The North Pacific v. JAL

No, I am trying to allow the court to guage your "scnauser senses".

It seems that you are unable to say whether these "senses" would ever stop tingling when my client tries to make a new start for himself in this region. The court is left to speculate that so long as your administrator checks move beyond IP address and multiple account checks to "I think the person is a bit iffy" checks, JAL is permanently banned from full involvement in the regional community. So long as TNP elects Speakers who so unquestioningly follow your advice.

So let us move on...

(1) All factors being as they are now, are there any other individuals that you would advise refusal of admittance to the RA to on the basis of your Schnauser senses? OR is my client in a unique position?
 
My sense or instincts are based on my past experience jand observations, not future ones. So it seems to me that asking my opinion about things in the future that may never oxcur is not only speculative, but irrelevant; since it seeks to establish as ffact some future opinion or fact that has no relevance as that term is defined in the Court.s rules of evidence.

I.m making an objection the Attorney General ought to be making, but I am here under protest ro begin with.
 
On you last question, again you are asking me to speculate as so far as I know, such others would be a matter.of speculation, and I wouldn't be able to day without research whether I could even give you an answer to that question. There may be such people, there may not be such people. Some might have been excused from their conduct under the now repealed statutes of limitations, others may have done things that haven't been acted upon by the government authorities of the region, as a consequence, those may be matters that I may on future information develop an opinion, but at the.moment, I don't know without reviewing a lot.of things. So I'm not able to give you an opinion based on your desire for speculation.
 
I Am not asking you to speculate, I am asking you to make a judgement. I am asking you to use your famed Schnauser sense. However, defence understands your unwillingness to speculate on lack of evidence. It is a shame that a similar approach was not used in the case of my client.

Defence despairs of ever getting an unevasive answer out of the witness, and so has no further questions.
 
As a note to both parties in this case, I will be the presiding justice in TNP v. JAL from now on (as I am hoping this will not drag out until the end of my term). I will be reviewing the case as it stands, but ask that the Prosecution commences with cross-examination as soon as they are ready.
 
Grosseschnauzer, do you believe Durkadurkiranistan II also known as John Ashcroft Land violated TNP Law 28's interdiction against the threat or the use of force?
 
The witness had no way of knowing that the prosecutor had returned. And as Delegate, he does have a lot of other things in attend to.

It isn't Law 28 that interdicts the use of force, but the Bill of Rights, and which is referenced by the language you are referring to in the oath for the RA prescribed in Law 28.

I will have to answer the question based on what I understand are the generally understood sequence of events of that time. Based on that understanding, I think there's reasonable cause to believe there was enough evidence to warrant a trial on whether JAL violated his oath of office while serving as Delegate.
 
The witness had no way of knowing that the prosecutor had returned. And as Delegate, he does have a lot of other things in attend to.
Click to expand...

The Court did call on the Prosecutor to start cross-examining. While the Prosecutor should have poked you regarding his question, it is also your duty to check.

Carry on.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The witness had no way of knowing that the prosecutor had returned. And as Delegate, he does have a lot of other things in attend to.

It isn't Law 28 that interdicts the use of force, but the Bill of Rights, and which is referenced by the language you are referring to in the oath for the RA prescribed in Law 28.

I will have to answer the question based on what I understand are the generally understood sequence of events of that time. Based on that understanding, I think there's reasonable cause to believe there was enough evidence to warrant a trial on whether JAL violated his oath of office while serving as Delegate.
Click to expand...
The prosecution would like to ask that the witness please stick to answering its questions.

The prosecution asked, referencing TNP Law 28 (reproduced, for the witnesses' benefit below) whether you believe JAL used or threatened force in the North Pacific. It is a yes or no question, which you did not answer.

TNP Law 28 Article I Section One:
TNP LAW 28
Regional Assembly Registration and Membership

Article I

Membership Requirements

Section One

Membership in The North Pacific Regional Assembly does not require UN membership, in accorance with the TNP Bill of Rights. However, the following requirements must be met and confirmed for membership.

1. Assembly member applicants must maintain a nation in The North Pacific.

2. Each member Nation will by oath, abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.

3. Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.

4. Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or Intelligence Agencies, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet.

5. The use of a proxy server by an applicant for Regional Assembly member status is grounds for automatic denial of Regional Assembly member] application.

a. Proxy server usage is defined as the use of an IP connection with the intent of rendering a forum user anonymous, aka proxy spoofing, or any such practice designed to allow a member to have multiple accounts on the TNP forum.
Click to expand...

The prosecution is not referring to Section Two, the Oath, but Section One, which lists the above prerequisites for an application.

The prosecution asks that in their response, the witness not discuss any law other than TNP Law 28 Article I Section One but simply answer the question.
 
What facts am I to hypothetically assume to answer that question?

You seek an expert opinion, then give me the facts you wish me to assume to answer with an opinion of "yes" or "no." I can't possibly know what facts you wish me to assume to answer the question.

That was the reason why I answered your earlier question the way I did, and the defense's questions the way I did.
 
You are not to assume any facts. I ask what your actual, not hypothetical, opinion is on this particular question.

Your testimony as to the facts is asked for, as well as the legal question of whether those facts, fit the aforementioned line in TNP Law 28.
 
I am unable, then, to answer your question. Give me a state of facts on which you want a opinion, and I shall give it. What I think the facts might be based on a general recollection may or may not be the same as what the prosecution may or may not have shown in this trial. I stated in my earlier testimony that my opinion was based upon what I have understood to be commonly known.

Since I did not know I would be a witness or on what matters, I have not had the opportunity to research the forum archives to review whatever may be in them. My opinion based on what I understood to be the historical record of the matter is that JAL in his one persona that served as Delegate, violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as to the ejection of hundreds or even thousands of nations. It's the Court's job to determine if whatever set of facts is proven shows a violation of Law 28, as that is the purpose of this trial.
 
The prosecution is pleased that the witness has answered the first and most important part of its question.

The prosecution does not understand what obstacle prevents the witness from answering the second. It is not a violation of the court's prerogative to state one's own understanding of the law.
 
I have not followed the trial, so I'm the wrong one to ask to summarize the testimony given in the trial as to whatever facts have been shown in evidence.
 
Objection, your honour. The court has decded to try the two issues in this case seperately. in the second half we shall come to the issue of whether a year ago JAL committed crimes against the region in his actions as delegate at that time.

this first hearing is to determine whether there was any legal justification for blocking JAL's application to the regional assembly. It is reasonable to explore whether he is a current threat - whether through concrete evidence or the witnesses spidey senses. But the defence has accepted that JAL carried out the ejections referred to by the prosecution, so the issue of whether he broke law 28 or any other law is for the second part of this hearing to determine and is irrelevant to the current case.
 
As I referred to in my direct testimony in response to defense counsel, it was generally understood as a matter of common knowledge that JAL acting as Delegate ejected hundreds or thousands of nations from TNP, and violated the procedures in the Constitution and the protections in the Bill of Rights in doing so. I'm not aware that JAL as Delegate ever sought approval from the Regional Assembly, the Court or even the Security Council (I'm fuzzy without checking if the SC was established under the current Constitution before or after these events, and I was not a member of the SC at that time.)
 
The defense appears to be labouring under a misapprehension of TNP Law 28. The prosecution is referring to a particular clause of TNP Law 28 which can prohibit the admission of an applicant to the Regional Assembly who has used or threatened force (this clause has generally been interpreted as applying within TNP).

This is an examination of whether the Speaker applied that clause correctly, not an examination of the questions the defense would like to examine instead.

The prosecution's unanswered question to the Witness is whether the Witness believes that John Ashcroft Land is indeed made ineligible under that clause by his commonly recognized ejections under the names Durkadurkiranistan and Durkadurkiranistan II.
 
If I understand your reformulated question correctly, you seem to be asking what in my opinion could be the procedure for have a finding that could be used to invoke that provision of Law 28, and not the specific facts involving JAL.

An official finding could be made by the Speaker in reviewing the Law 28 application.

There's nothing in Law 28 that requires such a finding to have been made by the Court in a prior proceeding, and such a finding during the application process could be judicially reviewed by the Court afterwards.
 
Have the court rules been changed so that objections from the defence are now answered and ruled on by the Prosecutor? Not for the first time the prosecutor oversteps himself and seeks to do the presiding officer's job for him as well as his own.
 
The prosecution fears that if it were to assume all objections to be sustained unless told otherwise, we could be here for years and years.

The prosecution submits that, should the objection be sustained, the related statements can be stricken from the record by the Court.

--

While the witnesses' response is, at long last, related to what the prosecution is asking, it still doesn't quite hit the spot.

Do you think the mass ejections performed by John Ashcroft Land constitute the threat and/or use of force, in the North Pacific?
 
I do not think you should assume they are sustained; I do not think you should assume they are denied. I think you should assume the presiding officer is diligent in his duties and can answer the objection himself.
 
flemingovia:
I do not think you should assume they are sustained; I do not think you should assume they are denied. I think you should assume the presiding officer is diligent in his duties and can answer the objection himself.
Click to expand...
I was counter-arguing.
 
The prosecution is waiting for two things. It could otherwise proceed on one of the two 'fronts' of debate.

Firstly, the prosecution awaits a judgement from the Court on the defense's motion.

Secondly, the prosecution awaits an answer from the witness. As it is waiting for the Court, the prosecution has decided against privately reminding the witness at this time, as the line of questioning could yet be blocked.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
If I understand your reformulated question correctly, you seem to be asking what in my opinion could be the procedure for have a finding that could be used to invoke that provision of Law 28, and not the specific facts involving JAL.

An official finding could be made by the Speaker in reviewing the Law 28 application.

There's nothing in Law 28 that requires such a finding to have been made by the Court in a prior proceeding, and such a finding during the application process could be judicially reviewed by the Court afterwards.
Click to expand...
I would point out to the prosecution that I have answered the last question as far as I am able.
 
Since Dalimbar has taken over as Chief Justice this trial has been allowed to completely stall, objections have been left unanswered and both prosecution and defence have been left to their own devices without any guidance from the bench.

If dali is not going to oversee this trial actively, please could I request that he appoints someone else who will do so?

Govindia may have made questionable rulings from time to time, but at least he was active and kept the trial moving along. Can we please have a presiding justice who will do the same?
 
I have been informed that I have been appointed Justice for this trial. Please give me reasonable time to process the thread. If the defence and prosecution could PM me ASAP with any relevant information and to acknowledge my appointment, (i.e. I want to see if both sides are still paying attention) I'd appreciate it.
 
Still awaiting responses from others I've contacted, I hope to get things moving again either tonight or tomorrow. I apologise for the delay, but by TNP standards that's practically lightening fast.
 
To be clear, this is the question that the Prosecution believes the witness has yet to answer:

Do you think the mass ejections performed by John Ashcroft Land constitute the threat and/or use of force, in the North Pacific?
 
My problem is that you and your colleague both are asking me to give opinion testimony as an expert witness, when I have not been qualified by the court to be an expert witness in this case.
What I think it would be labeled as a layman is irrelevant. If you are asking me as a layman whether there was a general opinion in the community of The North Pacific at the time as to how JAL's conduct would be characterized, then I can answer you that as a layman, the general opinion appeared to be that it was an illegal use of force against those nations.
If you want me to give an expert opinion on some subject, that qualify me as an expert on whatever subject you think applies, and if we ever reach a common understanding of the facts on which to form an expert opinion.

What I'm unwilling to do is to step on the court's role as the fact finder in this trial as to the facts and circumstances of JAL's actions alleged by the prosecution.

If you want me to be qualified as an expert, then do so; then if you are able to state for me what facts you want me to use in order to offer an opinion as an expert then I will be glad to offer an opinion.

But any answer I give that has me guessing as to what facts have been or will be proved in this trial by the prosecution or the defense would be a meaningless opinion since we have to be on the same page on what the facts are that I am to assume are proven in order to offer an expert opinion.
 
Would it please the Court to clarify whether the Witnesses' interpretation of the Rules of Evidence is correct and he may refuse to answer this question?
 
Your honour, the defence maintains that the prosecution is asking an unanswerable question, however he dresses it up. The conduct of JAL a year ago is evidence of his threat to the region a year ago. It has nothing to do with his threat to the region this summer.

The witness may give an opinion, he may talk about his "Schnauser Senses", as he has in the past - but at the end of the day this is supposition, not evidence.

edit: say --> day. Typo correction
 
While the justices are considering the prosecution's question lodged two days ago, could the court also please note that there has been no response at all to defence's objection of 21st October, a mere two weeks ago.

The prosecution has blithely forged ahead and ignored the objection, but I feel the defence deserves a qualified ruling on the matter from a justice. Not all of us like ignoring the bench.
 
On further review let's see if the witness is willing to answer this question:

Taking as given* that John Ashcroft Land did, under the name Durkadurkiranistan II, while member of the Regional Assembly, eject hundreds of nations from the North Pacific, would it be accurate to say that his ejections constituted "the threat or use of force" under TNP Law 28 Article I Section One, making John Ashcroft Land ineligible to join the Regional Assembly?

(* Exhibit E has been stricken from the record)
 
Question for clarification: Is the prosecution still attempting to draw a direct link between the application of JAL to the RA with the events of his delegacy a year previously?

If so then the defence's objection of Oct 21 2011, 07:25 AM ought to be addressed before the question is answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top