The North Pacific v. JAL

Belschaft

Belschaft

TNPer
TNP Nation
Altschaft
Discord
Belschaft
The Court of the North Pacific is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. JAL as filed by the 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 TNP Freedom Fighters (hereafter TNPFF) aka John Ashcroft Land aka Durkadurkiranistan aka King Durk the Awesome aka et. al. (hereafter JAL), alleging that sometime in July 2012, JAL sent the following telegram to a resident of The North Pacific:
The Republic of TNP Freedom Fighters

Greetings! Pleased to meet you. I'm writing you about your endorsement of our regional delegate, The Respublika of Zemnaya Svoboda. In particular, I ask you to remove your endorsement of him. Here's why:

1. He hasn't logged into his nation in days, and barely ever logged in even before that. He clearly doesn't care about the region when he is the most inactive delegate of any Pacific in Nationstates.

2. He hasn't been voting on World Assembly resolutions even when the region asks him to do so. Under his leadership, the North Pacific is totally unrepresented in the World Assembly.

3. He runs a Soviet-like regime and holds show trials against nations like John Ashcroft Land and Mallorea. He bans these nations from voting and participating without just cause. In the North Pacific we ought to protect the rights of the most vulnerable.
Therefore, for the above reasons, I request that you unendorse The Respublika of Zemnaya Svoboda.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
In making these statements JAL is charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Section 1.3: Sedition
8. "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
The Attorney General’s office would like to request the immediate suspension of JAL’s Regional Assembly voting rights given the egregious nature of the crime and the evidence linking TNPFF with JAL. JAL explained on IRC following the TNPFF incident that he was TNPFF:
[Jul 25 2012, 01:22 PM] <Durkadurkiranistan> Btw guys, I was Freedom Fighters
[Jul 25 2012, 01:23 PM] <Durkadurkiranistan> way to go thinking it was Anur :p
Click to expand...
In sending telegrams to subvert the term of the legally elected delegate of The North Pacific, JAL engaged in acts of sedition hoping to bring about a delegate change that is not consistent with the process as outlined within the Constitution.

King Durk the Awesome (JAL) requested admittance to the Regional Assembly on November 16, 2012 and was admitted thereafter. The Attorney General’s office believes that regardless of JAL’s RA membership status at the time of the criminal acts, his current Regional Assembly membership should be suspended pending trial. He has shown a disregard for TNP laws and the court should not encourage future behavior of this kind by allowing JAL under the alias of King Durk the Awesome to continue to serve as a Regional Assembly member in good standing.

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 judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Punk Daddy
Attorney General of The North Pacific
Click to expand...
Representing the North Pacific will be Punk Daddy, Attorney General.
Representing the Defendant will be Gaspo, Attorney for the Defendant.

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

The Defendant is charged with Sedition. 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. Furthermore, the Defendant is requested to notify the court as to who will be serving as their Attorney. If they do not do so then they will be listed as representing themselves, though they may alter this at any time. After this period has elapsed we will move into pretrial motions and the evidence discovery phase.

JAL, how do you plead?

Timetable and notes:
Timetable

December 1st - December 14th: Pre-trial motions and evidence discovery
December 4th - December 17th: Recess for judicial review
December 17th - December 24th: Pre-trial motions and evidence discovery
January 2nd - January 9th: Arguments on the evidence and law
January 9th - January 13th: Court Verdict

Witnesses
Click to expand...
 
Your Honors, if we may proceed with scheduling, I am available to represent my client at any point following the 14th day of the month of December, 2012. I am obligated to other proceedings (law school finals) until that time. Given the court's generous history of flexible scheduling, I hope that this request will be possible - a two-week delay will not adversely impact this proceeding in any meaningful way.

However, if my client's voting and RA rights are to be compromised in the interim, without any conviction and based on a single piece of evidence, I would appreciate an opportunity in the interim (prior to the start of discovery) to oppose this motion, as to see it executed would be a gross injustice. The AG notes that my client has "shown a disregard for TNP laws". In this region, we hold a presumption of innocence most dear. My client is accused of demonstrating the aforementioned disregard; I would remind the Prosecutor that he has not, in fact, been convicted by this region's binding court, even if he has been convicted in the mind of the prosecutor.

Humbly submitted,

Gaspo
Counsel
 
The Attorney General's office would like to object to the defense's request to commence proceedings on December 14th. If proceedings begin on the 14th there would be, I believe, a seven day discovery period, probably a court Holiday during the Christmas-New Year's time frame, and we're realistically beginning in the first week of January.

I do not need to remind the defense that we are currently in November. The North Pacific has a storied history of starting and not finishing court cases, and while we do not believe that the defense is intentionally stalling, we believe a two week delay in these proceedings would be the true 'gross injustice'.

We ask that the court not allow such a delay.

I'd also like to remind the defense that the court has already ruled that they are not legaly capable to restrict your client's voting rights. If that changes with a subsequent legal ruling, this office will request the court reconsider the initial recommendation made within the indictment that JAL's voting rights be restricted due to the nature of his crime and supporting evidence. You can feel free to object at that time.
 
To deny this extension is to deny my client the possibility of a competent defense with counsel of his choosing. A two-week delay is peanuts, and discovery will take place before the holidays. The prosecutor is attempting to appeal to the court's holiday schedules to compromise my client's ability to present a competent and complete defense.

With regard to the prosecutor's second point regarding restriction of voting rights, I may be confused by his statement. You appear to assert, sir, that it is not within the power of the court to preemptively restrict my client's voting rights, a fact which (as I read it) you've been quick to assert against my statement. Why, then, would you ask for something in your initial filing which so clearly is not within the court's power to do, by your own statement? I can only answer those actions taken against my client - an attempt was made to affect his voting rights, and I would not be doing my job if I did not oppose it. Simple as that. If the court cannot impede my client's voting rights, then that element of the initial complaint is meaningless, and, pending confirmation from the court, I will disregard it. Until that time, however, it remains at issue.
 
I would direct defense counsel to the indictment thread where Justice Belschaft previously ruled on my recommendation. That is why I am saying the point is moot at present.

I'll allow Justice Belschaft to rule on the delayed proceedings, but it is my opinion that this is a stall tactic by the defense. I'd like to make it clear that the defense agrees to hold the discovery period from Dec. 14 2012 through Dec. 21 2012 and that any future delays can only be initiated by the court. Again, this is provided that discovery requires seven days which I believe it does.
 
Discovery does require seven days. Discovery commencing the 14th is acceptable to the defense, and allows us to mount a complete and competent defense.
 
With regard to the previous ruling, my apologies for overlooking it. It did not occur to me that matters which had already been removed from consideration would be included in the official trial filing - my apologies for the confusion. Let us proceed with any further scheduling as necessary, provided the court has no objections to the 14th as a start date for the discovery phase.
 
There is no need for apologising Gaspo. I included the full indictment as presented by the Attorney General, and did not consider the possibility that individuals may only read this thread and not the filing of charges. I overlooked that.

I will be reviewing both of your arguments for and against the scheduling proposed by the defence and will come to a decision shortly.
 
Your honor,

I would like to submit the following arguments as reasons not to delay this proceeding further.

Legal Code:
13. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
14. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
15. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
16. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
17. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.
Click to expand...

Bold mine.

"Normally" suggests that discovery will last 7 days unless there is a compelling reason to delay. JAL selected Gaspo as his defense attorney and these rules were in place at the time. JAL should have selected an attorney who could abide by the rules as set out by the court in order to meet the requirements within the legal code. If the court approves such a delay in this case, the court will open itself up to future requests of this nature and defendants will, I repeat, will use this tactic to delay the court proceedings against them.

In my previous post I was trying to pin down defense counsel's timeline with respect to his suggested discovery time. He agreed to my interpretation of his request to Your Honor which means he is wishing to extend the discovery period in excess of two weeks beyond the timeline defined within the Legal Code.

His reasoning is that he will not be available until such time and while I am sure defense counsel will not be available, the defendant has the option to retain an attorney who IS available for his trial, not retain an attorney who is not.

The Attorney General's office is not placing a burden upon the defense by asking the court to utilize the time frame stipulated within the Legal Code. Instead, it is the defense who is seeking to delay the court proceedings and make a mockery of the Legal Code with your acquiescence.

Furthermore:

Adopted Court Rules November 2012:
3. The Defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea. If no plea is entered a default plea of Not Guilty will be entered.

4. Once a plea is entered a period for pretrial motions will begin and last for a period of 72 hours. After the conclusion of the pretrial motion phase a period lasting for 4 days will begin for evidence discovery and witness testimony. An extension of up to 48 hours may be granted upon the request of either the Attorney General or the Defense.

5. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin. This period will normally be 5 days unless otherwise stated by the Trial Moderator.

6. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.

7. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.
Click to expand...

The recently Adopted Court Rules above clearly show that Gaspo is/was unavailable as an attorney for the defendant given that he would not have been available during most if not all of the trial proceedings listed above. Again, the impetus is upon the defendant to select an attorney who is available to defend his position. Put another way, if the defendant was on an island somewhere and was charged with stealing an apple. If the courts on that island allowed him to represent himself or choose an adequate attorney. If the defendant wished to be represented by someone who could appear nearly three weeks later, I suspect the court would tell him he would need to choose among those qualified and available at that moment.

The Attorney General is requesting that Your Honor rules accordingly and denies the defense the extension of the discovery period requested by the defense.
 
I have at no point requested an extension of discovery. I requested that the commencement of proceedings be postponed for a brief period, to allow the actual real-world lives of the individuals involved to not interfere with this proceeding. I applaud the prosecutor on his blind adherence to the law, but would note that a brief delay in the interests of justice is in no way a bad thing. The prosecutor has given no indication of harm to his case, or to The North Pacific, its laws, citizens, or security, which would be incurred through this brief postponement.

(OOC: I genuinely despise drawing real-world comparisons to Nationstates, but I feel like this is getting a bit absurd. It is entirely common at all levels of courts for delays of months following initial fillings to take place, before discovery even commences. Weeks between hearings, months between pre-trial phases. We're talking about two weeks. Seriously? It's a game. A serious game, I admit, but still a game.)
 
Regarding the prosecutor's long-winded and outlandish legal arguments, I will address them later this day, when time permits.
 
As promised, comments regarding the issue of scheduling.

The court exists to interpret the laws, and to promote justice by ensuring fair and impartial trials. Difficulties may arise when those two demands intersect, as is the case here. The black letter of the law, which is the only thing the prosecution is interested in, mandates rigid, inflexible, blind adherence to a schedule that seemed like it was good enough at the time of its creation. Justice, on the other hand, is somewhat less restrictive. The constitution guarantees my client a right to a fair, speedy, and public trial. A delay of two weeks to allow my client the small delay necessary to make the counsel he wishes to have, available to him, should be allowable under the court's obligation to interpret the law in the furtherance of justice.

The prosecutor has demonstrated no harm that will come through this minor postponement, apart from nebulous and unsubstantiated accusations that my interest in placing real life as a first priority is tantamount to an attempt to "make a mockery of the Legal Code." I'm looking for two weeks postponement, to allow me to place the interests of my client first. There is no requirement in the legal code that the defendant's counsel be immediately available; if the legislature wished to include one, they should have done so at the time. The court could have done so in its rules, as well. It did not.

I genuinely am taken aback by the prosecution's stalwart refusal to tolerate any variance in the interests of justice. He has leveled accusations of malicious intent in my attempt to represent my client as competently as possible. We're talking about two weeks.

A very good friend of mine was arrested for drunk driving, a month ago. Her trial isn't for another week. Bradley Manning was arrested for treason against the US Government in May of 2010. That was 30 months ago. Apple v. Samsung was decided in August, another hearing took place in September, and the parties are not due in court again until next week. We're talking about an internet politics game. It's important, and to be taken seriously at all times. I don't dispute that fact. We're talking about two weeks to ensure that the rights of the accused are preserved. This delay does not impact any judicial election cycle; it doesn't actually do anything which will impact negatively the process of this trial, or the result that it may arrive at, other than to ensure that justice and citizen's rights are protected to their fullest. If the court's interests lie with justice, there is no alternative open to them but to accept a scheduling plan which commences the next phase of this trial, Discovery, on December 14th, and proceeds from that point in accordance with the Legal Code. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
 
(OOC: I am taking 3 grad-level classes. I am doing my job, am serving as a subject matter expert for a project that takes 4 hours of my day every day, and was informed a week ago that I will temporarily be doing the job of another manager who is leaving. Did I mention that my eldest son has been sick for over a week or that I am in the process of getting my boiler replaced? Tomorrow morning, I have a meeting with an executive that could dramatically alter my career!

I say all of this to say that we have real lives and real lives matter. I usually try not to mention my RL situation because a) this is a game and if I didn't have free time I shouldn't be playing and b) I don't really care to share things like the items above with random people I don't know. But I feel compelled to do so here because I think you're confusing Punk Daddy with the person behind the player, Don aka me. Don would not care if you took 4 years to begin the trial. PD does because I think part of being the AG is to be the region's resident hammer. Please don't mistake PD's lack of regard for your personal issue as something I disregard. The two are not the same. I hope everything works out in your RL situation. Heck I'm hoping things work out in mine as I'm going to be completely flat out the next several weeks. Challenging, but Don loves challenges. :) PD, is going to continue to be a pain in the rear on this issue because that's his job.)

The defense continues to ignore the clearly outlined trial proceedings timeline. The defendant should have asked his attorney if he could serve as his attorney prior to retaining him as an attorney. Gaspo's personal situation seems to preclude him from participating from the timeline guidelines clearly expressed by the Legal Code and Adopted Court rules.

It is not on the AG's office to supply a reason why we do not approve of a delay. It is up to the defendant through his counsel to provide the court a good reason why the proceedings should be delayed beyond their standard timeframes.

The question I ask the court to consider is this - are there other available attorneys who can represent the defendant or shall the wheels of justice grind to a halt because they all have something going on?
 
The choice of attorney is not up to the court - it is up to the plaintiff. I am available within a very reasonable window of time, which counts down even as we waste time on this pretrial silliness instead of agreeing on a date and then moving on. By the time this issue is decided, we'll be down to 10 days left. Every post punk d makes, reduces the degree to which the wheels of justice "grind to a halt."

(OOC - no itnention to make any of this personal, it just all feels a bit ridiculous. If what we're interested in is having a trial and determining matters of fact and law, then let's focus on that. It seems like what we're interested in right now is bickering over issues of procedure, rather than deciding the substantive matter at hand. That frustrates me, because all of this is irrelevant to the key point at hand - whether or not the prosecution can make its case.)

As to the issue of other attorneys, here's what the Bill of Rights says:
A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing.
Click to expand...
That's it. No requirements, no conditions. Counsel of the nation's choosing. JAL has chosen me - it is not for the court to decide whether or not other counsel is available. I am the nation's choice. Simple as that.
 
I think it's fruitless to continue this. I think we've both laid out our points so I'll refrain from more comments until he makes a ruling on the matter.
 
Thank you for both your arguments. I have been considering them, and have come to a decision;

Whilst I am sympathetic with your issues Gaspo, at the end of the day you were aware of them when you agreed to serve as counsel in this matter. Furthermore, I wish to see this trial move forward at a reasonable pace - I am concerned that if we delay it, especially in such a manner that would lead to a break midway for the Christmas holidays, we will experience drift and like many other trials, peter out without conclusion. Alternatively, it would have to be delayed till January. As such the timeline will be following;

December 1st - December 14th: Pre-trial motions and evidence discovery
December 15th - December 21st: Arguments on the evidence and law
December 22nd - December 24th:
Court Verdict

This allows two weeks - twice the normal period - for evidence discovery, as well as providing a vastly extended period for pre-trial motions. I believe this is more than reasonable, and will allow - should the timetable be kept to - us to resolve this issue before Christmas, and therefore without a lengthy break in the middle. However, if this timetable proves infeasible I will be willing to alter it and delay the arguments on evidence and law till after a Christmas recess, but I would prefer to not have to do so.
 
That's fine. Frankly, I'd prefer shorter discovery - I never expressed a need for two weeks - but whatever. Your prompt ruling is appreciated.
 
To be clear (since I can't edit) I'd prefer shorter discovery but am fine with this in that it allows me to present a somewhat competent defense of my client. No objections are lodged.
 
I thank your honor for his decision and not inexorably delaying these proceedings.

But, is defense counsel suggesting we use the standard timeline after he has taken great pains to have the court extend the deadlines?? I am confused.
 
I decided to provide two weeks so as to minimize the disruption it would have on your IRL studies. If you do not need it and both sides finish early we can move the schedule forwards.
 
Two weeks will be perfect. I'm not suggesting anything different, PD - the court's ruling is adequate for the defense's needs.
 
Your honor,

I am seeking clarification on one of the court rules:

During the discovery phase of the trial witness testimony will be taken. When questioning a witness both the prosecution and the defense must be present. An unedited record of the testimony will be sent by both parties to the Moderating Justice via private message. This message should include any objections to the testimony within. The Moderating Justice will edit out all portions of the testimony found to be inappropriate for evidentiary purposes for use at trial. The Moderating Justice will forward the unedited versions to the remaining Justices.
Click to expand...

Does the underlined section of the adopted rules indicate that we may only query witnesses through an instant messaging system and not in this thread? I'm just not sure how both the prosecution and defense could be present. Also, if the moderating justice edits out portion of testimony as he/she deems fit, isn't the justice then performing the job of the attorney? By that I mean, if either the AG or defense allows particular testimony to occur without objection why would the justice edit out said information even if the justice would have sustained any objection?

I just want to be clear on this before proceeding and I am a little confused.
 
punk d:
Your honor,

I am seeking clarification on one of the court rules:

During the discovery phase of the trial witness testimony will be taken. When questioning a witness both the prosecution and the defense must be present. An unedited record of the testimony will be sent by both parties to the Moderating Justice via private message. This message should include any objections to the testimony within. The Moderating Justice will edit out all portions of the testimony found to be inappropriate for evidentiary purposes for use at trial. The Moderating Justice will forward the unedited versions to the remaining Justices.
Click to expand...

Does the underlined section of the adopted rules indicate that we may only query witnesses through an instant messaging system and not in this thread? I'm just not sure how both the prosecution and defense could be present. Also, if the moderating justice edits out portion of testimony as he/she deems fit, isn't the justice then performing the job of the attorney? By that I mean, if either the AG or defense allows particular testimony to occur without objection why would the justice edit out said information even if the justice would have sustained any objection?

I just want to be clear on this before proceeding and I am a little confused.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the presence of both parties is required during testimony for the following reasons;

  1. So that the other party may act as a guarantor of proper behaviour - ie; that leading questions are not asked, etc - and for the accuracy of testimony as submitted
  2. So that the other party may have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses

However this does not mean that you may not interview witnesses before testimony, but only the formal testimony will be on record and admissible in court.

I would suggest you make use of a private IRC channel for such, or an IMS service.

Furthermore, whilst counsel may not object to aspects of the testimony, that does not certify that the court will also feel the same way. Ideally a court justice would be present to simplify matters, but that of course introduces more scheduling issues. I would recommend that the prosecution and defence organise when they are both available to take testimony, but if this proves impossible I will seek alternative arrangements from forum administration.
 
A point of inquiry - is it permitted within this court (I find no indication within the legal code one way or the other) to make motions in suppression of particular lines of evidentiary discovery? The controversial nature of my client's history with TNP prejudices many individuals against him, and while I would never suggest the court would fall victim to sensationalism, certain matters are factually irrelevant to the matter at hand, and it would be of the defense's interest to pursue assurances that testimony of such matters will not even be allowed into the record, as they have no bearing. If such motions (typically a motion to suppress) are permitted, I would appreciate being informed of such, as I have relevant documents to file. I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
 
Gaspo:
A point of inquiry - is it permitted within this court (I find no indication within the legal code one way or the other) to make motions in suppression of particular lines of evidentiary discovery? The controversial nature of my client's history with TNP prejudices many individuals against him, and while I would never suggest the court would fall victim to sensationalism, certain matters are factually irrelevant to the matter at hand, and it would be of the defense's interest to pursue assurances that testimony of such matters will not even be allowed into the record, as they have no bearing. If such motions (typically a motion to suppress) are permitted, I would appreciate being informed of such, as I have relevant documents to file. I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
Click to expand...
I suggest reviewing articles 3.3 and 3.6-3.8 of The Adopted Court Rules (November 2012). I believe they deal with the issue you raise. Should you believe any evidence is submitted contrary to these sections - or any other sections - please submit a motion to suppress, and I will consider it. If I believe that it is contrary to these sections I will exclude it from the record.
 
I had reviewed those rules, and all of the rules, before. I simply wished to clarify whether preemptive motions to prevent a zealous prosecutor who clearly possesses strong personal convictions about this case, from even pursuing such lines of questioning in the first place. If you're confident it won't be an issue, I have no problem with that. I appreciate your attention to the matter.
 
The prosecution would like to call the following persons as witnesses

Pasargad - Received the telegram from TNP Freedom Fighters

Prince Windsor
Eluvatar
Gladio
Astariel
Milograd
Mahaj
- The above were present during a conversation when John Ashcroft Land aka Durkadurkiranistan revealed himself as TNP Freedom Fighters

Flemingovia - Legal Expert

Exhibit A Pasargad Telegram from TNP_Freedom Fighters
TNP Freedom Fighters:
Greetings! Pleased to meet you. I'm writing you about your endorsement of our regional delegate, The Respublika of Zemnaya Svoboda. In particular, I ask you to remove your endorsement of him. Here's why:

1. He hasn't logged into his nation in days, and barely ever logged in even before that. He clearly doesn't care about the region when he is the most inactive delegate of any Pacific in Nationstates.

2. He hasn't been voting on World Assembly resolutions even when the region asks him to do so. Under his leadership, the North Pacific is totally unrepresented in the World Assembly.

3. He runs a Soviet-like regime and holds show trials against nations like John Ashcroft Land and Mallorea. He bans these nations from voting and participating without just cause. In the North Pacific we ought to protect the rights of the most vulnerable.
Therefore, for the above reasons, I request that you unendorse The Respublika of Zemnaya Svoboda.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Exhibit B IRC Text where Durkadurkiranistan aka JAL reveals himself as TNP Freedom Fighters
#tnp:
[(time=1343236920)] <Durkadurkiranistan> Btw guys, I was Freedom Fighters
[(time=1343236980)] <Durkadurkiranistan> way to go thinking it was Anur :p
[(time=1343236980)] <Prince_Windsor> heh
[(time=1343236980)] <Durkadurkiranistan> and I was a Nasicournian
[(time=1343236980)] <Durkadurkiranistan> so dead givaway there
[(time=1343236980)] <Prince_Windsor> heh
[(time=1343236980)] <Eluvatar> That would make sense.
[(time=1343236980)] <Mahaj> Freedom Fighters?
[(time=1343236980)] <Gladio> you got another thing comming
[(time=1343236980)] <Milograd> Durkadurkiranistan D:<
[(time=1343236980)] * Asta giggles
[(time=1343236980)] <Milograd> When in doubt, blame Anur.
[(time=1343237040)] <Durkadurkiranistan> flem was the one who figured it out :p
[(time=1343237040)] <Milograd> It's a great policy.
[(time=1343237040)] <Asta> Durk, how?
[(time=1343237040)] <Eluvatar> Good job on flem
[(time=1343237040)] <Mahaj> freedom fighters = the newest guy who's trying to do shit to TNP and telegramming?
[(time=1343237040)] * Eluvatar is away now
[(time=1343237040)] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[(time=1343237040)] <Asta> Mahaj: yeah
Click to expand...

Exhibit C IRC evidence linking TNP Freedom Fighters with JAL
#tnp:
(time=1345057980) <+Tim> Durk is TNP Freedom Fighters?
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> Yes
(time=1345057980) <+Tim> What evidence do we have
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> He said so
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> the nation said so
(time=1345057980) <+Tim> And do I have to go beat Durk's ass now
(time=1345057980) <+Gulliver> Yes
(time=1345057980) <@Eluvatar> 21 days ago: TNP Freedom Fighters changed its national slogan to "I'm Durk".
(time=1345057980) <+Durkadurkiranistan> yeah but TNP Freedom Fighters didn't do anything illegal
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> "I would like to complain against treetar and tnp_freedom_fighters
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> for Sedition under TNP criminal code Section 1.3"
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> ~Pasargad
(time=1345058040) <+Tim> Pasargrad is ex-Regressive Party ;_;
(time=1345058040) <+Tim> traitor...
(time=1345058040) <+Gulliver> Is Durk unaware that the legal code was updated
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> > 8. "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> Gulliver: even the old legal code would apply
(time=1345058040) <@Eluvatar> he sent out telegrams
(time=1345058040) <+Gulliver> Hah
(time=1345058040) <+Durkadurkiranistan> lol yay another trial
Click to expand...

Edit: formatting
 
I object to one aspect of the prosecution's witness list. Specifically, he has listed six witnesses under a category described as containing individuals "present during a conversation when John Ashcroft Land aka Durkadurkiranistan revealed himself as TNP_Freedom Fighters"

Based on this description, I can only assume that the prosecution intends to ask all six of these individuals to verify that the statement made by my client, was in fact made. I would direct the court to Rule 3.3, which notes that:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Six witnesses are not necessary to indicate the existence of the statement in question. Scheduling eight depositions, six of which are cumulative, seems quite excessive, unless those six witnesses have compellingly different testimony to offer. Based on the information presented, the following represent the cumulative connection to this case of five of those witnesses:

Astarial - 3 lines of text
Milograd - 3 lines of text
Mahaj - 2 lines of text in which she attempts to ascertain what's going on (indicating that her only understanding of what was going on stems from the explanations of other individuals called as witnesses)
Prince Windsor - 2 statements of "heh"
Gladio - one threatening but undirected statement

Does the prosecution require all of these individuals, in addition to the deeply involved Eluvatar, to testify at the expense of the court and the defense's time, to the same facts? Seems like a waste to me, particularly as the defense has given no indication of an intent to challenge whether or not the statement in question was made by the defendant. The only matter about which these individuals appear to be able to testify, is as witnesses to my client's statement. They have no other bearing on the case. At best, all five of them are redundant.

I request that the five above-listed witnesses be removed from the witness list, as the stated scope of their testimony renders such testimony unnecessary under Rule 3.3, considering the presence of another witness, Eluvatar, who can easily testify to the existence in fact of the accused's IRC statement.
 
I would like to ask defense counsel what number of witnesses would he deem proper to establish that his client made the statements within the exhibits provided? Only 1, 3, 4?

Counsel stated he would like to have five names removed from the witness list - so I guess it's one - but the Attorney General's office would like to establish that the defendant made clear claims that linked himself to the nation of TNP Freedom Fighters and that every witness listed above can corroborate that fact. The prosecution hopes to establish this fact through the weight of evidence so that defense cannot call the character into question of all witnesses as defense may be bound to try.

The Attorney General's office does not feel that it is a waste of time to establish the link between TNP Freedom Fighters and JAL. Indeed it is one of the key links to prove in this case and I request the court not deny the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case. The prosecution would like the right to call all witnesses listed above.
 
Establish that the conversation happened as reported. Be my guest. It's completely unnecessary to establish it six times over. Hell, I don't even dispute that the words you wish to prove were spoken, were in fact spoken (typed). That's not been challenged. The defense will stipulate to that fact, if it would help the prosecutor waste less of the everyone's time. I won't even dispute that it was the defendant who typed the words!

I must emphasize, however, that a stipulation to that effect in no way constitutes a stipulation to the truthfulness of the words. The defense will stipulate that defendant JAL typed the words he typed, as contained in Exhibit B. That should render the testimony of all 5 above-listed witnesses (Eluvatar's relevance extends beyond this particular issue; the defense has no problem with his testimony) as pertains to the fact that the conversation as reported actually took place completely unnecessary, and save us all a load of time.
 
I am inclined to agree with Defence Counsel on this matter. As the defence is willing to acknowledge the log as an accurate account of JAL's statements, further testimony is not needed to establish such. Unless Prince Windsor, Gladio, Astariel, Milograd and Mahaj will be testifying on matters other than the existence of said log and it's accuracy, then there is no need for their testimony.

As such I will provisionally recognize Pasargad, Eluvatar and Flemingovia as witnesses for the prosecution.
 
Your honor,

I do wish to establish that the defendant made these statements, but I also wish to establish whether or not the defendant redacted this statement in the presence of any of the witnesses listed above.

The defense has already hinted that the defendant's statements may not have been true and my witnesses need to be asked if the defendant redacted his statement. If you only allow Eluvatar to testify (i'm not sure why you're only selecting him) then you will impede my ability to counter the defense's coming argument that the defendant did not mean what he said.
 
I'm letting Elu stand because his relevance to other pieces of your evidence is material - he's the only witness you've called who can speak to the contents of Exhibit C.

As to your reason for calling those other five, it would seem then that you believe the defendant, or any other individual, has a duty or obligation to notify all relevant individuals of the lack of truthfulness of any statement he has made which they may have heard. I find no such duty in the law, anywhere. Given that no such duty exists, whether or not my client made a concerted effort to carry out such actions has no probative relevance to this proceeding, as he was not obligated to do so.

If the prosecutor wishes there to be a duty of truthfulness in IRC, or a duty to proactively clarify and rectify any misunderstanding or interpretation of one's statements with every person who might have heard them, I wish him luck in pursuing that matter through the legislature. The courts are charged with determining facts regarding adherence to legal duty; here, no duty exists to ensure that listeners correctly register the accuracy of one's statements. Establishing whether or not my client did something which he was under no obligation to do (pesky free speech and all) has no probative value to the determination of guilt in this matter.
 
I do not see how whether or not the defendant redacted his statement in view of those specific witnesses is of any particular relevance. If the defence intends to argue that the statement was redacted at a later date then they are free to provide evidence, be it in the form of testimony or otherwise, and you will be free to cross examine it. I do not believe that we require six separate individuals to state 'I can confirm that the defendant made the above statements and I have not seen him redact them.'; unless the defence presents evidence that such a statement has been redacted the court will take it as given that he has not done so, and if they do so you are free to examine such evidence.
 
The reason the prosecution has entered IRC evidence in this case is because it establishes the link between JAL and TNP Freedom Fighters. JAL is a common participant on IRC as are many of the six witnesses I have listed.

JAL freely admitted to being TNP Freedom Fighters in the hearing of a number of people within the IRC channel. The point is asking each participant if JAL later admitted that he in fact was not TNP Freedom Fighters is to establish that the six witnesses - most of whom spend a significant time on the IRC channel - have not heard JAL make counter claims than the one he made on this particular day.

If the court does not believe that point helps the prosecution's case, I will cease to request the admittance of the additional witnesses until such time as they provide new evidence.
 
The statement of JAL's contained in Exhibit B does not prove that he is the nation. It proves that he said he is the nation. I don't dispute that he said it, and your witnesses can't offer any evidence to prove that he actually is the nation. Since they can't, their testimony is irrelevant.
 
Perhaps your client would like to offer testimony himself? I certainly would love to ask him the question so that I don't have to call 6 witnesses to testify that he never claimed he was not TNP Freedom Fighters subsequent to them being present when he claimed he was.

I can agree to that. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top