The North Pacific v. JAL

The next post that is out of order here and isn't part of this trial, they will be held in contempt of court. DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD IF YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL.

Grimalkin has been warned.
 
Limitless Events, did administrator flemingovia know for certain how you had acquired the IP address intelligence you had forwarded to the Lexicon? What means do you think administrator flemingovia could have surmised you had used to obtain it?

Limitless Events, how did you come to believe that the admin team in March was biased against you? Do you have any evidence of this?

Limitless Events, recalling the events you describe, did you not continue to gather endorsements past the authorization issued by the Security Council on the thirteenth of January, as evidenced by the statement by the honorable Great Bights Mum on the twenty third of January?

Limitless Events, did not the Court at the time of your complaint vs the honorable Great Bights Mum ask for clarification from the Minister of Justice and fail to receive it? Why did you omit this detail in your summary?
 
Limitless Events, did administrator flemingovia know for certain how you had acquired the IP address intelligence you had forwarded to the Lexicon?
Click to expand...

At the time no, later on I believe Blue Wolf revealed what the source of the information was.

What means do you think administrator flemingovia could have surmised you had used to obtain it?
Click to expand...

I believe he concluded I got the information from my ability to view IP Addresses as MoIIA but that did not explain how I managed to also get the emails of board members.

Limitless Events, how did you come to believe that the admin team in March was biased against you? Do you have any evidence of this?
Click to expand...

I have no evidence, merely a belief that there exists bias as I stated. GBM has the potential for bias as I was the one seeking to undermine her delegacy and put her on trial following my banning. When I was informed by Grosse that the ban was still in effect I tried to point out that the ban given to me was in violation of the forum rules as I was given an IP ban immediately when board rules specify it is given only for violations after 100% warning and that the violations in question did not break this board's ToS as the event in question involved me posting information I acquired from a separate forum and posted onto yet another forum I was told it didn't matter if the ban was right or wrong it was still in effect and I'd have to submit a full appeal for a change.

Limitless Events, recalling the events you describe, did you not continue to gather endorsements past the authorization issued by the Security Council on the thirteenth of January, as evidenced by the statement by the honorable Great Bights Mum on the twenty third of January?
Click to expand...

After the Security Council said GBM could eject me if I continued to tart recklessly I stopped tarting, as evidenced by GBM's post on my banning acknowledging that I had stopped tarting. At that time I began running an unendorsement campaign against her which the SC did not authorize her to ban me for.

Limitless Events, did not the Court at the time of your complaint vs the honorable Great Bights Mum ask for clarification from the Minister of Justice and fail to receive it? Why did you omit this detail in your summary?
Click to expand...

After I filed the complaint with the office of the MoJ and ask for clarification regarding how many endorsements I received no contact from the MoJ regarding my complaint and as far as I'm able to tell no effort was made by the court to seek clarification from the MoJ regarding the charges filed against GBM. As I'm not aware that it even exists it is fairly easy to see how I could omit it provided it exists in a place I could have known about it.
 
Limi:
After the Security Council said GBM could eject me if I continued to tart recklessly I stopped tarting, as evidenced by GBM's post on my banning acknowledging that I had stopped tarting. At that time I began running an unendorsement campaign against her which the SC did not authorize her to ban me for.
Click to expand...

In the post of January the twenty third, the honorable Great Bights Mum did state that you had continued to tart after the thirteenth:

Great Bights Mum:
Despite my request that he stop endorsing new nations, he has continued to endorse nearly every nation in the region. Today I sent him a message letting him know I would ban him if he did not stop endotarting.
Click to expand...
http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/single/?p=165997&t=632479

Limi:
Limitless Events, did not the Court at the time of your complaint vs the honorable Great Bights Mum ask for clarification from the Minister of Justice and fail to receive it? Why did you omit this detail in your summary?
Click to expand...

After I filed the complaint with the office of the MoJ and ask for clarification regarding how many endorsements I received no contact from the MoJ regarding my complaint and as far as I'm able to tell no effort was made by the court to seek clarification from the MoJ regarding the charges filed against GBM. As I'm not aware that it even exists it is fairly easy to see how I could omit it provided it exists in a place I could have known about it.
Click to expand...

The Court made a request of the MoJ in public in the charges thread.
 
I have been informed that I misread the request for clarification which the Court made at that time, and thus mischaracterized it. My apologies.
 
In her post announcing my banning GBM states that I had by that point stopped tarting. I forget the exact moment I stopped tarting but it was around the time of the SC announcement but endorsements do tend to filter in for a time afterwards and there was no national happenings at the time to show I was endorsing new nations and when such an endorsement occured.

In addition the SC statement stated that I would have to be tarting recklessly which I would not classify my actions as since my ultimate goal was to see how far I had to push in order to get banned and how long how could sit at that edge.
 
If the roles were reversed and a nation had come into a region you were Delegate of and did what you did as Activini, how would you have responded?
 
Objection. The witness is not on trial. WHether hypothetically he would have acted in a fair or unfair manner has no bearing on how he was actually treated.
 
But what is fairness, exactly? If any reasonable person would do the same, keeping in mind their responsibility to the region, would not then the action be fair?
 
Eluvatar was responding merely to your objection, but yes, Defence Counsel has a point. Objection sustained. Rephrase your question Eluvatar or move onto a different line of questioning.
 
Please explain how the honorable Great Bights Mum's actions were unfair, in an outside perspective considering an unknown and apparently hostile nation gathering endorsements and performing an unendorsement campaign in the middle of a contested election, which you have been given authorization to eject?

In particular, do you think Great Bights Mum would have acted differently toward a puppet of another player that did those things, or a puppet of yours by another name?
 
Please explain how the honorable Great Bights Mum's actions were unfair, in an outside perspective considering an unknown and apparently hostile nation gathering endorsements and performing an unendorsement campaign in the middle of a contested election, which you have been given authorization to eject?
Click to expand...

I believe the issue is not a fair vs. unfair argument regarding GBM's action but rather right or wrong. GBM ejected the nation of Activini for reasons other than specified by the SC when she could have asked the SC to revise their statement to allow Activini to be ejected for the unendorsement campaign and make it all legal.


In particular, do you think Great Bights Mum would have acted differently toward a puppet of another player that did those things, or a puppet of yours by another name?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe that had GBM known I was behind Activini at the time I would have been ejected far sooner and yes I believe there are others she would have acted differently towards had they been running Activini and their identity known.
 
You believe that Great Bights Mum would refrain from ejecting someone who rapidly gathered endorsements, expressed hostility to the constitution, used a proxy to access the forum, and performed an unendorsement campaign if they had told her they were actually someone she knew? Could you give an example of such a person?

When the Defense submitted your name as a possible witness, they said your testimony "will prove that justice in TNP is not always even handed. " Surely if the same response would be given to any nation that did what Activini did, that would be "even handed"?
 
When the Defense submitted your name as a possible witness, they said your testimony "will prove that justice in TNP is not always even handed. " Surely if the same response would be given to any nation that did what Activini did, that would be "even handed"?
Click to expand...

I believe you are misunderstanding my statements. Whether or not the morality of GBM's actions was right or not but the way in which it was done broke the laws of TNP and she was never put on trial. In TNP, if someone breaks the law but something the region sees as "good" comes from those actions it is largely ignored that the law was ever violated. However, when "bad" comes from those actions they are placed on trial and forced to sit through months of court proceeding only for charges to be dismissed after no one cares anymore.

You believe that Great Bights Mum would refrain from ejecting someone who rapidly gathered endorsements, expressed hostility to the constitution, used a proxy to access the forum, and performed an unendorsement campaign if they had told her they were actually someone she knew? Could you give an example of such a person?
Click to expand...

I believe there are people who if they had been behind Activini and known to her they would have been asked for an explanation as to their actions and attempts would be made to find a compromise. I have no specifics but it would have to be an older member of the region who had a strong history with the region.
 
Limi:
I believe you are misunderstanding my statements. Whether or not the morality of GBM's actions was right or not but the way in which it was done broke the laws of TNP and she was never put on trial. In TNP, if someone breaks the law but something the region sees as "good" comes from those actions it is largely ignored that the law was ever violated. However, when "bad" comes from those actions they are placed on trial and forced to sit through months of court proceeding only for charges to be dismissed after no one cares anymore.
Click to expand...
The question we are considering is whether justice in TNP is "even handed".

Since there never was a Court judgement on the honorable Great Bights Mum's actions, we cannot be certain that her actions were legal or illegal. It's certainly clear that the defendant's counsel was prepared to defend Great Bights Mum in court, and was not pleased with the Court's refusal to hear the case, allowing him to exonerate the honorable Great Bights Mum.

Is it not clear, though, that the honorable Great Bights Mum's actions would have been performed the same toward any such would-be revolutionary?

I believe there are people who if they had been behind Activini and known to her they would have been asked for an explanation as to their actions and attempts would be made to find a compromise. I have no specifics but it would have to be an older member of the region who had a strong history with the region.
Click to expand...

It is the prosecution's understanding that the honorable Great Bights Mum pursued communication with Activini, asking for an explanation, not once but twice before the Security Council authorization to eject was even issued, and then at least once after that as well. What nation could have gotten away with rapidly endorsement swapping, expressing hostility to the constitution, using a proxy to access the forum, and performing an unendorsement campaign in the middle of an election using a puppet? Is it not fatuous to say such a nation exists without naming even one?
 
Limi:
I believe you are misunderstanding my statements. Whether or not the morality of GBM's actions was right or not but the way in which it was done broke the laws of TNP and she was never put on trial. In TNP, if someone breaks the law but something the region sees as "good" comes from those actions it is largely ignored that the law was ever violated. However, when "bad" comes from those actions they are placed on trial and forced to sit through months of court proceeding only for charges to be dismissed after no one cares anymore.
Click to expand...
Would it not be "even-handed" justice if it were applied equally to you and to others?

I believe there are people who if they had been behind Activini and known to her they would have been asked for an explanation as to their actions and attempts would be made to find a compromise. I have no specifics but it would have to be an older member of the region who had a strong history with the region.
Click to expand...

Who might be one such person?
 
Would it not be "even-handed" justice if it were applied equally to you and to others?
Click to expand...

Activini was never given a trial for their actions so I guess at the time things were "even-handed" as no one was put on trial for anything they did.

Who might be one such person?
Click to expand...

Let's go with flem. Had he been the one behind Activini and this information known to GBM I'm sure her actions would have been different.
 
Your honours, having laid the foundation that TNP is not always even-handed in the pursuit of justice or the treatment of citizens, the defence at this time has stated its intent to call former rogue delegates in order to demonstrate that my client has been uniquely singled out for prosecution, harassment and the denial of his right of admission to the RA.

However, much of the testimony is a matter of historical record. In order to save the court time the defence would be willing to forego the calling of these witnesses and move on to examine witnesses pertaining to the particular details of my client's RA application, should the justices agree that defence's point has been made without the need to call witnesses.
 
The prosecution would certainly object to a claim that the North Pacific is not even-handed in its justice.

If permitting the defense to proceed as described would constitute concession to such a claim, then the Prosecution definitely objects!
 
Eluvatar:
The prosecution would certainly object to a claim that the North Pacific is not even-handed in its justice.

If permitting the defense to proceed as described would constitute concession to such a claim, then the Prosecution definitely objects!
Click to expand...
On what grounds is your objection Mr. Attorney General?

I do not see why he cannot explain this aspect of his case.
 
Govindia:
Eluvatar:
The prosecution would certainly object to a claim that the North Pacific is not even-handed in its justice.

If permitting the defense to proceed as described would constitute concession to such a claim, then the Prosecution definitely objects!
Click to expand...
On what grounds is your objection Mr. Attorney General?

I do not see why he cannot explain this aspect of his case.
Click to expand...
Eluvatar?
 
The Prosecution apologizes for the delay.

As the Prosecution had misunderstood the Defense's request, a careful reading of the Prosecution's objection shows it to be self-invalidating. As the Defense was not asking for a judgement that TNP is unfair before moving on, the objection does not apply.

The Prosecution has no objection to recognizing the facts that the former rogue delegates Gracius Maximus (Pixiedance) and Dalimbar (Chodean Kal) have not faced prosecution and have been permitted to reenter the Regional Assembly. Nor does the Prosecution object to recognizing the facts that the rogue Delegate Westwind (Lewis and Clark) has not been prosecuted. Nor does the Prosecution object to recognizing that the illegal delegate Shoeless Joe has not been prosecuted. The Prosecution would like to then, also, register the facts that Gracius Maximus, Dalimbar, and Westwind all fall under the Amnesty granted by Great Bights Mum which the prosecution previously referenced, that Shoeless Joe has not at any point thereafter applied to the Regional Assembly or otherwise indicated interest in further participation in TNP governance (or, therefore, attempts to subvert it), and that no Complaint has ever been given to the office of Attorney General on the subject of Shoeless Joe, Westwind, Dalimbar, or Gracius Maximus.
 
Eluvatar:
The Prosecution apologizes for the delay.

As the Prosecution had misunderstood the Defense's request, a careful reading of the Prosecution's objection shows it to be self-invalidating. As the Defense was not asking for a judgement that TNP is unfair before moving on, the objection does not apply.

The Prosecution has no objection to recognizing the facts that the former rogue delegates Gracius Maximus (Pixiedance) and Dalimbar (Chodean Kal) have not faced prosecution and have been permitted to reenter the Regional Assembly. Nor does the Prosecution object to recognizing the facts that the rogue Delegate Westwind (Lewis and Clark) has not been prosecuted. Nor does the Prosecution object to recognizing that the illegal delegate Shoeless Joe has not been prosecuted. The Prosecution would like to then, also, register the facts that Gracius Maximus, Dalimbar, and Westwind all fall under the Amnesty granted by Great Bights Mum which the prosecution previously referenced, that Shoeless Joe has not at any point thereafter applied to the Regional Assembly or otherwise indicated interest in further participation in TNP governance (or, therefore, attempts to subvert it), and that no Complaint has ever been given to the office of Attorney General on the subject of Shoeless Joe, Westwind, Dalimbar, or Gracius Maximus.
Click to expand...
Noted. The defence may proceed.
 
I thank your honour. The court will note that TNP is very selective in its treatment of rogue delegates and their supporters. Some are offered amnesties, allowed to join the RA without question, their crimes are forgiven or forgotten and they have gone on to productive careers in this region.

My client, on the other hand, has had his RA application stonewalled, and has been put on trial here in a desperate attempt to find some legal footing for this action. We have seen a lot of shit thrown at the wall in the hope that some of it will stick. Yet to really get to the bottom of this we need to investigate the discussions and process that led to my client being on trial here.

The defence calls, as a hostile witness, the individual who denied JAL's RA application.

Defence calls Felasia.
 
Objection sustained. Defence counsel will refrain from using inappropriate and foul language in this court room. Same with everyone else here.

Continue, Mr. Flemingovia.
 
My apologies. Please substitute the proto indo european word "kheid".

A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet.

PS, Apropos of nothing, did you know that Shakespeare invented the word "wormhole"? Without shakespeare space ships would not have been able to fly through space and time. No Kheid.

The Rape of Lucrece.


"To fill with worm-holes stately monuments,
To feed oblivion with decay of things,
To blot old books and alter their contents,
To pluck the quills from ancient ravens' wings."

Back to business.
 
I thank your honour.

Felasia, before we get to the sorry series of decisions that led to my client being on trial today, please can you describe the excact sequence of events that led to his RA application being denied, even when corrected?

Please would you include in that information concerning with whom you consulted, and the advice you received from others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top