The North Pacific v. Blue Wolf II DISCUSSION

Prosecution put forward case.

Defence attempts to refute case by either producing contradicting evidence or showing that the prosecutions evidence is not safe.
And where and when did I dispute this?

Also,

temper, temper BLUE WOLF...

You know such sudden rise to anger is a sign of desperation.
 
Sniffy said:
You know such sudden rise to anger is a sign of desperation.
Uhh...Sniffles, Vaticania Prime isn't on trial...I am. :eyebrow:
That was directed at you, one look at your recent comments to me will make it obvious. I thought quoting each and every one would add to an already torturously long thread. And maybe give you some dignity.

I do wonder how you'll twist this so you can call me an idiot again.

Though one can't be blamed for not being able to tell the two of you apart sometimes.
 
Mr Sniff, I really do think you need to take a deep breathe and review the conduct of the trial as you appear to be struggling in getting your head around what should be some pretty basic principles. The onus is on you as prosecutor to prove guilt and not on BW to prove innocence. So far your evidence has been flimsy at best and after the mystery witesses last statement it would appear that the very basis of your case, that an offence was commited, has to be called into question.

Same three questions, and until you can answer them then your case must be considered unsafe:

What was the plot? Details, where, when, and by whom, vague suggestions are insufficient.

Who was involved in it? Names and roles as a minimum.

Where is the evidence that a plot was formulated, planned, prepared for?

Character assassination and innuendo do not make for a case Mr Sniff, and that is all you and your witnesses have provided to date.

VP :noangel:
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Call this drama? Nothing compared to what would have happened if Blue Wolf's plans (sorry - "ideas") had reached fruition.
 

Sydia

TNPer
Come on Flem that is the whole issue here, when thoughts become crimes then George Orwell's nightmare becomes a reality.

VP :noangel:
I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit! "Attempted murder," now honestly, what is that? Do they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
 
I hardly think the two compare do they Sydia. Having the thought, and attempting an act are two very different things as well you know so I find your point, well to be blunt, pointless.

VP :noangel:
 
I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit! "Attempted murder," now honestly, what is that? Do they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
I always loved that joke but could never remember where it came from, was it Seinfeld or somewhere else?
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
We are on the internet. All we have is thoughts. Nothing exists, nothing is real. There are only ideas and concepts. There are no actions.
 
Sorry but I have to fundamentally disagree Flem, thoughts do not pull people before a virtual court, thoughts do not prevent someone from participating an activity, actions do this through the medium of the internet. By way of example, should BW be found guilty then he could be expelled/barred from the region, thereby preventing him participating. That is clearly a thought put into action with a very tangible consequence for BW.

Do not confuse the act of thinking about sedition with that of attempting to put such thoughts into operation.

VP :noangel:
 

Sydia

TNPer
I hardly think the two compare do they Sydia.  Having the thought, and attempting an act are two very different things as well you know  so I  find your point, well to be blunt, pointless.

VP  :noangel:
My point was that although speaking your thoughts is no crime, allegedly abusing your freedom of expression to plot sedition and treason certainly is, under TNP's Legal Code, and I'd imagine many others.

@ sniffles - it's from The Simpsons.
 
Gotcha and I agree so I retract my earlier comment with an apology. The issue here is proving, or not proving, if there was indeed a plot and if so providing compelling evidence which has not been the case so far in my opinion.

VP :noangel:
 
Well it's now over a week since the question was asked. Just how much time needs to pass before failing to respond becomes contempt of court?

VP :noangel:
 

Sydia

TNPer
This case was brought was first brought forth in early April, for feck's sake. Although justice is blind, and you don't want someone who's blind moving too quick. Might bump into things.
 
Looks like it's a hung jury, though I wouldn't say it's a mistrial. Just looks like since this has been going on for a while, the time to pass judgment has passed.

The thread(s) are pretty fun to read though.
 

Byakhee

TNPer
With the length of this trial I am starting to wonder whether Blue Wolf will be asking for a legal decision regarding whether he can stand for Delegate during its duration. Does make an interesting point in that does a trial for sedition/treason stop someone running?

:evil:
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
The age-old TNP principle of spinning out one's trial until the whole thing runs out of steam is more pertinent, methinks.

*cough*Fullhead Land*cough*
 
Not my fault the Prosecution chose to censor evidence and witness identities which thus lead to the impossibly tedious and arduous task of asking questions through a third party and then having to wait for the response.

The only thing I could do to speed up the trial right now would be to object to the question Sniffles asked, which I don't think would help much. :P
 
I'd personally say drop the charges. Even if BW is innocent, his name has been tarnished enough by this marathon.

But that's just me and my two cents, lol.
 
Top