The North Pacific v. Govindia

I would like to motion that the court appoint a hearing officer to take the place of the retired Justice Blue Wolf.
 
punk d:
I would like to motion that the court appoint a hearing officer to take the place of the retired Justice Blue Wolf.
Click to expand...
The Court is currently considering options for potential temporary Judicial Officers. Since it is not a requirement to have any more than one hearing officer preside over a trial we will continue the trial. A decision will be made however by a three panel Court.
 
Your honour, now that the period for examination of witnesses is at an end, we would appreciate some guidance as to how you wish the discussion and arguments of evidence to proceed? The defence is ready to present, but generally we respond to the arguments of the prosecution - so would you like the prosecution to go first?

We note that no witness testimony has been submitted.
 
The earliest I will be able examine witnesses is this Saturday. I see we have called 2 witnesses. I shall try to coordinate this with defense.
 
punk d:
The earliest I will be able examine witnesses is this Saturday. I see we have called 2 witnesses. I shall try to coordinate this with defense.
Click to expand...
The defence objects to this most strenuously. It is not for the prosecution to set the timetable of the court; it is for the prosecution to follow the timetable set by the court - as the defence has done throughout.

The prosecution asked for, and received a 72 hour recess on 5th december to get up to speed, and he assured the court that "If the recess lasts 72 hours that is all I shall require and nothing more."

The timetable for examination of witnesses was clearly outlined by the court, and if the prosecutor was not able to work within this time scale he should not have accepted the brief.

As far as the defence is concerned, the opportunity for examining witnesses is now passed, and we are in the discussion and argument of evidence phase of the trial - as ruled by the court.
 
punk d:
The earliest I will be able examine witnesses is this Saturday. I see we have called 2 witnesses. I shall try to coordinate this with defense.
Click to expand...
The Court is unable to proceed with this request. Plenty of time has been given for the examination of witnesses.

We are now in the Argument of evidence and testimony phase of the trial. This period will last until Monday, December 17 until 8:00am. The Court believes due to the long extension of the case already placed the argument period should not need to be further stretched. In a case where both sides are submitting their respective arguments and more time is needed the period may be extended.

The Prosecution and Defense are free to begin posting any arguments they have on the trial as well as respond to the other parties arguments.
 
Sorry - I misread the timeline...i thought we were to be given 48 hours from when proceedings restarted to examine witnesses. I apologize if I misread the timeline.

We'll continue as outlined by the court. Your honor, for my benefit can you please advise of the timeline? I don't want to be confused again.
 
punk d:
Sorry - I misread the timeline...i thought we were to be given 48 hours from when proceedings restarted to examine witnesses. I apologize if I misread the timeline.

We'll continue as outlined by the court. Your honor, for my benefit can you please advise of the timeline? I don't want to be confused again.
Click to expand...
We are now in the Argument of evidence and testimony phase of the trial. This period will last until Monday, December 17 until 8:00am.
 
Your honour, the defence finds itself in a difficult position. in a legal system where there is an assumption of innocence, it is generally for the prosecution to attempt to prove guilt and the defence to prove "reasonable doubt" at the very least.

Since the prosecution has so far offered up no case for my client to answer, it is rather difficult for me to attempt a rebuttal.

My concern is that the prosecutor is waiting until the very end of the designated time period for argument and summary, and then he will present his case, leaving my client no opportunity to refute the evidence - whatever it might be.

Perhaps the court might consider a shorter period for the prosecution to present their argument, based on the evidence they have submitted, followed by a similar period for the defence?
 
Your honor - would you ask defense why he believes that the prosecution is waiting until the last moment.

I am very curious to hear the answer.

...were it not for the fact that the prosecution is formulating our arguments, it would be a nice waste of time for the courts to indulge the fantasies of defense counsel.
 
The case before the courts is one in which a member of our body flippantly assumed other people were using cocaine. There are a number of things we all are, at times, glib about. However, being coy about someone’s race, gender, sexuality, or drug use should not be tolerated by this court.
Govindia stated -
There is no Empress. It is not real. People were snorting cokes....
Click to expand...
Obviously Govindia is entitled to his opinion about the empress and is under no requirement to believe that she is real. However, where Govindia overstepped his bounds was in stating that people who did believe in the Empress were snorting cokes.
The prosecution submitted the entire thread as evidence in supporting it’s case and it was our job to prove that 1 – Govindia accused certain members on the Equilism thread of snorting cocaine 2 – that such accusation constitutes fraud and 3 – that such accusations, even in jest, equate as fraud.

Govindia claims people are snorting cocaine
On the first point, it is clear that Govindia accused members of the Equilism board of snorting cocaine. Defense counsel has tried (unsuccessfully) to confuse the situation by stating that Govindia meant the soft drink, coca-cola, and not cocaine. In looking at the thread where the illicit post was made, one can argue that Govindia was joking but one cannot argue that both sides of the supposed joke did not clearly understand what Govindia meant. In none of Govindia’s subsequent comments does he even hint that he meant the soft drink. Instead, he made comments about it being a joke. The joke was that he was accussing members of that forum of snorting cocaine which, in most countries is illegal. The court would need to take a very liberal interpretation of Govindia’s comments to say that a reasonable person would not believe that his comments were a direct reference to cocaine.

Further, Felasia made the following comment in the thread submitted as evidence:
Please refrain from further accusation of illegal actions on this forum and from taunting each others.
Click to expand...
In no Google search could I find any community that outlawed snorting of Coca-Cola, but there are certainly a number of communities that outlaw the snorting of cocaine. Govindia made a reply to this comment and could have replied by stating that the members of the thread misinterpreted his joke and he was talking about Coca-Cola and not cocaine. Instead, he claimed it was all a joke.
It wasn't an accusation, it was simply a joke. They need to learn to take a joke if they expect others to take their jokes too. It's hypocritical otherwise. If I was being serious, you would defintely know.
Click to expand...

Thus, a reasonable person will conclude that Govindia was talking about cocaine and not another substance. He mentions that it was a ‘joke’ and that if he were very ‘serious’ people would ‘definitely know’. The defense has claimed that Govindia could be talking about coca-cola, but having the chance to say so, not only did not but instead said it was a joke and that he wasn’t serious about the joke.
Govindia’s comments can only be reasonably taken for what they are, a claim that certain members of the forum were snorting cocaine – as a joke.

Govindia’s claims are fraudulent
In keeping with the theme of joking – by Govindia’s own admission he was making his comments in jest. He had no support, anecdotal or otherwise, to believe that any member of the forum was actually snorting cocaine leading to them believing in the Empress. Looking at what constitutes fraud:
Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

There are three parts of this term that we feel we have proven:
  • Intentional Deception – This is the critical concept. Was Govindia intentionally deceiving people who were reading the forum thread? Based on Govindia’s comments he did not believe that was he was saying was actually true, but a joke. Thus, his original comment is an intentional deception supported by his after-the-fact comments. When he said “people were snorting cokes” he knew his comment was not true. If he knew this when he made the comment, by default it is an intentional deception regardless if he was joking or not. Indeed, if Govindia actually believed people were snorting cocaine, he would not be charged with Fraud because it would not have been an intentional deception but an actual belief held by Govindia. But his subsequent comments within the thread give us a clear indication of his intent to deceive the forum readers.
  • Falsehood or omission – Govindia admitted he was joking so his accusation is clearly false.
  • to damage another individual – to make the claim that some members are involved with illegal activity does clear damage to their reputation and if such claims are believed by authorities, could result in people having to clear their names from charges that are false but damaging to their reputation. A reasonable person can conclude that Govindia’s claims could have been quite damaging towards the people he directed them at.
Govindia’s joking is fraud.
Lastly, why can’t we all chalk this up as a joke? Govindia said he was joking and the people in the thread are just fuddy duddies for not taking his joke, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. As we have stated, govindia was joking about illegal activity with no basis in fact. Joking about non-illegal activity would not constitute fraud because there is little damage that would be done to an individual by claiming that teir belief in the empress stemmed from their snorting confectionary sugar. But that’s not what he said, he said “snorthing cokes”. I submit that the court should make an example of Govindia, that joking about people committing an illegal act without having any support in fact for the joke is not something that will be tolerated in this community.

The prosecution is not debating whether or not Govindia was joking, we are arguing that the subject of his joke (snorting cocaine) is not a subject that should be joked about as flippantly as Govindia did. Our Fraud statute is in place to protect members of this community and deter the kind of comments made by Govindia. I call upon the court to see Govindia’s comments for what they are – a very mean-spirited joke that if we do not admonish will allow for him and others to continue to accuse members of this community with illegal activity. We should not tolerate such comments and instead should punish them.

Thank you, your honor.
 
This Trial has now concluded. The Court will convene on the matter and come to a decision within the next 72 hours.

Thank You.
 
For what it is worth: here it is

Your honours, the defence has ploughed through the prosecution’s verbose presentation, looking for the basis of his case against my client. As I expected, he has presented no real case against Govindia, no hard evidence, no testimony, only a repetition of the initial charges.

The Defence has maintained that when Govindia used the word “cokes” it is possible that he was referring to Coca Cola – the snorting of which is a practice seen on youtube, as we have presented in evidence. The prosecution was challenged to find a single instance where “cokes” is used as a contraction for cocaine. They have failed to do so – and yet they accuse the defence of “unsuccessful” presentation.

I would ask the court to consider: which side of this case has actually produced evidence? The prosecution has failed to submit any evidence or any testimony beyond the words of my client – and then the prosecution has dismissed the actual words my client spoke, preferring instead an interpretation of those words that is not supported in any dictionary or anywhere else on the internet.

Your honours, the bias of many members of the Nationstates community against my client is well known. They have been waiting for, and have seized upon, the slenderest opportunity to continue their vendetta against him. The words used by my client would have been laughed at if they had come from anyone else – but others in that thread saw in them an opportunity, and are seeking to use the court of TNP as a vehicle for their vendetta. I trust the court will see this case for what it is.
 
Your honor, I have no objection if you accept the defense's summary above that was within minutes of closing the trial. Obviously, it is your courtroom, but I have no objection if you wish to take this into consideration when you deliberate.
 
The Court will accept the closing argument however notes the Defense had 24 Hours yto respond before the trial was closed.
 
We did get a verdict, a case has ended. I suspect we'll get many more verdicts over the next two months as well.
 
Hileville:
madjack:
Will the court be providing its reasoning for its decision?
Click to expand...
The Court will provide a detailed description of our determination. This however will not come out immediately.
Click to expand...
Whilst I understand that obviously there are more important things than posting this, could the court be so kind as to announce just when they will be posting its reasoning?
 
The court is in recess until January 2nd. I would expect an opinion on the matter sometime after that; if it's before, consider yourself lucky if the justices feel compelled to work during their vacations.

To avoid further discussion, I am locking this thread, as the trial has concluded and the court does not need to have an open thread in order to post its opinion here.
 
In reaching a decision on the matter of TNP vs. Govinda The Court considered three core issues. Firstly, what precisely did the defendant state, and what was the context of these statements? Secondly, do these statements equate to the legal definition of fraud? Thirdly, did the defendant possess a concurrent intent to commit fraud in relation to these acts?

The issue of concurrence is of primary and absolute importance. It is a long established legal principle that no individual may be convicted of a crime for which they did not possess the intent to commit, unless in certain particular circumstances otherwise allowed for in the law. This allowance does not however exist in The North Pacific; there is no negligence statute or similar principle in existence, nor is there any relevant precedent indicating such should be considered by The Court. As such, in this matter and all others, concurrence must be, and will be, the deciding factor in court deliberations. Unless it is demonstrated, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a defendant possess a concurrent Actus Reus and Mens Rea The Court cannot and will not convict.



On the first issue, The Court considered both the defendant's statements and their context, as well as the arguments relating to their nature proffered. It was concluded that the defence's argument that the statement 'People were snorting cokes' referred to the literal snorting of Coca-Cola was fatuous. That the defendant was referring to the consumption of illegal narcotics seems beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the context of this statement was beyond all doubt humorous. A statement must be judged by its context; no fair court could conclude on the basis of assertion that one individual alone out of a group was being serious, whist all else were not. The burden of proof to support such lies with the prosecution, and this was not met. Further, whilst the defendant's attempt at humour may not be appreciated by all, his right to such is absolute under Article Two of the Bill of Rights. Once it had been concluded that the comment was intended to be humour, the Bill of Rights protected the comments in question and further consideration was not required, but was carried out for due process.



On the second issue, The Court considered whether the defendant's comments equated to Fraud. The legal definition of Fraud is the following;

'1.4.10. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.'

As such it must be shown that an intentional deception was made, to some benefit or damage. Not only does this support The Court's opinion on the principle of concurrence, but it also makes explicitly clear what is required for a conviction. The prosecution acknowledged this. However, The Court does not feel that the prosecution met these burdens. It failed to submit any substantive evidence, instead relying on assertion. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and they failed to convince The Court beyond reasonable doubt. The Court would have no choice but to acquit the defendant on grounds of presumption of innocence, even had we not concluded that the defendant's comments were protected speech.



On the third issue, the Court considered the issue of the defendant's intent. No attempt was made to show such by the prosecution. As such the prosecution's case failed the concurrence test. Acquittal could have been made on these grounds alone.



As such, and having concluding on all three issues in favour of the defendant, The Court came to a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Click to expand...
 
For those who found that TL:DR the gist of the ruling is this:

The justices were blown away by the awesomeness of the defence case, and found they had no choice but to find Govindia not guilty. Kudos to the defence counsel. Huzzah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top