The North Pacific v. JAL

flemingovia:
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?
Click to expand...
Objection! Introducing evidence outside of the Discovery process, where it can be fairly examined and discarded if improper, is a violation of the rules!
 
Objection - Court procedure: Objections can only be entered before the question is answered. It is a little late for the AG to wake up now.

Is the trial now continuing with two justices presiding? It is most unusual for a trial to continue when (effectively) one of teh justices has dropped out.
 
If the defence wishes to ask for a mistrial, then the prosecution will agree. It would be best for the region if this trial were performed properly, actually following the rules.
 
Flemingovia, you can continue with your questioning if you like.
Click to expand...

I thank your honour.

Felasia, you were a fairly involved and loyal member of Equilism. Were you unaware that my client was removed from his foreign affairs involvement in Equilism following his rogue delegacy, that Equilism distanced themselves from him and that feelings agasint my client were running very high in that region?
 
If the defence wishes to ask for a mistrial, then the prosecution will agree. It would be best for the region if this trial were performed properly, actually following the rules.
Click to expand...

Since the defence regards this whole trial as nothing more than an attempt to stonewall my client's RA application for as long as possible, we can see how a mistrial and restart would suit the prosecution. However, my client has now been denied the basic right of RA membership since mid July, and defence is keen to see this matter dealt with as quickly as possible.

We will not be asking for a mistrial.
 
flemingovia:
Objection - Court procedure: Objections can only be entered before the question is answered. It is a little late for the AG to wake up now.

Is the trial now continuing with two justices presiding? It is most unusual for a trial to continue when (effectively) one of teh justices has dropped out.
Click to expand...
Eluvatar's objection is overruled, you had your chance to make an objection when he asked that question.

Flemingovia's objection is sustained.

This trial should continue with three, and I have PMed both the Chief Justice and Topid. Waiting to hear back from both.

If both sides agree, I can put this trial on recess pending either A. confirming that the other two justices are active, or B. pending an active three-justice panel.
 
I'm not one of the parties mentioned by the OP, but this is highly relevant to the case at hand and I believe is thus necessary: Topid was inactive for 15+ days and is no longer a member of the RA. I also believe he has subsequently lost his position as a Court Justice. He is currently masked as a TNP Citizen.

That leaves FALCONKATS and Govindia as the two presiding Justices in this Court case. Fortunately an election will be held soon and thus we will not likely have to hold a special election to replace Topid.

Please continue.
 
[admin hat]

It has been been my understanding when acting as an admin that losing RA membership alone does not remove status as a Court Justice as no "maintain" clause applies to Court Justices (unlike executive officers).

The Speaker is however empowered to remove Topid with the consent of either Delegate Grosseschnauzer or Chief Justice Falconkats, as I understand it.

[/admin hat]

The Court rules allow for the remaining Justices to appoint a hearing officer for this case.
 
Govindia:
flemingovia:
Objection - Court procedure: Objections can only be entered before the question is answered. It is a little late for the AG to wake up now.

Is the trial now continuing with two justices presiding? It is most unusual for a trial to continue when (effectively) one of teh justices has dropped out.
Click to expand...
Eluvatar's objection is overruled, you had your chance to make an objection when he asked that question.

Flemingovia's objection is sustained.

This trial should continue with three, and I have PMed both the Chief Justice and Topid. Waiting to hear back from both.

If both sides agree, I can put this trial on recess pending either A. confirming that the other two justices are active, or B. pending an active three-justice panel.
Click to expand...
Exactly how much time is the prosecution permitted to have before it must respond or forever hold its peace?
 
Eluvatar's objection is overruled, you had your chance to make an objection when he asked that question.
Click to expand...

So in the future I should not answer until a certain time had pass to allow the prosecution a chance to object? It's a matter of timezone here and since my timezone is closer to Flemingovia then Eluvatar that may be problematic.

Were you unaware that my client was removed from his foreign affairs involvement in Equilism following his rogue delegacy, that Equilism distanced themselves from him and that feelings agasint my client were running very high in that region?
Click to expand...

I do not remember that there is a removal. It's been a long time and I have not keep up with the event in Equilism. I also do not remember that there is any emotion running high against the defendant or that there is an attempt to distance themselves from the defendant. It's possible, but I have not been involved with the government of Equilism for a long time.
 
Thank you

Defence has no further questions for Felasia at this time. Since his actions, and his attitude to my client, are so central to this case, defence reserves the right to recall the witness later in the hearing as a hostile witness.
 
The prosecution hopes that if the defense is permitted to re-question the witness, the prosecution will be allowed the same opportunity to respond with its own questions.

May the prosecution begin cross-examination of witness Felasia?
 
I have still not heard back from Falconkats or Topid and this is worrying me.

Would you two (prosecution and Defence) want to have recess done, or should a third temporary justice be appointed?

I'm not entirely sure what will happen if Chief Justice Falconkats gets inactive too.......
 
FALCONKATS:
The witness is excused for now but the witness is still under oath and may be called back as a witness.
Click to expand...
Sir, please look again.

Eluvatar may begin cross-examination when he is ready.
 
:facepalm:

Defence is confused. Is the witness dismissed or open to cross-examination? Can a justice over-rule the chief justice? Whose ruling is in force now?

This all stems from how this trial was set up. generally speaking trials in TNP are presided over by one active justice.

Expecting three individuals to stay active and attentive throughout is, i think, expecting a lot.

This trial would have gone a lot smoother if just one person were in charge, and that people had kept track of whether witnesses had been cross examined or not.
 
Well, if the Chief Justice does not permit us to proceed, and if the farce that is three presiding officers continues, one might as well consider the case over.
 
The prosecution still holds out some hope.

Chief Justice, would you please permit the prosecution to cross-examine the witness?
 
Mr. Flemingovia please restrain your counsel from another outburst like that.

I do not have any problem with Eluvatar cross-examining Felasia, I will confirm with Falconkats. To speed things up, I suggest if you don't hear anything different, to please proceed with the cross-examination.
 
Mr. Flemingovia please restrain your counsel from another outburst like that.
Click to expand...

For the record, I am the counsel; he is the accused. It is an important distinction to be recognised should a guilty verdict be returned.

I apologise on behalf of my client. I hope that you understand the trauma he has been put under by having his RA application denied for over two months, and his desire to become a productive member of the TNP community. Sometimes his emotions get the better of him.

Defence is not happy with the prosecutor examining a witness who has been dismissed by the chief justice. It lays the hearing open to accusations of a mistrial later and it is an affront to the dignity of his office to ignore his instructions. Just saying.
 
Under the assumption that the witness will indeed be asked to return, the prosecution is recording the following question:

How do you believe John Ashcroft Land was able to seize power under the name Durkadurkiranistan, and what was the result?
 
flemingovia:
Mr. Flemingovia please restrain your counsel from another outburst like that.
Click to expand...

For the record, I am the counsel; he is the accused. It is an important distinction to be recognised should a guilty verdict be returned.

I apologise on behalf of my client. I hope that you understand the trauma he has been put under by having his RA application denied for over two months, and his desire to become a productive member of the TNP community. Sometimes his emotions get the better of him.

Defence is not happy with the prosecutor examining a witness who has been dismissed by the chief justice. It lays the hearing open to accusations of a mistrial later and it is an affront to the dignity of his office to ignore his instructions. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I meant to say client.
 
Also, I have spoken to Falconkats, and he said it is ok for me to appoint a temporary hearing officer to help review the remaining cases (including this one) on the docket.

He also said I can now be the presiding judge.

Eluvatar, you may proceed with your cross examination.

Felasia, may I remind you to please refrain from any statements other than answering the questions given to you truthfully and properly.
 
Also, I have spoken to Falconkats, and he said it is ok for me to appoint a temporary hearing officer to help review the remaining cases (including this one) on the docket.
Click to expand...

Point of order and objection:

Defence has never heard of such a thing as a "temporary hearing officer." May we ask what the basis of this is in TNP law?

The review of cases should not be by some random person picked by just one of the justices.

I will warn everyone of asking for a mistrial
Click to expand...

BY what right is a warning given against even asking for a mistrial?

The only reason defence is not asking for a mistrial is because this would mean this whole sorry excuse starting again from scratch. However, the right to call for a mistrial is a basic pillar of democracy, protecting an accused person from a miscarriage of justice.

If I am to be warned off asking for one, I want to know why.
 
I can't remember how he seized power as Durk on his first time, but I do remember his mass ejection of nations from TNP which cause many dissatisfaction among nations inside the region, violate the right of these nation, abuse the trust the region put in him on the using of Delegate's power and disrupt TNP of a possibility that these nations could be a valuable member to the region.

Sorry, but as well as not being involved in Equilism. I was also not really getting involved in NS back then.
 
The prosecution awaits the Justices' response to the Defense's objections before continuing its cross-examination of the witness.
 
flemingovia:
Also, I have spoken to Falconkats, and he said it is ok for me to appoint a temporary hearing officer to help review the remaining cases (including this one) on the docket.
Click to expand...

Point of order and objection:

Defence has never heard of such a thing as a "temporary hearing officer." May we ask what the basis of this is in TNP law?

The review of cases should not be by some random person picked by just one of the justices.

I will warn everyone of asking for a mistrial
Click to expand...

BY what right is a warning given against even asking for a mistrial?

The only reason defence is not asking for a mistrial is because this would mean this whole sorry excuse starting again from scratch. However, the right to call for a mistrial is a basic pillar of democracy, protecting an accused person from a miscarriage of justice.

If I am to be warned off asking for one, I want to know why.
Click to expand...
Existing court rules give the authority to appoint temporary officials in the event that there are not enough active judges until the election is over, I've heard this from the Delegate.

Rules of Judicial Administration

Rule 1. Appointment of Judicial Hearing Officers.

A - Whenever, due to conflict of interest, unavailability, or other cause, the Chief Justice (or the Associate Justice with greatest seniority in the case of vacancy, absence, or unavailablity of the Chief Justice) determines it appropriate, a hearing officer shall be promptly appointed to preside for a particular proceeding.
B - Whenever there are one or more vacancies on the Court, or one or more Justices are unavailable, have a conflict of interest, or other cause, that prevent the participation of the full number of Justices created under the Constitution or by law, the remaining Justice or Justices shall promptly appoint one or more hearing officers to participate in an en banc proceeding as temporary Justices.
C - Any hearing officer that is appointed under this Rule shall be a member of the Regional Assembly and shall not be serving as Delegate, Vice Delegate, any Cabinet officer, or as Speaker of the Regional Assembly, while serving as a judicial hearing officer.
Click to expand...
 
Objection!

Only the Chief Justice can appoint a temporary justice!

Objection! A temporary justice is unnecessary as the rule the honorable justice quoted only allows for a single hearing officer in a criminal proceeding such as this one!

Objection! It is the right of either party to ask for a mistrial, especially when court procedures are not being fully followed!

May it please the court that the prosecution is again in agreement with the defense on these procedural issues. It is important that the defendant be granted a fair trial following the correct procedures.
 
Your first objection is overruled. According to Rule 1, the senior most Associate Justice (which would be me in this case as I'm the only active Associate Justice) and was given permission to do so by the Chief Justice to appoint a hearing officer to make up for the temporary vacancy.

Therefore, your second objection is also overruled.

I am doing my best to follow court procedures given the limited resources at the moment. The defence does not want a mistrial, and there has been enough time spent with delays. Motion for mistrial by the prosecution is denied.

You may continue the cross-examination of Felasia, Eluvatar.
 
The Prosecutor was less available than usual the last few days. The Prosecutor will resume cross-examining the witness shortly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top