Request under tnp law 29

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
In anticipation of the re- trial of jal,

Defence requests that the court order the disclosure of any and all correspondence (by pm, tg, irc or any other means) between Felasia, Grosseschnauser and Eluvatar in the period between jal applying for the ra and felasia filing charges against him.

Defence also requests the disclosure of all security council deliberations concerning this matter. We presume that since the issue was a supposed threat to the region the security council was fully involved.

In order not to delay matters more that the attorney general is already doing, we request that the court sets a time limit upon compliance with this request, and penalties for non-compliance.
 
justification:

Your honour, the entire prosecution case in the last run of the trial was based around the supposition that JAL is a threat to the region. this is the whole reason that charges were brought in the first place - to find some justification for the actions of Felasia in denying JAL RA access.

However, thus far, other than the infamous "Schnauser Senses" no actual evidence has been presented of this threat, despite repeated requests by the defence. Evidence given by Felasia suggests that he is incapable of independent leadership or thought; he was acting under advice of those he saw as more senior figures in the region. Defence wishes to establish the exact nature of that advice and the rationale given to Felasia.

The Attorney General will doubtless, eventually, rouse himself from his slumber and complain that the germaine issue in the current trial is not JAL's exclusion from the RA, but his actions against the region back in the dark ages. However, the contention of the Defence will be that JAL has been singled out for vindictive and malicious prosecution, all stemming from his honest desire to serve the region as a member of the Regional Assembly. The reasons for the bringing of these charges are still relevant.

please, your honour, remove any hint of suspicion from Felasia, Eluvatar and Gross and the Security Counci. Let them prove that their actions were without malice by releasing the logs and records of their conversations.
 
I have no comment to the request, but seeing the the defense counsel have seen fit to accuse me of "incapable of independent leadership or thought". I believe that it is reasonable for me to be allow response to this slender of my ability by the defense counsel.

As evidence from his recent delusion that he and only himself is capable of leading TNP as it's God, perhaps the defense counsel is entirely incapable of understanding the concept that the best decision can only be done after careful deliberation which may require others input. That it is very normal for someone who is less experienced in the situation to discuss the matter of such sensitivity with a more experienced player before making any decision. The defense counsel is perhaps mistaken that his past action in TNP have somehow make him a god amongst people, but I believe that it give him no ground to attack others for theirs different method in reaching a decision. He may be arrogant enough to decide everything will out any consultation, but that was my decision to made and he have no right to slender me for his arrogance.
 
Felasia:
I have no comment to the request, but seeing the the defense counsel have seen fit to accuse me of "incapable of independent leadership or thought". I believe that it is reasonable for me to be allow response to this slender of my ability by the defense counsel.
Click to expand...
For once felasia and I are in complete agreement. His abilities are slender.

I look forward to reading the "consultation" that took place. Felasia is also right that as a god my ability is beyond that of mortals, so I will try to make allowances.
 
TNP Law 29 makes the process clear: first a formal request must be made to the Delegate and the Executive. Did you do so, counselor? If you had, please post the evidence of that request.

TNP Law 29 specifically only covers the Executive branch. Any correspondence between the Attorney General and the Executive relating to legal advice cannot be forcefully released due to a violation of Attorney-Client privilege with the exception in that said legal correspondence was released to a 3rd party, then privilege no longer applies. Should the Attorney General and Executive consent to the release of the correspondence, then it may be done.

That said, wherein correspondence involves officers of the Executive branch to any other branch, that is covered under the Freedom of Information Act.

If the requested information is not being released due to classification as "threat to regional security," then the Court will order that the Executive provide evidence for such a claim and send the correspondence directly to the Court via PM where we shall officially classify it as a threat to not.
 
I object to the request for the simple reason that any such documents would have been produced in the prior proceeding, and therefore already in the possession of counsel. (I recall receiving such a request prior to and during that trial, but I'm not going through several thousand PMs to look for it. Anything I had was provided at that time and I'm not obligated to do it twice.)
Second, any communication I would have had with the Speaker at the time would have been in my role as an Admin and that was a matter of testimony in the prior trial. I'm not about to go look for it in that thread. Y'all are equally capable of doing it.
 
Gross is mistaken. No documents have been produced and no prior requests have been filed under tnp law 29.

If he thinks otherwise, point them out.
 
All I remember is that one side or the other asked me by a PM about certain PMs that they had, and I responded. Of course that was several terms ago now, and I wouldn't know where to look in that database of PMs. (I literally have over 4000 that I can access because the first of a thread was sent to me, or I received a response; curiously, the system no longer allows an index to PMs that were sent out and not responded to unless the track feature is turned on and not turned off for that particular message.
So I estimate I have quite a few more beyond that 4000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top