The North Pacific v. JAL

Mr. Flemingovia, please restrain your counsel from speaking, or I will have one of the admins block his posting rights in this thread please. This is the second warning to your client.

The prosecution may continue.
 
Govindia:
Mr. Flemingovia, please restrain your counsel from speaking, or I will have one of the admins block his posting rights in this thread please. This is the second warning to your client.

The prosecution may continue.
Click to expand...
Once again: JAL is the client, I am the counsel.

We apologise to your honour, but I hope you can recognise the frustration on this side of the chamber. The prosecutions "case" is laughably shallow, the evidence presented suggests that this whole trial was a panic measure by the Speaker's department to find a legal justification for an ill-advised decision, and this proceeding has been variously presided over by 1, 2 or 3 justices who generally speaking have contradicted one another's rulings.

Now to cap it we are about to come to the end of elections to the judiciary which may lead to a whole new bench presiding over the trial.

Yes, we apologise - but please recognise the source of our frustration.
 
I understand you and your client are frustrated but that does not give the right for your client to make outbursts like that. Please restrain him or the next outburst would lead to him severely losing his posting rights in this area.
 
[me] clears throat.

Felasia, if you were to recall that in his first abuse of the Delegacy, John Ashcroft Land as Durkaduriranistan was elected by the Regional Assembly, would you think that there might be a problem with readmitting him to that body for that reason?
 
I think it may be a problem since taking into account of his first delegacy. He would already have violate his RA oath once so it is possible that he can be considered as a security threat.

I wouldn't denied it outright though, but it would definitely by something that I have to discuss with Administrator and Security first.
 
What do you think might have happened if no one had noticed John Ashcroft Land's altered oath, and you had admitted him to the RA?
 
His membership would needs to be revoke after someone noticed it and I would probably be prosecuted for violation of the legal code.
 
Either he would act as he had stated in the oath or he will not be abide by the correct oath which would be disastrous to the region either ways.
 
Eluvatar:
What do you think might have happened if no one had noticed John Ashcroft Land's altered oath, and you had admitted him to the RA?
Click to expand...
Objection! Although it is too late to prevent the witness answering the question, this hearing it to deal with facts, not what hypothetically the witness "thinks might have happened" in some alternate reality.

Defence requests that this line of questioning is struck from the court record and not considered by the justices when reaching their verdict.
 
flemingovia:
Eluvatar:
What do you think might have happened if no one had noticed John Ashcroft Land's altered oath, and you had admitted him to the RA?
Click to expand...
Objection! Although it is too late to prevent the witness answering the question, this hearing it to deal with facts, not what hypothetically the witness "thinks might have happened" in some alternate reality.

Defence requests that this line of questioning is struck from the court record and not considered by the justices when reaching their verdict.
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. This portion will be struck from the record.

Mr. Attorney General, rephrase your question or proceed to a less hypothetical form of questioning.
 
But is not what the Speaker thinks would have happened relevant to discussing the Speaker's decision under TNP Law 28 to deny the application?
 
Eluvatar:
But is not what the Speaker thinks would have happened relevant to discussing the Speaker's decision under TNP Law 28 to deny the application?
Click to expand...
Only if the prosecution is arguing that the speaker ignored the tnp principle, enshrined in the constitution, that a nation is innocent until proven guilty. Once we start prejudging what a nation "might" do if we admit them - with no actual evidence - then that fundamental tnp principle goes right out of the window. It seems curious thatthe prosecution seems intent on mAking the very point that the defence has made over and over again. There is no evidence against my client, only suspicion, conjecture and prejudice.
 
It needs to be made clear that the legal basis for an action need not be the only thing informing the decision by a state officer to act.

The state is empowered to enforce the laws and only the laws, it is true, but its officers are expected to do so with an understanding of why they do so.

The intent of TNP Law 28's stringent requirements is to permit the government to exclude dangerous individuals, as defined by those requirements.

The Prosecution has not declared that the legal basis for the denial was simply a reasonable judgement of what the consequences of admission might be. The legal basis for the denial of the re-application is clearly TNP Law 28's rule on the threat or the use of force.

The nature of the first, fraudulent, application however is eminently of interest in this case. The reasoning of the state's agent in enforcing the rule is also relevant. The rules do not exist simply for their own sake, they are intended to help protect the North Pacific from threats like the defendant!

The prosecution is perturbed that the court seems to be more concerned with appearing fair to the defendant than it is with upholding the law.

Felasia, would you think it fair to say that JAL, as Durkadurkiranistan II, had threatened and used force in the North Pacific?
 
At the time, I thought have two legal basis for denying the application.

1. I was inform by the Administrator, Gross, that his first application is a violation of TNP law. This was later proved wrong though as you have not prosecute him for the offence.
2. I am concerned from his first application and his previous action during the last 2 years that he may be a threat to the region.

So, I would said yes. The fact that JAL had threatened and used force in the North Pacific is one of the legal basis I used to denied his application.
 
Your Honors, I appear, but under protest.

The Court's rules clearly require any testimony from a witness be recorded before trial, and that witnesses be listed with the Court prior to the trial. I know that I was not asked for any testimony prior to this trial or given any notice that I could be called.as a witness prior to this trial by either side.
 
The prosecution is entirely in agreement with the witness' protest. The rules have been ignored to a great extent in this trial.
 
Your honours, the defence announced in its opening statement its intention to call Gross as a witness:

The Defence will call Felasia, Eluvatar and Grosseschnauser to bring evidence as to the events surrounding the refusal of my client’s RA application and his arrest on the charge of treason, and the reasons for the actions they took.
Click to expand...

No obejection was made by either the justices or the prosecution at that time to the way the defence intended to conduct the case. It is a little late to start objecting now.

On to the questioning.

Gross, if you could cast your mind back to the events surrounding the application of JAL to join the regional assembly.

PLease could you tell us, quoting if possible, the exact assistance and advice that Felasia requested from you and also what answer you gave. Once again, if you have the PMs saved, a direct quote would be welcome.
 
A point of clarification. The Prosecution is not objecting to these late interviews precisely because it failed to object at the right time. The prosecution merely noted that the witness' assessment that the rules were not being followed was accurate.
 
My access.to records is such that I am unable to copy qoute any Pms until Hewitt Packard completes keyboard repairs of my notebook computer and ships it back to me. I have no informarion as to when that will be. Iam using a tablet that has so far not cooperated with me and copy-paste of material, or proofing extended posts.

In general, if I recall correctly, it was brought to my attention that JAL had posted an oath in the R.A. application thread, and that it did not comply with the requirements of Law 28. At some point, Iwas asked about what should be done, andIindicated that an oath that did not comply with the law wass.grounds for rejection and that it ought to be refered to the Attorney General.

I did note that after Ihad seen JAL's original post, he had edited it. I have no way of knowing his intent in the edit, I have no information that allows me to conclude that the original oath was in jest, and given JAL's prior conduct when he served as Delegate, it was quite possible the original language of JAL's post may have reflected the same kind of bad faith as was shown in his abuse of power in his ejection of hundreds of nations from TNP during his Delegacy in violation of the limits in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on the ejection of resident nations of The North Pacific.
 
If I might enquire for a bit more clarity

"In general, if I recall correctly, it was brought to my attention that JAL had posted an oath in the R.A. application thread, and that it did not comply with the requirements of Law 28."
Click to expand...

Am i correct in assuming this was by Felasia?


"At some point, Iwas asked about what should be done,
Click to expand...

Once again I assume this was by Felasia? Did the conversation at this point involve anyone else - the delegate, perhaps, or othersin the moderation team?

and I indicated that an oath that did not comply with the law wass.grounds for rejection and that it ought to be refered to the Attorney General."
Click to expand...

In general, Forum administrators are asked to perform checks regarding Multiple accounts and IP addresses. Did Felasia's request to you indicate that he expected you to be giving legal advice to the Speaker of the RA? In evidence, Felasia stated@

Felasia:
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.
Click to expand...

Felasia's evidence suggests that your advice to him went beyond the request that he made as an official of the region. He asked for a security check and a security assessment; you replied by suggested that JAL be put on trial. Is Felasia's evidence correct?

"I did note that after Ihad seen JAL's original post, he had edited it. I have no way of knowing his intent in the edit, I have no information that allows me to conclude that the original oath was in jest, and given JAL's prior conduct when he served as Delegate, it was quite possible the original language of JAL's post may have reflected the same kind of bad faith as was shown in his abuse of power in his ejection of hundreds of nations from TNP during his Delegacy in violation of the limits in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on the ejection of resident nations of The North Pacific."
Click to expand...

Is it not also possible that the post edit was simply to correct a typo? You seem to have read a lot into the edit of a post.

I put it to you that what you have posted above suggests that you pre-judged my client based on previous conduct, rather than judging his application on its current merits, and that you offered unsolicited legal advice to the Speaker of the RA, influencing him to press for prosecution of my client.
 
flemingovia:
If I might enquire for a bit more clarity

"In general, if I recall correctly, it was brought to my attention that JAL had posted an oath in the R.A. application thread, and that it did not comply with the requirements of Law 28."
Click to expand...

Am i correct in assuming this was by Felasia?


"At some point, Iwas asked about what should be done,
Click to expand...

Once again I assume this was by Felasia? Did the conversation at this point involve anyone else - the delegate, perhaps, or othersin the moderation team?

and I indicated that an oath that did not comply with the law wass.grounds for rejection and that it ought to be refered to the Attorney General."
Click to expand...

In general, Forum administrators are asked to perform checks regarding Multiple accounts and IP addresses. Did Felasia's request to you indicate that he expected you to be giving legal advice to the Speaker of the RA? In evidence, Felasia stated@

Felasia:
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.
Click to expand...

Felasia's evidence suggests that your advice to him went beyond the request that he made as an official of the region. He asked for a security check and a security assessment; you replied by suggested that JAL be put on trial. Is Felasia's evidence correct?

"I did note that after Ihad seen JAL's original post, he had edited it. I have no way of knowing his intent in the edit, I have no information that allows me to conclude that the original oath was in jest, and given JAL's prior conduct when he served as Delegate, it was quite possible the original language of JAL's post may have reflected the same kind of bad faith as was shown in his abuse of power in his ejection of hundreds of nations from TNP during his Delegacy in violation of the limits in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on the ejection of resident nations of The North Pacific."
Click to expand...

Is it not also possible that the post edit was simply to correct a typo? You seem to have read a lot into the edit of a post.

I put it to you that what you have posted above suggests that you pre-judged my client based on previous conduct, rather than judging his application on its current merits, and that you offered unsolicited legal advice to the Speaker of the RA, influencing him to press for prosecution of my client.
Click to expand...
Question 1 - It was not Felasia, as I recall, but another poster who I believe was a member of the TNP community. They had posted a comment trying to get Falasia's attention to the content of what JAL had originally posted. That is how I became aware of the inaccuracies in the Law 28 oath as it was originally posted by JAL. As far as I know, that made me aware of the isuue before the Speaker reacted to the actual oath as originally posted by JAL.

I will post my response to each question put by the Defense counsel separately due to technical limitattions with this tablet I am using.
 
Question set 2- My recollection Is that it was Felasia, although there made have been forum thread posts discussing the question.

The matter of the ”security issue” concerning JAL would be a matter of common knowledge among the members of the TNP community and others who witnessed that conduct at the time. Its existence was not something that required consultation.
 
Question set 3 -- I am more than a forum administrator. At the time of these events, I had previously served as Speaker under the current legal framework, and as Chief Justice as well, and I drafted the originally enacted version of Law 28.

In asking me his questions, it seemed to me that Felasia was asking for more that aa technical report on the IP status and the technical.aspects of ensuring there was.no.duality issue with the application. When I saw the oath as JAL had originally posted it, I had the relavant knowledge and experience with the process to be highly concerned about the irregularities (plural) in the oath text. It appeared.to me that the text posted by JAL was not an accident and that the Speaker was within his authority under Law.28 to reject an application because the specific irregularities was, in the context of the required language in the oath, the opposite of what Law 28 required. Where there are irregularities in the application, such as a listed natin not being in TNP or having ceased.to.exist,they havebeen rejected.

As a member.of the Regional Assembly throughout the entire period of time Law. 28 has been in effect, and having served as Speaker in some of that time, I was certain in an psition to express my opin io n on the matter as a whole, and the Speaker was certainly free.to accept.or.ignore the opinion.
 
One other factor that was relevant in my opinion was the fact that as.to.JAL's conduct as Delegate with respect to the mass.ejections, there is no.statute of limitations under the current Constitution, as there had been under the prior Constitution. As aresult, the Attorney General is free to.prosecute charges on those events. The seriousness of that conduct and the numerous violations of the Constitution and the Bill of.Rights certainly would make a suggestion to seek a ban within reason.

But the decision on that matter is the Attorney General's. There are forum bans for.violation of.forum terms of use and service but that operates under a completely different set of criteria, and I would refer Defense counsel to.the opi.ion of the Court that he requested on the topic.

As to.the.final.quesrion.about whether the edir was.typographical,.my response having seen the.original post at the time is thatnthese were not typographical errors. The repeated insertion of the word ”not” in various places of the oath text was clearly designed to totally alter the.meaning of the oath taken by JAL to something.approximating the opposite of what was intended by Law 28.
 
I think it might be easier if i number my questions, to help us keep track.

(1) Other than the posting of his joke application, did you have any concrete evidence that JAL's RA application was part of a move against the constitutionally elected government of the region?

(2) It seems from your answers thus far that your advice to Felasia was based entirely on JAL's conduct just under a year ago. If his RA application had been made in a year's time, would your advice to Felasia have been the same?
 
Question one, my schnauzer instincts suggested that there was always that possibility, but the original oath (which I am not a convinced wasa.joke) did seem consistent with JAl.s past attitudes and behavior, and warranted caution.

And I'm not at all convinced the original version of the oath as posted by JAL was edited because.it was a joke, I think he might have done so because he realize he had been caught in a violation of the law and was hoping it wouldn't be noticed. If it was a joke, something I do nor concede in any way shape or form, JAL should have known how most of those active in the region would have viewed it, given his history here.
 
Question 2 - That is way too speculative for me to answer. I would have to know everything that would happen in the next year to even make any form of guess.
 
(1) Schnauser instincts? Are you really serious that you had no more to go on than that?

(2) Then let me lower the level of speculation for you. If yet another year passed with JAL having no interraction with the region, and posing no threat to it. Would you then recommend that his application to the Regional Assembly not be denied?
 
I've been in the place for.a very long time. I've learned to trust my instincts. At the time JAL made his original post, it was more than instinct coming into play, it was what the oath he then posted said and the implications of the words used by JAL had modified it from the text as required in Law 28, and how those words and implications were consistent with his past conduct.

Those are very vague assumptions, and my reservations to giving a reaponse would cover the entirity of the state of affairs, and not just the assumptions you propose. As I've said, I'm not able to say what my position would be on such a speculative hypothetical.
 
(1) So it is fair to say that you may never, ever recommend that JAL be accepted into the Regional Assembly?

Perhaps we can move forward by examining this Schnauser sense a bit more.

(2) If GAtes the God were to resurrect his nation, move it into TNP, and apply for the RA - would you recommend that his application be rejected? Remember, Gates has shown great hostility to this region over the years and at least twice declared war on it.
 
(1) I have no idea; you are asking me to speculate on my opinion of a hypothetical.

(2) I'll have to repeat my answer, as you are asking me again to speculate on a hypothetical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top