The North Pacific v. Govindia

Hileville

Hileville

TNPer
TNP Nation
Hileville
Discord
Dennrick#0489
The Court of the North Pacific is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Govindia as filed by the Assistant Attorney General here.

Indictment:
arms.png

Indictment​

In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Govindia, alleging that on August 21st, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Govindia posted the following in The North Pacific's official embassy in the forums of Equilism: "There is no Empress. It is not real. People were snorting cokes....", in a description of some members of TNP who were involved in a creation of a roleplay Empire in The North Pacific.

By making this statement, Govindia falls in violation of Chapter 1, Section 1.4, Clause 10 of the North Pacific Legal code, which states:

North Pacific Legal Code:
10. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 11, of the Legal Code, which states that "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for that approval.

Sincerely,

Funkadelia
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific
Click to expand...
Representing the North Pacific will be Funkadelia, Assistant Attorney General.
Representing the Defendant will be flemingovia, Attorney for the Defendant.

Presiding over this case will be Hileville, Chief Justice and Trial Moderator, Belschaft, Justice, and Blue Wolf II, Justice.

The Defendant is charged with Fraud. The Defendant has 48 hours to enter a plea, at that time if no pleas is entered a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for the Defendant. After this period has elapsed we will move into pretrial motions and the evidence discovery phase.

Govindia, how do you plead?
 
Not guilty.

I request competent defence counsel. I will not be available tomorrow due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
 
I am happy to represent the defence and require no such adjournment.

I am forced to ask why Funkadelia filed these charges after three months delay, but immediately before he intended to ask for an adjournment for a little snooze for the holidays. If Funk is incapable of pursuing the case as filed, I request dismissal of charges on the grounds of prosecuting incompetence.
 
In the filing of the complaint, Funkadelia does not actually say what in the statement by the defendant is so objectionable. Govindia posted:

"There is no Empress. It is not real. People were snorting cokes....",

and then immediately goes on to beat his breast, rend his clothing, tear lumps of his hair out and say "OMFG, FRAUD! FRAUD! GOVINDIA IS A FRAUDSTER. HE IS FRAUDING PEOPLE OF THE FRAUDINESS!!!"

Please could the prosecution state what in Govindia's statement he is objecting to and saying represents fraud?
 
flemingovia:
I am forced to ask why Funkadelia filed these charges after three months delay, but immediately before he intended to ask for an adjournment for a little snooze for the holidays.
Click to expand...
The case was re-opened by the current Attorney General. Prior to that, I was not involved with the Attorney General's office.

Please could the prosecution state what in Govindia's statement he is objecting to and saying represents fraud?
Click to expand...

I can see where that could be hazy in the filing of charges. First, allow me to quote the TNP legal code, specifically the clause defining fraud:

10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

The post Govindia made, stating "People were snorting cokes....", is an intentional falsehood by him, accusing the involved TNP citizens of ingesting this illicit drug, and was made to damage said individuals involved.
 
There will be no further posts unless authorized. Flemingovia is recognized as the Counsel for the Defense.

The Evidence Discovery and Witness Testimony phase will begin promptly at 12:00am EST on 11/23/12 and last 7 days.

Thank You
 
Your honour, the prosecutor's opening statement gives no link to the alleged statement by my client. I would ask that he supply such a link.

My second question to the Prosecutor, just to get a feel for his understanding of the case and why he has brought these charges, is whether it is his understanding that the person referred to in the alleged quote by my client is, in fact, in real life, in her day to day dealings, an Empress? Or was a certain amount of role play involved?
 
your honour, the defence submits as evidence:
1. Posts contained in the North pacific embassy in Equilism, particularly (but not limited to) the thread entitled "long live the Empress"
2. The indictment filed by Funkadelia, and his subsequent explanatory posts.
3. the Wikipedia article "Coke", and threads linked thereto.
4. The Urban dictionary entry for "coke" "cokes" and "cocaine"
5. The dictionary.com entries for "coke" "cokes" and "cocaine"

there will be other evidence we will file with the court.

Is the prosecutor still asleep? He seems to have a different understanding of the word "promptly" to the defence team. I ask the court to note and respond to the motion by the defence to dismiss charges, filed above.
 
Much of the evidence that the prosecution would like to submit has already been submitted by the defense. The evidence we would like to submit are:


There may be additional evidence we will file to you.
 
If I might ask a couple of questions of the court:

1. I have been wading through the court procedures, which seem to have been written by someone with a bad case of verbal diarrhea. am I correct in my understanding that evidence, testimony etc that is not presented at this stage of the hearing cannot later be introduced by the defence as part of our case?

2. the timescale given by Hileville sets the time in "EDT" As I understand it, the Eastern Seaboard is now using "EST". Is this what Hileville meant?
 
flemingovia:
If I might ask a couple of questions of the court:

1. I have been wading through the court procedures, which seem to have been written by someone with a bad case of verbal diarrhea. am I correct in my understanding that evidence, testimony etc that is not presented at this stage of the hearing cannot later be introduced by the defence as part of our case?

2. the timescale given by Hileville sets the time in "EDT" As I understand it, the Eastern Seaboard is now using "EST". Is this what Hileville meant?
Click to expand...
Yes I meant EST. I haven't got back into the habit of writing that just yet. I will review the first question.
 
flemingovia:
1. I have been wading through the court procedures, which seem to have been written by someone with a bad case of verbal diarrhea. am I correct in my understanding that evidence, testimony etc that is not presented at this stage of the hearing cannot later be introduced by the defence as part of our case?
Click to expand...
The Court has revised its rules on trial procedures and evidence. The Court would like to direct both the prosecution and defense to the new rules. As to the answer to your question in neither the old or new rules exists a stipulation in which this cannot happen. As such as per Section 4.3 of the Constitution I may use my discretion on the matter. If any evidence is discovered during the next phases of the Trial the Prosecution or Defense must alert the Court of this immediately via private message. The Court will then make available the evidence to the other parties and hear objections at that time.
 
flemingovia:
Assuming i will be entitled to cross-examine these witnesses, the defence sees no need to call the same witnesses.
Click to expand...
Witnesses cannot provide testimony without the presence of both the prosecution and the defence, as detailed in article 2.4 of the Adopted Court Rules (November 2012). Whilst a specific reference to Cross Examination is not made in relation to article 2.4, as it is mentioned elsewhere in the Adopted Court Rules (November 2012) I would suggest that the right to cross examine a witness can be taken as to be implicit.
 
Belschaft:
flemingovia:
Assuming i will be entitled to cross-examine these witnesses, the defence sees no need to call the same witnesses.
Click to expand...
Witnesses cannot provide testimony without the presence of both the prosecution and the defence, as detailed in article 2.4 of the Adopted Court Rules (November 2012). Whilst a specific reference to Cross Examination is not made in relation to article 2.4, as it is mentioned elsewhere in the Adopted Court Rules (November 2012) I would suggest that the right to cross examine a witness can be taken as to be implicit.
Click to expand...
Good God, you haven't actually READ that crock of shit, have you? :pinch: :o :blink:
 
flemingovia:
Belschaft:
flemingovia:
Assuming i will be entitled to cross-examine these witnesses, the defence sees no need to call the same witnesses.
Click to expand...
Witnesses cannot provide testimony without the presence of both the prosecution and the defence, as detailed in article 2.4 of the Adopted Court Rules (November 2012). Whilst a specific reference to Cross Examination is not made in relation to article 2.4, as it is mentioned elsewhere in the Adopted Court Rules (November 2012) I would suggest that the right to cross examine a witness can be taken as to be implicit.
Click to expand...
Good God, you haven't actually READ that crock of shit, have you? :pinch: :o :blink:
Click to expand...
Of course. I was rather under the impression that to do so was part of my job.
 
Your honor, I would just like to let the court know that the prosecution was not able to contact the defense regarding witnesses until this morning. Witness testimony will begin forthwith.
 
The period for witness testimony and evidence discovery has ended. The period for arguments of law and on the evidence has now begun. This period will last for 5 days or until Wednesday, December 5 at 12:30pm EST.
 
opening statement by the defence. ​

Your honour, although it is hardly the place of the defence to do so, I feel the court is owed an apology. In all my dealings with the court, I have never before seen an indictment so inept as the one before the court today. Indeed, the prosecutor himself admits that the indictment is “hazy.” Quite.

In the film “silence of the lambs”, Jack Crawford says “"If you assume when I send you on a job, Starling, you can make an ass out of u and me both."

Well, in this case Funkadelia may already have made an ass out of himself – I trust the court will not allow him to take the court with him.

In this initial statement, let me outline first of all two assumptions that Funkadelia has made.

First: He assumes that everyone in the thread cited by the prosecution was roleplaying … except Govindia.

In the indictment he says quite clearly: “… in a description of some members of TNP who were involved in a creation of a roleplay Empire in The North Pacific.” Looking at the thread in question (submitted by the prosecution as evidence) it is fair to conclude that

During my time in Nationstates I have seen much in roleplay. I have seen thermonuclear attack and invasion, I have seen accusation of questionable sexual practice, I have seen racist language used, and defended, in the name of role play.

In the past the court in TNP has been very hesitant to get involved in roleplay threads. And the borders of roleplay and non-roleplay are notoriously hard to define. Yet in this thread the Prosecutor has singled out Govindia’s post, in a roleplay thread, for prosecution. It is simple to see why – the antipathy of some Nationstates players towards Govindia is well known. Any comment of his, however innocent, that could possibly be seized upon was likely to be the subject of an accusation. There are many who are just looking for a reason to exclude govindia here as he has been excluded from so many other places. But the defence argues that the court should not become the tool of a lynch mob and should take a roleplay post, in a roleplay thread, in that spirit.

Second, Funkadelia assumes that when Govindia used the phrase “people were snorting cokes...." Govindia was making reference to illicit and illegal use of hard drugs in real life.

This is an easy assumption to make, but I would invite the court to look at the actual words used by Govindia,
rather than the conclusion drawn by the prosecution.

I have made an exhaustive search online (submitted in the google search https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=....129.444.4j1.5.0.les;..0.0...1c.1.dOK5vpt0kpY ) and I can find no instances of the word “cokes” used as a shortened form of cocaine, other than in the assumption made by the prosecutor.
“Cokes” is, however, used extensively as a term for coca cola, and other cola flavoured drinks.

I have also discovered that “snorting cokes” (ie snorting coca cola) is a documented pastime, as one can see on this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T245BoQVKc . This is rather a foolish pastime, it seems to me, but it is not illegal. The evidence suggests that it cannot be equated to recreational drug use: http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-606110.htm . http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-606110.htm

Your honour, the defence has presented concrete evidence BASED ON WHAT GOVINDIA ACTUALLY SAID. The prosecution’s case is based on an assumption of what Govindia meant, rather than consideration of what Govindia said.

Your honour, in proving Govindia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution will need to demonstrate that Govindia was engaging in real-life libel not roleplay, and that he was referring to snorting cocaine, not snorting coca cola. The actual evidence suggests that he will have a hard time proving either assumption.
 
Your honor, firstly the prosecution would like to state that when the prosecution previously used "hazy", I used that simply as a formality to recognize that there could have been a misinterpretation of the initial indictment, not a general "haziness" on the subject of the indictment itself. It seems that during its opening statement the defense was under the impression of the latter.

It was not clear that the thread in the embassy itself regarding the role-play empire was role-play. While the subject matter of the original post was role-play, the thread itself was more of a joke news update, rather than a role-play post. To be more clear, the original post and its subject were role-play, but the thread itself was meant as more of a joke. Furthermore, the discord between the defendant and the rest of the Nationstates community is renowned. I am sure that all of us knows of this relationship. I highly doubt it would surprise anyone that the defendant would make such an insult and accusation towards people.

Your honor, the use of the word "cokes" in this case was obviously either vernacular or a spelling error. Based in context, his intent was to say "coke". The suggestion that the defense is making, that "There is no Empress. It is not real. People were snorting cokes...." was intended to mean snorting coca-cola is totally asinine. By far, the most common usage of the term refers to ingesting, through the nasal passage, the illicit drug of cocaine. The suggestion that the defense is attempting to make is similar to suggesting that the term "smoking weed" is actually referring to lighting garden weeds on fire.

Your honor, it is clear that Govindia in fact attempted to defraud some people of The North Pacific by suggesting that they ingest illicit drugs, especially based on the evidence presented to the court, as well as the defendant's history with others in Nationstates.

Also, your honor, will the court allow the witnesses presented to you to take the stand, although their testimonies were not taken during the evidence discovery phase?
 
Your honor, firstly the prosecution would like to state that when the prosecution previously used "hazy", I used that simply as a formality to recognize that there could have been a misinterpretation of the initial indictment, not a general "haziness" on the subject of the indictment itself. It seems that during its opening statement the defense was under the impression of the latter.
Click to expand...
Nope. I was under the impression that it was a shit-poor indictment. You were the one that called it “hazy”.

It was not clear that the thread in the embassy itself regarding the role-play empire was role-play.
Click to expand...
It was role play. The clue is in your indictment when you called it role-play. Unless you are unsure now?

While the subject matter of the original post was role-play, the thread itself was more of a joke news update, rather than a role-play post. To be more clear, the original post and its subject were role-play, but the thread itself was meant as more of a joke.
Click to expand...
So according to you it was either a roleplay … and everyone could roleplay but Govindia; or it was a joke thread … and everyone could joke but Govindia…. Or it was a role-play that turned into a joke.

Your honor, the use of the word "cokes" in this case was obviously either vernacular or a spelling error.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. When Counsel uses a word like “obviously”, it is what the author terry pratchett calls a “wallpaper word” – used to cover over cracks in the argument. Personally, I would prefer that counsel produce some evidence. If cokes as a shortened form of cocaine is “obvious”, it should not trouble the counsel to come up with some instances where this is the case.
I will even be generous, since the prosecution is in such trouble. If the counsel for the prosecution wishes to submit evidence that “cokes” is used as a shortened form of cocaine, the defence will raise no objection to his submission of new evidence.
In making this generous offer, I assume that I do not have to remind the prosecution that this court is concerned with facts, not what is “obvious” without proof.

Based in context, his intent was to say "coke".
Click to expand...

Evidence? No?

This is an assumption again, I am afraid your honours.

The suggestion that the defense is making, that "There is no Empress. It is not real. People were snorting cokes...." was intended to mean snorting coca-cola is totally asinine.
Click to expand...

Yet I have based my case on what Govindia actually said, rather than an assumption, and I have provided evidence to back it up - which your case, forgive me, seems to be sorely lacking thus far.

By far, the most common usage of the term refers to ingesting, through the nasal passage, the illicit drug of cocaine.
Click to expand...
Again .. if it is “by far the most common usage of the term” the prosecutor should have no problem providing evidence that “snorting cokes” is so used.
My extensive internet search has not come up with any such usages.

Your honor, it is clear that Govindia in fact attempted to defraud some people of The North Pacific by suggesting that they ingest illicit drugs, especially based on the evidence presented to the court, as well as the defendant's history with others in Nationstates.
Click to expand...

Umm. I am sure the court does not need me to point out that the prosecutor has not actually presented any evidence yet. “it is clear” is another one of those wallpaper phrases. It is not clear until the prosecutor proves or presents his case. The defence wonders when he intends to do so.

Also, your honor, will the court allow the witnesses presented to you to take the stand, although their testimonies were not taken during the evidence discovery phase?
Click to expand...

Your honour, it took 48 hours for the defence to get back to the prosecution concerning the submission of testimony. Therefore the defence was quite prepared to allow a similar 48 hours beyond the evidence discovery phase for testimonies and submissions. However, defence objects to further extension beyond this phase. If the prosecutor was unable to get his shit in gear in time, we do not see why the court should work to the prosecution’s timetable.
 
This trial will recess temporarily until such a time pressing Court Reviews on procedure that are being submitted by the Attorney General can be processed. Upon the returning of the trial the Court will allow a period of 48 hours for the prosecution and defense to examine witnesses after that period the case will have an additional 48 hours for discussion and arguments of evidence and testimony.
 
I respect the court decision to recess, and the prosecution certainly looks as though it could do with one. I do not quite understand the reasons for the recess. What procedural reviews or changes would affect a case already in progress?

Could the court give some guidance as to how long a "temporary recess" is likely to be?
 
I would like the court to note, that primary attorney on this case, Funkadelia, has stepped down. I shall be taking over the prosecuting of this case until I appoint another primary attorney or until the recess is over.
 
I beg apologies to the court, I request 72 hours to get up to speed on this case. If the recess lasts 72 hours that is all I shall require and nothing more. However, if the recess ends prior to 72 hours, I shall need this time to figure out where we are on this case and present TNP's case succinctly. I hope that defense will not object.
 
The defence has no objection, provided the trial is restarted from the point we left off, rather than having a reboot every time we get a new prosecutor.
 
No, I am not asking for a reboot. My plan is to begin where we have left off.

A reboot would be unfair to defense and to this court. I agree that defense should not be harmed because of the change in prosecutor.
 
Hileville:
This trial will recess temporarily until such a time pressing Court Reviews on procedure that are being submitted by the Attorney General can be processed. Upon the returning of the trial the Court will allow a period of 48 hours for the prosecution and defense to examine witnesses after that period the case will have an additional 48 hours for discussion and arguments of evidence and testimony.
Click to expand...
Since this trial was recessed pending "court reviews on procedures that are being submitted by the attorney general", could the defence know the outcome of the procedural review, in case they have bearing on this case?

Since the trial is now reopening, I take it that the issue is resolved.

In addition, i note a discrepency between the following statements:

Upon the returning of the trial the Court will allow a period of 48 hours for the prosecution and defense to examine witnesses after that period the case will have an additional 48 hours for discussion and arguments of evidence and testimony.
Click to expand...

and

As a note the Prosecution and Defense have until 12/13 at 8am to finish their arguments.
Click to expand...

Could a justice please confirm which timetable we are following, since the first post assumes taht we are still examining witnesses, the second post that we are presenting discussion and arguments.

Thank you,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top