The North Pacific v. JAL

JAL's RA application was made on Jul 13 2011, 03:09 PM. (GMT+7) I received it on Jul 13 2011, 11:50 PM. (GMT+7) At the time, I believe JAL's application to be valid and completely overlook the wrong oath, but since it doesn't include his WA nation so I contact him on IRC about that.

I will not be posting log yet since it is not clear if it's allow or not, but the summary is that I ask JAL for his WA nation and JAL supply me with the name.

Afterward, I send a request for security check to Grosseschnauzer along with the question whether his past indicates any security threat to the region. Between waiting for his response, Blackshear's post show me that the oath is wrongly state and I decide to wait for Administrator opinion first. Grosseschnauzer response comeback. (Jul 14 2011, 06:58 AM) I was informed that the application is a violation of the law 28 and that I should be referring to Attorney General for prosecution. He also advice me that his opinion is to seek a ban for JAL from the R.A. as his oath and other previous action indicates he means no goodwill to the region.

Before his application is denied, he post the second oath (Jul 14 2011, 07:38 AM) which is a correct oath. I denied both application on the basis that his first oath already break law 28 and ask for him to be prosecute through the attorney general office.
 
thank you. Can you explain your original reaction to the first oath. Were you initially amused? scandalised? Fearful for the security of the region?

Could you also please explain to the court what danger to the region admitting jal to the RA would prove?
 
I will not be posting log yet since it is not clear if it's allow or not, but the summary is that I ask JAL for his WA nation and JAL supply me with the name.
Click to expand...

Just to interject here.

If the Defence and/or Prosecution requires that Felasia submits said log, it must be published here publicly unless either side objects.
 
Defence has no objection to the log being published. However, tradition in TNP is that logs may not be published without the consent of all those being quoted, and that IP addresses are removed.
 
If the defense counsel could clarify with the defendant whether I'm allow to post the IRC log or not then that would be great.

As for my initial reaction, I would have to said there is several. Amuse is one of them, annoy is definitely another one, a bit of angry, but more at myself for missing the oath.

On the danger that the defendant post to the region, the defendant have in the past shown no hesitation to act against a democratic TNP's government for his own personal amusement. He is more interest in his own agenda then the region and have as much as admitted that the reason for mass ejections is for his own personal amusement then anything else. If this is done only once then it would be of equal grievance with other previous Rogue Delegate, but twice had the defendant conduct the same kind of action.

And now that the defendant is back, he start by posting a "joke" oath on an official request for RA admission topic and proceed with the request as if nothing is wrong about them. This indicates that he continue to have no real interest in the region and is only interest in his own amusement and should be considered as a threat to the region.
 
On the danger that the defendant post to the region, the defendant have in the past shown no hesitation to act against a democratic TNP's government for his own personal amusement.
Click to expand...

TNP has shown, through amnesty and lack of prosecution that actions and attitudes in the past have not been a barrier to future acceptance by the TNP community.

Please would you tell the court what specific information you had that JAL posed a current threat to the region, and that accepting him into the Regional assembly would be a risk to the security of the region.
 
TNP have also shown how vulnerable it is in the past to coup and revolution. You might feel differently or done it differently during your tenure as public official, but I believe it is within my and current administrator's authority to decide whether the past is relevant or not to the security assessment of each individual.

Please would you tell the court what specific information you had that JAL posed a current threat to the region, and that accepting him into the Regional assembly would be a risk to the security of the region.
Click to expand...

His lack of consideration and obligation to the legal code of the region by posting the incorrect oath, his lack of remorse on his previous action as delegate which is not only done once but twice as indicates by his post on other forum as the Attorney General had shown, and his attempt to subvert the office of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly by pressing on with his incorrect application to the R.A. in which if I were to accepted them would had result in charges against me for violating the legal code of The North Pacific.
 
Could you please clarify the definition of rogue player? I'm unsure whether your definition and mine is the same.
 
would you describe JAL as an experienced subversive, for his own purposes/amusement wishing to undermine or overthrow the constitutional government of TNP?

After all, his mere application to the RA was enough to set the alarm bells ringing, and set the whole legal machinery of the region into overdrive to provide a legal justification for the rejection of his application.

If he was an incompetent, there would seem to be no reason for this reaction, so my question is: do you regard him as a serious and experienced threat?
 
Would you describe JAL as an experienced subversive, for his own purposes/amusement wishing to undermine or overthrow the constitutional government of TNP?
Click to expand...

I think he is an experienced player who do not care to obey the law or the constitution of the North Pacific or to accept the right of each nations to reside peacefully in this region without the fear of a ban or an ejection. He seems more interested in his own personal goals. These goals maybe providing an amusement to himself, capturing the region for his own glory, ejecting nations to satisfy his curiosity on the matter of influence, or merely making himself known throughout NS as a joker. However, I don't dare to presume that I know his reasoning.

If he was an incompetent, there would seem to be no reason for this reaction, so my question is: do you regard him as a serious and experienced threat?
Click to expand...

I never claimed he was incompetent. I regard him as an experienced player who view TNP's and Nationstate's differently from others in a way that he is not afraid to act against the region democratic system.
 
Very well then. You accept that he is an experienced player. As an experienced player, can you explain to the court why you took his prank oath seriously?

Surely if he was truly intent on infiltrating the region, he would not be likely to do so with a public announcement of his plans as part of his RA oath?

Is it not infinitely more probable that his joke application was just that? An attempt at humour? Is it not with hindsight more likely that your first reaction - amusement - was the right one?
 
Very well then. You accept that he is an experienced player. As an experienced player, can you explain to the court why you took his prank oath seriously?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it is related between being an experienced player and taking his oath seriously, but the fact is this.

During the time that I inquire him about the location of his WA nation, he supply it to me without hesitation and proceed as if nothing is wrong with the oath. If it's actually a "prank" as you call, he should have stop the process from going forward, but instead he process as if nothing is wrong.

Surely if he was truly intent on infiltrating the region, he would not be likely to do so with a public announcement of his plans as part of his RA oath?
Click to expand...

I never claimed he intent to infiltrate the region as such I don't understand or see your point for this question.

Is it not infinitely more probable that his joke application was just that? An attempt at humour? Is it not with hindsight more likely that your first reaction - amusement - was the right one?
Click to expand...

That would be probable if the event on IRC about his WA nation didn't happen. He choose to proceeds with the application with every intention of getting accepted. I see no reason to supply me with a valid WA nation if it's intent to be a joke.
 
Therefore it appears that your complaint against JAL is that he took the joke too far?

If you believed that JAL was not infiltrating the region, what is the nature of the threat you believe he posed to the region?

In a previous post you stated that "I send a request for security check to Grosseschnauzer". Security checks normally cover IP address checks, checks for multiple RA applciations etc. please would you submit to the court (deleting IP addresses as appropriate) the results of that security check?
 
Therefore it appears that your complaint against JAL is that he took the joke too far?
Click to expand...

My initial complaint is that his act is a violation of TNP's Law 28. The reasoning behind is action doesn't concern me.

If you believed that JAL was not infiltrating the region, what is the nature of the threat you believe he posed to the region?
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to infiltrate the region to be a threat to it. As I have stated before, he has shown no consideration and obligation to the legal code of the region by posting the incorrect oath. He have no remorse for his previous action as delegate which is not only done once but twice as indicates by his post on other forum as the Attorney General had shown. He also attempt to subvert the office of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly by pressing on with his incorrect application to the R.A. in which if I were to accepted them would had result in charges against me for violating the legal code of The North Pacific.

I think he is a threat to the constitution and the democratic government of the North Pacific since he have shown no intention to abide to any of them.

In a previous post you stated that "I send a request for security check to Grosseschnauzer". Security checks normally cover IP address checks, checks for multiple RA applciations etc. please would you submit to the court (deleting IP addresses as appropriate) the results of that security check?
Click to expand...

I needs Gross to be okay with this first since it's a personal message from him. Currently waiting for his PM answer.

Felasia · Jul 13 2011, 05:01 PM Report Post Forward
Is there any ground to deny his applicant based on past aggression?
Click to expand...

Grosseschnauzer · Jul 14 2011, 12:07 AM

I'll look into it. I just finished and sent off my annual manuscript late Monday and I've got a lot of things to get caught up on in RL and online.
We have 14 days to settle it. If you think there's something currently afoot, that would be grounds as well. I'll have to see if there are any threads that left things with JAL outstanding. But as I just said. I'm trying to get caught up, and my brain is in a fog until I finish my first coffee.
GS
Click to expand...

Grosseschnauzer · Jul 14 2011, 06:58 AM

In view of the altered nature of the oath, his application should be summarily denied, and the act of violating Law 28 in posting the altered oath should be referred to the acting Attorney General for prosecution.
Personally, I would seek a permanent ban for JAL from the R.A., and any office or position within TNP. And since Law 1 requires an oath of office for all offices and positions other than the R.A., that would mean he would be permanently barred from anything. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
I think he is a threat to the constitution and the democratic government of the North Pacific since he have shown no intention to abide to any of them.
Click to expand...

Honourable justices,

In a nutshell you have there the problem with the prosecution case.

Throughout this trial the defence has been consistently asking for a shred of evidence against my client. The prosecution offered no witnesses and no evidence other than their own interpretation of the constitution and Bill of Rights.

The speaker has offered no evidence other than his assumption that JAL was a threat, the fact that he took a joke too far, and the fact that he has displayed insufficient contrition for his past actions.

The defence will happily continue with this case, exploring possible other motives for the immediate banning of my client from the RA, but i think it is appropriate here to pause and allow the justices to consider whether the prosecution and the hostile witness have established that my client has a case to answer. There is a danger that this case will drag on unnecessarily, as so many have in the past.

Arthur Miller once said that the difference between a trial and a witch hunt is evidence. In the absence of evidence against my client, I petition that the charges against him be dismissed by the court.

Defence does not rest, but the time has come to put an end to this trial, and we await the justices' ruling.
 
Adjourn? No. Not at all. Defence is more than happy to continue with this case to its inevitable acquittal.

But given the fact that neither the prosecution nor the speaker have put forward any evidence or witnesses against my client, I am offering the justices the chance to put an end to this farce.

I am not sure about other legal codes, but in the UK the judge can dismiss charges against an accused at any point, should the judge decide that there is no case to answer. I believe the equivalent in the US is a "motion for summary judgement"

Of course, if you wish to end this, as Attourney General you can always apply for Motion for nolle prosequi. ;)
 
flemingovia:
But given the fact that neither the prosecution nor the speaker have put forward any evidence or witnesses against my client, I am offering the justices the chance to put an end to this farce.
Click to expand...
This is false! The prosecution has presented 6 exhibits of evidence, one of which was rejected.

The prosecution has not presented a particular kind of evidence, which you defined. Indeed, you defined this class after the discovery period was complete and it was no longer possible to add evidence.

The decision as to what evidence to consider important or relevant is a decision of the court, not the defense!

The prosecution has called no witnesses because it understands that the facts speak for themselves in this case.

The prosecution awaits the court's permission to cross-examine the former Speaker.
 
Your honours,

Should you feel that there is need to continue with this trial, defence has not yet dismissed the witness Felasia. We would continue with our examination before handing over to the prosecution for cross-examination.
 
Mr. Flemingovia, we want this trial to end in a speedy manner, but not until everything's been heard. This is not going to turn into another Casey Anthony-style trial.

That aside, you may continue with your questioning as much as you need then, Eluvatar may cross-examine when you are done.
 
Very well then, on with the questioning.

Felasia, You have said to the court that you were urged to prosecute JAL by Grosseschnauser. I ask you whether this was the sole and only reason why you began this proceding against my client?

I put it to you that this trial is not simply intended as a test of my client, but as a test of the judicial process in TNP. That this whole trial is intended by you to test the judiciary of TNP to breaking point. That you brought this prosecution against my client out of interest as to how the judiciary in TNP would cope with a trial.

(your honours, dependent upon the witness' reply I may ask the court for leave to submit additional evidence).
 
Defence is flattered that the prosecution feels the need to take a lead from the defence, however we feel that if the prosecution shares defence's concern at the lack of evidence presented against my client so far they should immediately petition for the submission of additional evidence agasint my client without waiting for our lead.

Some evidence that my client is a present security threat would be useful - just a heads-up.
 
The prosecution does not believe additional evidence is needed to establish guilt in this case.

However, if the defence is going to be permitted to strengthen what case it has at the expense of the rules, the Prosecution expects it to only be fair to allow the Prosecution to counterbalance that.
 
I put it to you that you have openly admitted in public that a reason you pursued this case was "to test the court system." Do you deny using these exact words?
 
Yes, I did said that, but I also said before that post in the same channel that the reason I'm pursuing this case is because the administrator inform me that it should be done.

It was long after the complaint was pursue that I realize that this will give me a chance to see the court in action and perhaps see how the system work.

Also, I do believe that I ask that what I said on the channel that day to be a private discussion and to refrain from using or quoting it in any trial, but I guess that is too much to ask when you don't actually have anything to defend your client.
 
No, I have no further reason other then that it was a recommended action by the administrator.
Click to expand...

The court will note that this is contradicted by your later admission.

Also, I do believe that I ask that what I said on the channel that day to be a private discussion and to refrain from using or quoting it in any trial, but I guess that is too much to ask when you don't actually have anything to defend your client.
Click to expand...

You believe incorrectly. You asked specifically that another matter which could potentially cast you in a bad light not be used in evidence, but nothing about this. I kept logs of that day, so I am quite clear what you asked.

I also said before that post in the same channel that the reason I'm pursuing this case is because the administrator inform me that it should be done.
Click to expand...

So we have two reasons given for this trial: "because the administrator (Gross) inform me that it should be done" and "To test the court system." Thank you. Defence wished to establish, as we have now done, that there are other motives at work in this trial than the innocence and guilt of my client. Sadly in TNP no trial has ever been devoid of political motives.

So let us now move to explore other potential reasons for this action being brought against my client.

Your signature says far more about your involvement with the region of Equilism than it does about your involvement with TNP. Equilism is a region that my client has also had dealings with. Could you explain those dealings, and specifically the reaction in Equlism to his rogue delegacy and the ejections he carried out?
 
It's not a contradiction as I have state that the sole reason for pursuing the case is because of recommendation by the administrator. The knowledge that the system will be use and that I can see it in action only come after the complaint was submitted as I have state above and it is not a factor in a decision to press charge. I am very uncomfortable that the defense counsel continue to twist my word to suit his own agenda.

As for the question regarding Equilism, I'm unsure how it is related. Equilism doesn't recognize the NPPA and continue to recognize this government as the representative of TNP. Equilism also provided military aid to this government by deploying the E-Army into the region.
 
IRC is not public as not everyone has access to it. Anything court related needs to be in this thread Counsel.

Also, if any side needs more time, we will evaluate it equally.
 
Your honour, defence has not twisted the witness' words. Insofar as is possible we have quoted the witnesses' words verbatim.

The witness has been called as a hostile witness: it is not our job to make the witness comfortable, but to seek to arive at some truth in this case and the motives for it.

As far as the Equilism question goes, it is important for this court to ascertain, in the absence of prosection evidence concerning this, whether these charges against my client are purely judicial in nature or whether they have a political motive - and espcially whether they have a political motive stemming from a foreign region.

This is not an unreasonable line of questioning, so I repeat the questions: "Equilism is a region that my client has also had dealings with. Could you explain those dealings, and specifically the reaction in Equlism to his rogue delegacy and the ejections he carried out?"
 
It is dishonest of the defense counsel to quote only a section of the witness words and ignored other parts that doesn't suit the case. I have state that the reason of the charge is the advice by the administrator and not because of some interest in the court system. I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of being treat as hostile witness, but I'm uncomfortable when lie is spoken about me or my intent.

As I have stated above, Equilism doesn't recognize the NPPA and continue to recognize this government as the representative of TNP. Equilism also provided military aid to this government by deploying the E-Army into the region.

I have no other knowledge of the event and the dealings between the government and the defence as I'm no longer involved in the government of Equilism and had not been since Jan 29 2010. I only retain my E-Army rank at that time. I haven't take an active role as commander throughout 2010 as my WA nation resides mostly in this region. The E-Army was disbanded on the start of 2011 and I cease to have any role in the region besides forum moderation, spams, occasional vote to keep my citizenship, and role playing.
 
*sigh*

Felasia, you are here to answer questions, not to engage in unseemly debate as to the validity of the line of questioning. If there is objection on that score it will be made by the prosecution or the justices.

The defence has not lied at any point. We have asked questions. Whether the answers you have given have been full and frank is, I think, now apparent to the court.

PLease could you tell the court (for the third time of asking) what the relationship between JAL and the region and government of Equilism has been?

PLease could you tell us what the reaction in Equilism was to his rogue delegacy. I believe Equilism issued a statement of some kind - perhaps you would enlighten us as to what led to that statement, and what the mood was in Equilism at that time.

I have no other knowledge of the event and the dealings between the government and the defence
Click to expand...

To avoid misunderstanding and misrepresentation, the defence has had no dealings whatsoever with the government of Equilism.
 
on a side issue, the defence is concerned that we were told that three justices would simultaneously be overseeing this trial, but we have not heard from Torpid since the first page of an eight page trial, and he has not posted anywhere in over a week.

We have also not seen him online at any point.

Can the justices please confirm that all three of them are taking an active interest in this trial? I think a justice dropping out mid-trial would cause some debate as to the legitimacy of these hearings.
 
PLease could you tell the court (for the third time of asking) what the relationship between JAL and the region and government of Equilism has been?

PLease could you tell us what the reaction in Equilism was to his rogue delegacy. I believe Equilism issued a statement of some kind - perhaps you would enlighten us as to what led to that statement, and what the mood was in Equilism at that time.
Click to expand...

As I have answered before. (for the third time) I'm not privy to the inner working of relation between a government in which I play no part in and JAL. I'm only aware that there is no recognition of sovereignty of the NPPA and that military action was taken in favor of the defense counsel government.

The only statement I'm aware is a refusal to recognize NPPA after NPPA made a post on TNP's embassy in Equilism. If there is any other statement then I would also be interest to see because I simply can't remember any other. At that point, I participate mainly on Spams and RP section of the board and only participate in E-Army mission when someone else told me to. I also do not presume to know the mood of Equilism at that point.
 
Felasia, the defence has not lied, it has the right to decide what statements to use, so long as they are not violating laws or procedure.

Your job as a witness, is to honestly answer their questions under oath. If the prosecution objects to how you are being questioned, they would have said something.

That aside, Flemingovia, you can continue with your questioning if you like. I am present, and I know Falconkats is present. I am not sure where Topid has been. His nation has been active in NS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top