The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II DISCUSSION

An objection should be raised when an action is felt to be in some way contrary to the rule of law or the exercise of justice, not as a means to stifle inquisitorial investigation.

The current proceedings are looking more and more like a Diplock Court where the defence were frequently denied reasonable access to evidence which may have undermined prosecutions case, had their questioning of witnesses limited and frequently did not know the identity of the accuser. These courts are now widely recognised as being contrary to justice and the source of numerous miscarriages of justice.

To deny an individual the right to a fair trial in the name of national security is to deny us all our rights. Something for the prosecution to ponder on.

Reach for the light.

VP :noangel:
 
Vaticania Prime:
An objection should be raised when an action is felt to be in some way contrary to the rule of law or the exercise of justice, not as a means to stifle inquisitorial investigation.

The current proceedings are looking more and more like a Diplock Court where the defence were frequently denied reasonable access to evidence which may have undermined prosecutions case, had their questioning of witnesses limited and frequently did not know the identity of the accuser. These courts are now widely recognised as being contrary to justice and the source of numerous miscarriages of justice.

To deny an individual the right to a fair trial in the name of national security is to deny us all our rights. Something for the prosecution to ponder on.

Reach for the light.

VP :noangel:
Click to expand...
:rofl:

The Court decided not the Prosecution.

And show me one piece of evidence that was accepted by the defence, the prosecution, and the Court during discovery, only to be later inexplicably challenged BW during cross exanination and I'll shut up.

The defence had a perfect chance to raise objections, but it seems JAL never told BW what he was doing and now BW's busy playing catch up.
 
:lol:

The Defense does not have just one chance to object to evidence. I have no idea where you have come away with that mistaken opinion. We are allowed to challenge the evidence at any time in Court as circumstances arise and the legitimacy of the evidence is called into question.

However, I do love your totally non-case related tactic of blaming everything you disagree with in Court upon some sort of “miscommunication” between the Defense team. Its total irrelevance is breathtaking although its fairly amusing to watch you strut up and down with it, Sniffles.
 
I don't know what episodes of Perry Mason Mr Sniffles relies on for his legal training but it's a very good job this is just make-believeland as I fear in the RL he would be in for a very rude awakening.

The concept of cross examination, legitimate challenging of evidence and inquisitorial investigation appear to be lost on Mr S who is obviously out of his depth in playing the role of prosecutor. Bless him.

VP :noangel:
 
Your opinions are you're own and the Court has made its ruling.

At the very least you can keep appealing to the jury in your own imaginary Constitution.

And I find it either ironic or an example of extreme ignorance to believe that theatrics play a part in the legal system. There is a time and place to challenge evidence, DURING ITS INTRODUCTION. And the Court with the prosecution AND WITH THE DEFENCE accepted it into evidence. And with everyone else with any knowledge of judicial concepts knows, accepting evidence then changing your mind when the tide goes the other way is an example of either rampant amateurism or just plain foolishness.

Want to know why the evidence was accepted despite your newly discovered protestations? Ask JAL, after all, he is your lawyer, or at least WAS at the time.
 
Dear Mr Sniffles, I recommend a basic course in good manners. The point is that there is no point to this witness protection you numpty. Obviously irony is lost on you, and that's something you can't learn from watching TV.

Be at peace with your lot in life.

VP :noangel:
 
BW:
then they legally can not be granted pass on the basis of regional security,
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Strange thing. I have been looking at the laws of TNP, and I cannot find the law concerning witness protection that BW refers to.

what is that law?

As far as I can see, the court has allowed the witness anonymity. The defence, such as it is, may be curious, and may for intel reasons of their own want to know the identity of the leak, but to constantly chip away at the court's ruling veers close to contempt of court. Move on and make your case.

And yes, my legal knowledge DOES go a little beyond episodes of Perry Mason. I have watched every episode of Judge John Deeds/

also, many lutz at someone urging someone to good manners then in the next breath calling them a numpty. Irony is not lost on me, either.
 
I think Blue Wolf is arguing the following, but its not for me to determine whether this is a valid arguement.
In the legal code / interim court rules it does not mention rules for witness protection and the only grounds covered for excluding any evidence (or part of the evidence) is covered by Rule 306 (copied below). This seems to state that the only grounds for an unnamed witness is privilege as covered in B below.

Rule 306. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Privilege, Prejudice, or Waste of Time.
A - Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
B - At this time, the only privilege deemed applicable to testimony is an official privilege of government members concerning the conduct of their official duties as to matters deemed secret or confidential unless the appropriate authority in the government has determined that disclosure at trial would not cause an adverse effect on current government matters as to the defense or external relations of the region.

So Blue Wolf is now trying to confirm the grounds for withholding the name of the witness or whether in fact this is illegal.

Personally I think the way this witness is being handled is a waste of time and it is a pity they were not or could not be temporarily masked in some way to allow them to answer the questions directly under a different name (say witness).
 
I agree with you that the games being played with this witness is a waste of time. IMO the judge ought to say "we have ruled that the witnesses anonymity will be protected: Grow up and move on."

However, there is a long tradition in TNP of defences trying to derail trials by shifting the basis of discussion. And I DO like to see the traditions maintained.

Time, methinks, for a judicial intervention to keep this trial moving along.
 
Byakhee:
Personally I think the way this witness is being handled is a waste of time and it is a pity they were not or could not be temporarily masked in some way to allow them to answer the questions directly under a different name (say witness).
Click to expand...

With hindsight, that would have been a better way of handling the witness. Funnily enough, Flem as admin offered that suggestion yesterday. Having already made my decision I decided to stick with it but in the event that a similar situation arose in future I would do it the way you suggest.
 
"And yes, my legal knowledge DOES go a little beyond episodes of Perry Mason. I have watched every episode of Judge John Deeds/

also, many lutz at someone urging someone to good manners then in the next breath calling them a numpty. Irony is not lost on me, either. "

I recommend watching Kavanagh QC, much better for story lines and judicial accuracy. But you are quite correct it was beneath me to call Mr Siffles a numpty and I retract the comment. If he wishes to continue making childish remarks then I will in future refrain from descending to his level.

Tranquility from within.

VP :noangel:
 
Aarghh! The slow drip drip of the trial has driven me mad! I can't stand it anymore! I confess I did it, I was on the Grassy Knoll, I did everything, I'm Spartacus!!!
:headbang:
 
When they talk about the "trial of the century" I didn't know it was referring to the amount of time it takes.
 
I really should finish off my Due Process Act, which should, if implemented right, make trials take no more than 2 weeks, tops? (another 2 weeks for an appeal if it happens)
 
Sniffles:
Will the defence respect this ruling or will they continue to play these childish games?
Click to expand...

*fireworks explode, alarms sound, confetti drops from the ceiling*

YYAAAAAY!! Sniffles has just said the Prosecution’s phrase of the week! CHILDISH GAMES!! :w00t:

Flemmy, tell the good man what he's won!
 
That's right Flemmers! Sniffles just won the smash hit game of INTERNET ARGUMENT! :w00t:

Internet_argument.jpg


[size=-2]And also a shipment of fail[/size]
 
They fight, and bite,
And fight, and bite, and fight,
Fight, fight, fight,
Bite, bite, bite,
The Sniffles and Blue Wolf Show!

itch-scr.gif
 
There you go again with your flawed logic. If you wanted to stop the argument, you'd just shut up. I'm merely pointing out how silly the whole thing, including the trial, has become.
 
From where I am standing you are not pointing out how silly this thing is, you are attempting to make the thing silly by what in Britain would be sailing extremely close to contempt of court.
 
flemingovia:
From where I am standing you are not pointing out how silly this thing is, you are attempting to make the thing silly by what in Britain would be sailing extremely close to contempt of court.
Click to expand...
Is Blue sailing close to contempt in this thread or the actual courtroom?
 
I suggest you review his posts in the trial thread. eventually it will come to you.

It is a bit like jokes: either you get them or you don't. The last thing you should have is someone explain them to you.
 
Hate to be a pedant Flem but the 1981 Contempt of Court Act expressly does include actions and deeds outwith of the court. And whilst BW is certainly pushing the boundaries I also believe that Mr Sniffis equally at fault.

I see you are adopting the same tactics as the prosecution, ducking a question by suggesting people revert to earlier comments hardly makes for a robust defence of your statement does it.

Most pleasant blessings on you all.

VP :noangel:
 
The Court doesn't need my help to make the trial silly, we already have Zorro sitting up on the stand. The entire this is a total mockery of justice, the very definition of a Kangaroo Court.
 
OK so we have a key witness who does not operate under the control or guidance of a government department. How can protected witness status be justified?

Intrigued and inquisitive.

VP :noangel:
 
I know there are going to be times when it could be justified in allowing anonymity for an informant but it is a dangerous path to go down if the process is not clearly set out and independently monitored. This power could all to easily be abused. What does the Constitution say on the matter?

I’m also interested to know how a trial without jury can be considered safe. Historically this type of trial has proven to be flawed, subject to abuse and the source of many successful judicial reviews.

VP :noangel:
 
Not sure I follow the logic of this one. Is VP arguing that you can only have the status of a protected witness if you work for a ministry? What a bizarre viewpoint.

It is alleged in some quarters that I used to run intel for the North Pacific. without commenting on that, if people did not have any confidence that if they came to us with information their identity would be protected, and if our Intel body, if it existed, had not protected our assets, the flow of information would have dried up almost instantly.

People need to know that if they aid the security of the North Pacific they will be protected.

allegedly.

So the circular argument seems to be that if we do not have an intel department, we cannot protect assets. Very odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top