The North Pacific v. JAL

flemingovia:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. The entire case on the matter of TNP Law 28 is based on the existence of a link between Durkadurkiranistan II's actions last year and John Ashcroft Land's application this summer.
 
Objection dated Oct 21 2011, 07:25 AM overruled.


the defence has accepted that JAL carried out the ejections referred to by the prosecution
Click to expand...

The court rules that actions taken by the defendant do have relevancy to the question at hand, as the defendant has used force against this region in the past. This on its own is not sufficient enough to show that the defendant is a current threat to the region, and has to be supported by evidence and testimonies.


The other question will be clarified later today (GMT).
 
The defence has accepted the fact of the ejections. However, the criminal guilt of the ejections is for the court to determine.

I would remind all concerned that my client had not, at the time of his refusal of RA entry, been found guilty of any crime.

Clause 7 of the bill of rights states that "a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence."

Felasia, under the influence of Gross' "Schnauser senses" presumed guilt, and punished JAL by refusing his admission to teh RA.

This is a clear breach of clause 5 of the bill of rights: "All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region."
 
Is the court accepting the defense's contention, then, that only the status of being a current threat can be used in the determination of eligibility under TNP Law 28?

If that is the case, then the Prosecution may as well drop the TNP law 28 issue and ask the Speaker to grant John Ashcroft Land membership in the assembly the moment he updates his application to include a current resident of the North Pacific.

For reference, the clauses of TNP Law 28 at issue are:

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.

...

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.

...

3. The Speaker will work with the forum Administrators and any Intelligence information provided to the Speaker, to ensure applicant compliance with membership eligibiliy.
Click to expand...

The prosecution believes that the defense's interpretation of this law is false and nonsensical. The eligibility requirement in question is very broad in scope. It has in the past been interpreted to apply only to actions of North Pacific nations and actions in the North Pacific. It has never before been interpreted as meaning "is a current security threat." That is in no way what the law says.

If the court does indeed accept the defense's contention that the use of force in 2010 cannot determine eligibility in 2011 however then the prosecution has no intention of wasting any further time on this question.
 
IF the court choses to interpret the law that the use of force against the region at any time in the past, whether convicted or not, is of itself sufficient reason to deny RA membership then there are many, many people who will never be admitted to the RA.

There are also several currently in the RA (including the prosecutor in this case) who should not have been admitted and probably ought to be expelled.

However, the defence maintains that the "use of force" clause, couched in the present tense, is not intended to refer to actions of a year or more previous to the application, but is intended to protect the region from current, provable threats.
 
Cakatoa:
Objection dated Oct 21 2011, 07:25 AM overruled.


the defence has accepted that JAL carried out the ejections referred to by the prosecution
Click to expand...

The court rules that actions taken by the defendant do have relevancy to the question at hand, as the defendant has used force against this region in the past. This on its own is not sufficient enough to show that the defendant is a current threat to the region, and has to be supported by evidence and testimonies.


The other question will be clarified later today (GMT).
Click to expand...
Thank you for that clarification (bolding mine)
 
flemingovia:
There are also several currently in the RA (including the prosecutor in this case) who should not have been admitted and probably ought to be expelled.
Click to expand...
Pardon me but when have I ever threatened or used force in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the North Pacific?
 
In response to this question, the witness is correct and the prosecution is advised to rephrase the question. The court does have the authority to qualify Grosse as an expert witness, but this should have happened before the trial.

In response to the above, may I ask why the defence is accusing the prosecutor of a crime similar to that of the defendant without any facts to back that up? I'm assuming there has been a simple error made.
 
Like many others Eluvatar has fought against the constitutional government of TNP. His action was during the Lexicon war, and has been freely acknowledged by him:

Eluvarar:
I was a footsoldier in the early attempts to fill TNP with endotarts and try and take the delegacy. These attempts failed. I also made a bunch of nice-looking pictures for the Lexiconian side as propaganda: I have put them available for you to look at here
Click to expand...

This sounds to me very much like using force in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the North Pacific.

My point, made at various points in the trial, is that if a player can be barred from the RA because of actions against the region long past, for which they have never been tried and for which they have never been convicted, then a significant number of RA members should never have been admitted. This includes several in high position in the region.

MY client has been singled out - largely for political reasons. Felasia and Gross decided that my client was guilty and a present threat.
All the defence has asked, throughout the trial is "show us the EVIDENCE of that threat." Otherwise you have no intel or evidence but just instinct, guesswork and "Schnauser senses"

And that is not enough to block a legitimate RA application.
 
The actions of others are not what this case is about, and I believe that the prosecutor was examining a witness.

I'd like to get this trial back on track, so if the Prosecutor would care to either rephrase the question posed to grosse or ask another question.
 
In accordance with the Court's ruling on the rules of evidence, the prosecution abandons its earlier line of questioning.

Grosseschnauzer, do you think that swearing an oath to not abide by the constitution is a sign of intention to violate the constitution?
 
Objection: This witness is still being treated by the prosecution as an expert witness on the constitution, rather than being examined on what he actually did and advice he gave.

If this is allowed to stand by the court then the defence reserves the right to come back to the witness, since the nature of his appearance at the stand has changed.
 
Objection overruled. The court rules that the question is in layman's terms and is not asking for an expert opinion, it is merely asking the witness their opinion, and does not require any further expertise into the workings of the constitution than the average RA member.
 
your honours, in the interest of time the defence waives its right to call any more witnesses.

However, I am conscious that neither defence nor prosecution has called the defendent to directly give evidence. This seemed the best course at the start of the trial, but questions have been raised in the course of the trial concerning JAL's motives that could most easily be answered by the defendant himself.

The rules of trials set for TNP have been so loosely followed in this trial that I am not sure precisely what procedures we are following. under UK law (with which I am most familiar), if during the course of a trial the evidence suggests that calling a witness would help determine guilt or motive, then the court has the right so to do.

Defence would not object if, in the interests of reaching a secure verdict, the court ordered the defendant to take the stand.
 
Doesn't seem like I really have much of a choice here, so...

- - JAL's Goddamn application is very reluctantly accepted...

Welcome back. By some miracle. This region really is pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

your honour, in light of the fact that my client has now been accepted into the regional assembly, I move the dismissal of all charges against my client.
 
If the Prosecution might get a word in edgewise:

1. The Prosecution has addressed the question of discarding the TNP Law 28 matter here. The Court never said whether it was indeed accepting that contention by teh Defense, however, so I fear that the Speaker might possibly be misapprehending the Court's meaning.

2. In that statement, the Prosecution notes that should the TNP Law 28 case on on ineligibility fall through, the prosecution will not prosecute that question. The prosecution is still quite prepared to continue with the other two charges, of illegal seizure of the Delegacy and of Sedition. While these charges are being considered, the Defendant would presumably continue to exercise the rights and privileges of Regional Assembly membership until they are resolved.

The prosecution objects most vehemently to the motion to dismiss all charges.
 
Early in these procedings the court decided to consider two issues seperately:

Firstly whether the then Speaker of the house, Felasia, on the advice of admin Gross was correct to stonewall JAL's application to the Regional Assembly in the summer. (this is the stage of the trial that is reaching, I hope, its conclusion)

Secondly, whether JAL broke any laws in his action as delegate around 18 months ago. These charges were brought to lend a thin veneer of legality to the refusal of my client's RA application.

The Defence contends that the welcome decision to admit JAL to the Regional Assembly renders both these considerations pretty moot. We see no reason to continue with a trial when the main reason for the trial has been sorted out.

However, even if the prosecution continues to wish to rake over the historical details of JAL's last delegacy, we would still contend that the first issue is dealt with. The defence holds no grudges and is willing to waive its complaint against the former speaker Felasia. The prosecution may hold whatever grudges it wishes.

THe defence also feels that the very basis of this trial has changed now that my client has been admitted to the RA, and would ask the current attorney general whether his department wishes the prosecution of my client to continue in the light of these changed circumstances.
 
I think it's pretty clear that the RA application problem has been dealt with. It really should have been dealt with by a separate Judicial Review in the first place.

The second one: not so clear. I'm inclined to continue the trial as we've gotten to that particular point anyway, but I believe the decision on whether to continue prosecution is up to the Attorney general. Will need to verify that.
 
The prosecution is prepared to continue.

Under TNP Law 31, "2) It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting. If for any reason, should the original Attorney General be unable to complete a pending case, then the interim or elected successor Attorney General shall take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings."

The prosecution does not believe the current Attorney General has any involvement unless the prosecution were to depart.
 
oh God in Heaven, we are really abandonning the issue we have been debating for the last 18 pages, but still pressing on with this?

Please, shoot me now.

Since the whole trial was designed to provide a legal justification to keep JAL out of the RA, can't we just shake hands, move on and save us all from another four months of this? Won't somebody think of the children?

I would argue that since we are opening a new proceding it is up to the current AG whether to continue. Perhaps he will have a modicum of sanity and save me.
 
If we are pressing new charges, yes, that would be my responsibility as the elected AG. In fact I dare say I'm the only one who can press new charges, even if it is in relation to an old case.
 
The charges are in no way, shape, or form new. They were established by the Prosecution from the get-go, and the prosecution has felt that the separation of the charges, and the order by the Court that the prosecution refrain from mentioning the other charges until the first matter was closed, was unreasonable. Precisely because it has lead to a longer trial.
 
It seems we have a difference of opinion between the former AG and the current AG as to whether the decision to press the charges brought under the former regime rests with Blue Wolf.

Cakatoa seems to suggest that he feels that the decision rests with Blue Wolf. Can he give us some guidance as to the way forward from here?
 
I am not an AG, I'm an associate justice. I said I would verify whether flemingovia's assumption was correct, and it is not. As prosecution, it is Eluvatars decision and, as Blue Wolf stated, the current AG would only get involved if new charges were brought forward.

Now, can we please carry on?
 
You misundersand. I meant the former AG (= Eluvatar) and the current AG (= Blue Wolf)

But I note your judgement and am ready to carry on ... and on ... and on
 
On the matter of illegal seizure of the Delegacy, the matter is clear.

The defendant himself relates (Exhibit A) his motivations and actions to seize the Delegacy. Pre-empting the outcome of an election, he used a dishonest telegram campaign to dislodge Ermarian and then to become Delegate.

He did not do this as an emergency action under the bill of rights, he did this for his own personal entertainment. He then used the illegally seized Delegacy to illegally eject hundreds of nations.

Until now, he has not returned to the region. Now, however, he has, and can stand trial. I ask the court to find the defendant guilty of violating the Constitution by attaining the delegacy outside of a legitimate election, for improper purposes.
 
It's been a week, I think the defence needs to make a statement? The defendant should also turn up for this, I did PM them before.
 
Cakatoa:
It's been a week, I think the defence needs to make a statement? The defendant should also turn up for this, I did PM them before.
Click to expand...
I have received no PM from the justice concerning this trial. I was waiting for guidance from the justice as to how he wished this trial to proceed - strictly according to the rules set out for the court, or in the more "free form" structure of the previous trial against JAL.

I was also waiting to be sure that the prosecution had finished its opening statement. On charges of this magnitude I was expecting something more from the former AG. Some evidence, some witnesses, more substance than has been presented. I suppose I am just a born optimist considering the lack of a case presented by the prosecution in the last trial.

If the prosecution can assure me that his last post is actually the sum total of what he wants to present to the court, and if the Justice can lay out how he wishes us to proceed, then we can probably press on.
 
I have been requested to appear before the Court so here I am.

Whether or not I purged is immaterial; rather, any purges that might have happened under my terms as delegate raised activity, boosted regional morale, and caused the region no lasting harm. Indeed I was given a given a North Pacific Award of Excellence by my successor New Kervoskia. To say that I betrayed the region or even caused it harm is a stretch beyond our wildest imaginations.

I see a government so desperate for the slightest bit of activity that they are willing to squeeze this trial for all it's worth. I see a need for a common enemy around whom to rally - I am that enemy. This witch trial has run its course so why must the prior Attorney General even now continue to beat this very dead horse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top