, *exactly* the evidence that was rejected and was purposefully denied from being used as evidence in this Court, just to clarify.

This is nothing more than an attempt by the Prosecution to push already rejected testimonial upon the Court by forcing it upon the Jury and then begging it be admitted just because its seen the light of this Court.
 
Blue Wolf II:
mr_sniffles:
Actually the following was part of the first introduction of new evidence. The prosecution thinks the defense team should better coordinate, though I believe it would be helpful to show the evidence rejected before the court just to prove this...
Click to expand...

Thank you for that insight.

In light of that statement the Defense would additionally like to request the Court dismiss the Case entirely due to lack of evidence and bring an end to this ridiculous show trial.

The Defense would also like to note that this evidence is not "alike" the evidence that was dismissed by the Court for being unconstitutional but, in fact, *exactly* the evidence that was rejected and was purposefully denied from being used as evidence in this Court, just to clarify.

This is nothing more than an attempt by the Prosecution to push already rejected testimonial upon the Court by forcing it upon the Jury and then begging it be admitted just because its seen the light of this Court.
Click to expand...

First of all, there are no more juries under this Constitution. The prosecution would recommend the defense read the constitution before citing it.

Second of all, the evidence has already been reviewed by the judge and has been accepted. The accused may not like what he has done, may wish he had never did it, but that does not take it away nor the evidence proving it.
 
Quite amusing Prosecutor, in that case proceed with your witness, the Defense will deal with the joke you would like to call "evidence" when your finished.
 
So once again, Rhindon Blade, can you attest that the following evidence has not been tampered with and is a truthful representation?
 
Looking over exhibit B and C, does it appear to you that BW had done more than speak of a plot? What would you say were his actions? And other than FEC, what other high endorsement or high influence members of the North Pacific did he attempt to bring into the plot?
 
John Ashcroft Land:
Objection!  Rhindon Blade's opinion of evidence we all can see is no more valid than anyone else's.
Click to expand...
Rhindon Blade's testimony here is as an expert witness, as he 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.

I see no reason why his own account on his own research for should be discounted.
 
Once again:

Looking over exhibit B and C, does it appear to you that BW had done more than speak of a plot? What would you say were his actions? And other than FEC, what other high endorsement or high influence members of the North Pacific did he attempt to bring into the plot?
Click to expand...
 
Exhibit C confirms that BW spoke of and admitted to his plot, or crime, against the region.

Exhibit B duly confirms that this was furthermore carried out, in the form of yet another highly-endorsed citizen of TNP.

I have indication that Goebbels was additionally involved, but I cannot affirm the collaboration of any other individual (I didn't even know of FEC), as it would be speculation.

But if that's what I'm being asked for...then I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, based on what we've seen already - and what we know of Blue Wolf's capabilities (and his history...how many legal governments has he destroyed before?), that a vast majority of highly-endorsed persons of this region were contacted and tempted to join BW's attempt to overthrow the government of The North Pacific. We're not the first, its smart, its tactical, and its exactly what an experienced invader would do.
 
And given what we've seen here during this trial, do you believe BW has been disloyal and/or has acted in a manner irresponsible to the Constitution and laws to our region?
 
Thank you.

Firstly Rhindon Blade is it not true that the endorsement scanner my client provided Wee Tiddler was a public-access scanner? If this is indeed true how does it prove or even indicate that any plot was carried out in any way? I myself have been showed the same scanner merely in friendly conversation with my client despite the fact that I don't even have a WA in this or any feeder; certainly it is true that BW's intentions could have been benign likewise?

Secondly my attention turns to Exhibit C. It appears tampered with. With whom was the conversation in question? For all we know the other 'person' in the conversation was Sniffles himself! Please clarify.
 
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?

As for the second question, I'd like to have a word with the particular individual and the prosecution first before revealing their identity.
 
The Defense asks the Prosecution’s witness to please answer the questions being asked in regards to Exhibit B and not to reply to questions with their own question. If this hostility and question dodging continues the Defense will request that the Court remove the witness entirely.

Secondly, the Defense must request to the Court that the edited Exhibit C be show fully unedited or be throw out as evidence. Even if the Prosecution’s witness does produce a name to go with that document there is no possible way to authenticate it without the unedited version being released. Essentially, if this evidence were to be accepted without the unedited version, the Defense would be arguing against a nameless, blameless ghost which may or may not exist.
 
Mr. Accused, your counsel was asking me, as a witness, for my professional speculation on the situation - as Mr. Sniffles was. He was not questioning me of events, or of my involvement, but merely of my simple opinion on the matter. That form of question hardly needs a black-and-white answer, but just to please you:

Yes, Wee Tiddler's words, without a shred of doubt, damn BW.

As for Exhibit C, I ask that the defence show a little patience while I consult with those involved. And its looking like you will get exactly what you've asked to get, let me assure you.
 
I believe, and I could be incorrect, that typically, in the English language, when you have a sentence that ends with a question mark the correct way to *answer* it, and I stress answer, is with a statement, not another question. So with that, allow me to rephrase in case the Defense was unclear the first time.

Rhindon Blade, 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. Is this very page being presented here not the scanner in question?

Additionally, is it your opinion that simply providing this link on a public forum is an act of treason, as you suggested previously, Mr. Blade? If not, then how is the Defendants actions then with Wee Tiddler any different then this very minute when the link was again provided?

Also, let me add, that if 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, when then is he not also on trail? Your opinion will do just fine in this matter if you are not an expert in that subject, the Prosecution seems to enjoy it very much so, please, do humor the Defense with the same embellishment.

If the witness again refuses to answer the questions being asked of him, in full, the Defense must demand that the Court remove him and any evidence he brought with him. After all, it seems the Prosecution has more to hide than the Defense.
 
BW:
Rhindon Blade, is it not true that the endorsement scanner stated in Exhibit B was, in fact, a public scanner
Click to expand...

Please, BW, didn't you catch the drift?

In the real world, it may not necessarily be a crime to put a machine gun into the hands of a known terrorist - it may be blindingly stupid, but perhaps not strictly unlawful. Actually that's quite debatable. But it is certainly, without doubt, a villainous act to do so with the intent of encouraging that terrorist to go on a killing rampage.

Likewise, I do not think your intentions were virtuous - moreover, WeeTiddler knew they were not.

Aside from the fact you seem to know exactly which scanner Tiddler used (The Commonwealth's) - you seem to know more about it than I do, or anyone else in this courtroom - you did indeed give him that weapon by your own admission:

BW:
how is the Defendants actions with Wee Tiddler any different...
Click to expand...

JAL:
the endorsement scanner my client provided Wee Tiddler was a public-access scanner
Click to expand...

So, BW, let me be frank.

Are you a dimwit? A complete and royally insane dolt? You just gave a known dissenter, a maverick, that scanner out of the goodness of your own generous heart? Well, I believe you are guilty of one of two things today, BW. Either total stupidity, or high treason.

In that light, I would encourage the prosecution to ask BW to explain why exactly he did what he did.

BW:
believe, and I could be incorrect, that typically, in the English language, when you have a sentence that ends with a question mark
Click to expand...

Oh dear, must I remind you that you're speaking to an intelligent individual? Lose the uppityness, please. And those incessant pleas to kick every piece of evidence and every witness and his mother out of this room. Most unbecoming, sir.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Defense asks the Prosecution’s witness to please answer the questions being asked in regards to Exhibit B and not to reply to questions with their own question. If this hostility and question dodging continues the Defense will request that the Court remove the witness entirely.

Secondly, the Defense must request to the Court that the edited Exhibit C be show fully unedited or be throw out as evidence. Even if the Prosecution’s witness does produce a name to go with that document there is no possible way to authenticate it without the unedited version being released.  Essentially, if this evidence were to be accepted without the unedited version, the Defense would be arguing against a nameless, blameless ghost which may or may not exist.
Click to expand...
Objection!

The Court has already accepted the evidence into question, the defence has had their chance to raise their objections to material well before.

  I believe, and I could be incorrect, that typically, in the English language, when you have a sentence that ends with a question mark the correct way to *answer* it, and I stress answer, is with a statement, not another question. So with that, allow me to rephrase in case the Defense was unclear the first time.

Rhindon Blade, 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. Is this very page being presented here not the scanner in question?

Additionally, is it your opinion that simply providing this link on a public forum is an act of treason, as you suggested previously, Mr. Blade? If not, then how is the Defendants actions then with Wee Tiddler any different then this very minute when the link was again provided?

Also, let me add, that if 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, when then is he not also on trail? Your opinion will do just fine in this matter if you are not an expert in that subject, the Prosecution seems to enjoy it very much so, please, do humor the Defense with the same embellishment.

If the witness again refuses to answer the questions being asked of him, in full, the Defense must demand that the Court remove him and any evidence he brought with him. After all, it seems the Prosecution has more to hide than the Defense.
Click to expand...

Objection!

May the defence please stop badgering the witness? They might not like what he has to say but that gives them no right to seek to intimidate him.
 
Badgering the witness? The witness refused to answer any of the questions being asked of him and instead wasted time with vague responses that were either barely related to what was being asked of him or dodged the question entirely!

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.

As it is the Witness still has not answered the questions being asked of him by the Defense and has done nothing but insult the Defendant and make personal opinions about the Defendant’s guilt or innocence throughout the questioning period.

Therefore we request the Court to look into the conduct of the Prosecution’s witness and will await ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top