The North Pacific v. JAL

As previously noted by the court, what my client has or has not done subsequent to the incident in question has no bearing on this case unless you have additional evidence regarding subsequent events, which has yet to be disclosed. My client was, and remains, under no obligation to follow up on anything he chooses to say. We do still protect speech here, I believe. You are attempting to prove that words you assert my client failed to say, are evidence of his guilt. Guilt by omission, in effect. I fail to find anything anywhere in TNP law that would render a decision not to say something, proof of the truth of a prior statement. I cay say that the sky is green - it doesn't make it true just because I choose not to go around saying "Let me be clear. The sky is not blue."

My client will not be participating in your logical contortionism.
 
The court must inform Defence Counsel that unless they present evidence to show that the statement by the Defendant was redacted then it will be working on a basis that it was not. Further to this, should this evidence consist of a statement by the Defendant we will expect him to appear before this court to testify as such and present the Prosecution with the opportunity to cross examine him.


Furthermore, if both the Prosecution and Defence agree, I would like to enter Defence Exhibit B into the record via Judicial Notice - as it is an uncontested fact that the Defendant made such a statement, I do not believe that the courts time is well spent with further argument on this detail. Testimony as to its accuracy is not necessary.
 
I'm fine with you working on the basis that it's not, as long as the fact that it was not retracted is not taken as evidence of the truthfulness of the statement. We concede that the statement was made; we concede nothing as to its accuracy. Our objection to the prosecution's witnesses was based on the prosecution's desire to use their testimony regarding the lack of retraction to suggest that the defendant did not retract his statements because the statement was true. As there is no duty to be truthful when not under oath, nor a duty to proactively clarifiy the truth of one's statements, the lack of withdrawl cannot serve as proof of truth. That was the defense's core objection to the prosecution's line of reasoning.

I only continue to state this point because I am not certain the court fully understands our reason for objecting as pertains to it considering the evidence. We don't mind you considering it to be unretracted, so long as the lack of retraction is not considered positive proof of accuracy of the statement. If the defense can provide evidence that shows that my client's statement is in fact true, so be it. The statement is not inherently true simply because it was not retracted, however. That is the crux of this issue.
 
(As a general note, I would apologize to the court if I am overly verbose or seem to be hammering a dead horse on any of these things. I don't want there to be any ambiguity in how we all see things, because my client has had trial difficulties in the past, and I don't think any of us want to run into any reason why we would arrive at anything other than what the trier of fact determines to be a correct verdict under the law. In order for that to happen, I have to be sure I'm making my points as clearly as I can. I apologize if that takes...a bit of time occasionally.)
 
The defense opened the can of worms when stating that he would argue the veracity of his client's statement made in the presence of at least six witnesses. The defense also concurred with the prosecution that his client actually made those statements.

The defense cannot then call to question the truthfulness of those statements simply because it does not help his case without offering counter evidence that the statement made by his client was indeed false. I would object to any ruling made by this court wherein the prosecution and defense agree a statement was made by a particular party and then have either the defense or prosecution claim such statements were false without offering evidence demonstrating the statements made were indeed false.

Defense has entered no evidence supporting any claim that his client's statements were not indeed true. The prosecution has not entered evidence claiming his client's statements were not true. Without any evidence demonstrating his client's statements were nothing but accurate statements made by his client, I object to the defense making any arguments with respect to the veracity of the exhibit entered by the Prosectution.
 
A statement that has not been proven false, is not inherently true. The idea here is "beyond a reasonable doubt", as I recall. You have an equal burden to prove the statement true, as I do to prove it false (should I so choose). All I've been arguing against is the assumption that the statement is true simply because it has not been proven to be false. The time for legal arguments comes later; I just don't want a statement considered to be confirmed truth when it has not been supported by evidence. The statement made argues a fact (JAL = a specific nation) which has not been corroborated. All I want to note is that the statement itself is not inherently true by virtue of my client not having said the opposite. It may be proven true, or proven false, but at the moment all it is is a statement. The witnesses could only testify that it was a statement, and a contradictory statement did not exist. The court has found this to be irrelevant, given that the defense concedes that the statement was stated as it is registered in Exhibit B. We do not, again, assert that it's true by virtue of not having been retracted.
 
Arguments as to whether or not the statement is true can and should be separate to arguments as to whether or not said statement was made. As there is no dispute on the second issue, I do not believe it is necessary to further discuss it.

Therefore Prosecution Exhibit B is entered into the record as fact via Judicial Notice. No further evidence or argument on this point will be accepted by the Court.

Edit: To clarify - the accuracy of the log itself, not the statements it contained, is all this covers.
 
Thank you for the clarity; the defense is completely in agreement with the judge's statement.
 
To the defense counsel - If you and I agree that your client made the statement and the statement claims that JAL was/is TNP Freedom Fighters, in what court of law is it still the prosecution's task to prove it true?

The fact that I have established that JAL stated that he is Freedom Fighters and you, as his counsel, agree that he made the claim now forces the impetus upon you to prove it false. Reasonable doubt will only apply once you give this court a reason to doubt the statement made by your client that we both agree he in fact made.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove its case, part of that is linking JAL with the nation TNP Freedom Fighters. That's no easy task, but you have made it easier by agreeing that JAL made the statement that he was TNP Freedom Fighters.

If you believe his statement is false you need to prove it, but bear in mind that also opens a whole new can of worms. I'd like to further note that the defendant's statements do not serve his interests as why claim credit for this act if he had no involvement? I certainly would love to query the defendant on his statement and do hope that the defense makes available any evidence that would cast any doubt to the veracity of the statement made by his client.

Respecting Your Honor, defense has entered no evidence to contradict the veracity of the statements made by the defendant. How will the court treat such evidence without an supporting evidence provided by the defense other than his word that the defense did not mean what he said?
 
The prosecution would like to enter Exhibit's D & E into evidence. I call the court's attention to <MOTTO> and <LAST LOGIN> in both exhibits. In exhibit E, the national motto becomes "I'm Durk".

Exhibit D TNP Freedom Fighter's nation specs
HTML: 
<NATION>
<NAME>TNP Freedom Fighters</NAME>
<TYPE>Republic</TYPE>
<FULLNAME>The Republic of TNP Freedom Fighters</FULLNAME>
<MOTTO>Democracy for the North Pacific!</MOTTO>
<CATEGORY>Father Knows Best State</CATEGORY>
<UNSTATUS>Non-member</UNSTATUS>
<FREEDOM>
 <CIVILRIGHTS>Good</CIVILRIGHTS>
 <ECONOMY>Good</ECONOMY>
 <POLITICALFREEDOM>Rare</POLITICALFREEDOM>
</FREEDOM>
<REGION>The North Pacific</REGION>
<POPULATION>6</POPULATION>
<TAX>23</TAX>
<ANIMAL>Eagle</ANIMAL>
<CURRENCY>Dollar</CURRENCY>
<FLAG>http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tnp_freedom_fighters__928581.jpg</FLAG>
<MAJORINDUSTRY>Retail</MAJORINDUSTRY>
<GOVTPRIORITY>Law & Order</GOVTPRIORITY>
<GOVT>
 <ENVIRONMENT>0%</ENVIRONMENT>
 <SOCIALEQUALITY>0%</SOCIALEQUALITY>
 <EDUCATION>0%</EDUCATION>
 <LAWANDORDER>13%</LAWANDORDER>
 <ADMINISTRATION>87%</ADMINISTRATION>
 <WELFARE>0%</WELFARE>
 <SPIRITUALITY>0%</SPIRITUALITY>
 <DEFENCE>0%</DEFENCE>
 <PUBLICTRANSPORT>0%</PUBLICTRANSPORT>
 <HEALTHCARE>0%</HEALTHCARE>
 <COMMERCE>0%</COMMERCE>
</GOVT>
<FOUNDED>9 hours ago</FOUNDED>
<FIRSTLOGIN>1343154582</FIRSTLOGIN>
<LASTLOGIN>1343182777</LASTLOGIN>
<LASTACTIVITY>107 minutes ago</LASTACTIVITY>
<INFLUENCE>Minnow</INFLUENCE>
<FREEDOMSCORES>
 <CIVILRIGHTS>60</CIVILRIGHTS>
 <ECONOMY>62</ECONOMY>
 <POLITICALFREEDOM>24</POLITICALFREEDOM>
</FREEDOMSCORES>
<PUBLICSECTOR>57%</PUBLICSECTOR>
<LEADER>Leader</LEADER>
<CAPITAL>TNP Freedom Fighters City</CAPITAL>
<RELIGION>a major religion</RELIGION>
</NATION>

Exhibit E TNP Freedom Fighter's Nation's specs a day later
HTML: 
<NATION>
<NAME>TNP Freedom Fighters</NAME>
<TYPE>Republic</TYPE>
<FULLNAME>The Republic of TNP Freedom Fighters</FULLNAME>
<MOTTO>I'm Durk</MOTTO>
<CATEGORY>Father Knows Best State</CATEGORY>
<UNSTATUS>Non-member</UNSTATUS>
<FREEDOM>
 <CIVILRIGHTS>Good</CIVILRIGHTS>
 <ECONOMY>Good</ECONOMY>
 <POLITICALFREEDOM>Rare</POLITICALFREEDOM>
</FREEDOM>
<REGION>The North Pacific</REGION>
<POPULATION>7</POPULATION>
<TAX>23</TAX>
<ANIMAL>Eagle</ANIMAL>
<CURRENCY>Dollar</CURRENCY>
<FLAG>http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tnp_freedom_fighters__928581.jpg</FLAG>
<MAJORINDUSTRY>Retail</MAJORINDUSTRY>
<GOVTPRIORITY>Law & Order</GOVTPRIORITY>
<GOVT>
 <ENVIRONMENT>0%</ENVIRONMENT>
 <SOCIALEQUALITY>0%</SOCIALEQUALITY>
 <EDUCATION>0%</EDUCATION>
 <LAWANDORDER>13%</LAWANDORDER>
 <ADMINISTRATION>87%</ADMINISTRATION>
 <WELFARE>0%</WELFARE>
 <SPIRITUALITY>0%</SPIRITUALITY>
 <DEFENCE>0%</DEFENCE>
 <PUBLICTRANSPORT>0%</PUBLICTRANSPORT>
 <HEALTHCARE>0%</HEALTHCARE>
 <COMMERCE>0%</COMMERCE>
</GOVT>
<FOUNDED>1 day 9 hours ago</FOUNDED>
<FIRSTLOGIN>1343154582</FIRSTLOGIN>
<LASTLOGIN>1343275294</LASTLOGIN>
<LASTACTIVITY>4 minutes ago</LASTACTIVITY>
<INFLUENCE>Minnow</INFLUENCE>
<FREEDOMSCORES>
 <CIVILRIGHTS>60</CIVILRIGHTS>
 <ECONOMY>62</ECONOMY>
 <POLITICALFREEDOM>24</POLITICALFREEDOM>
</FREEDOMSCORES>
<PUBLICSECTOR>57%</PUBLICSECTOR>
<LEADER>Leader</LEADER>
<CAPITAL>TNP Freedom Fighters City</CAPITAL>
<RELIGION>a major religion</RELIGION>
</NATION>

Edit: Correction of typo.
 
Exhibit F Time calculation of TNP Freedom Fighters Motto change
12:12punkd.py time.asctime(time.gmtime( 1343182777 ))
12:13FriarTuckWed Jul 25 02:19:37 2012
12:13punkd.py time.asctime(time.gmtime( 1343275294 ))
12:13FriarTuckThu Jul 26 04:01:34 2012

I entered these time today and they display GMT time.
 
Brief question - are all the times listed in the various logs and such, to be considered to be in the same timezone? Just want to be 100% sure as I construct my timeline.
 
As I understand it Elu has formatted it so that the times appear in each of our own timezones. For example, I see Defence Exhibit B starting at Jul 25 2012, 05:22 PM, but individuals in different timezones would see otherwise.
 
If the court allows it, I will comment as follows:

If you click "Quote" you will see the actual code in the post, which resembles (time = 1343236980), but lacking spaces. The integer on the right hand side is a UNIX timestamp, counting solar (86400 to a day) seconds since the midnight of January 1st, 1970, Greenwich Meridian Time. Assorted means can be used to convert such a timestamp to time in whatever timezone is desired. The forum's (time=) macro will display the time in the timezone configured by the viewing forum member.

Contrariwise, I ask that the Court remove my unwelcome comment.
 
The prosecution would like to enter another piece of evidence.

The prosectution would also like to make a motion that Justice Belschaft recuse himself from the proceedings due to the conflict of interest within the evidence. The AG's office would also like to make a motion that the next justice review all of Justice Belschaft's rulings to date and confirm or overturn any and all in order to avoid any claims of impropriety.


Exhibit G - JAL claims he is Freedom Fighters in a second IRC conversation
#tnp:
[(time=1343237460)] <Mahaj> http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png brb moving to boston
[(time=1343237460)] * Finn throws Nicki Minaj CD's at Milograd.
[(time=1343237460)] <Durkadurkiranistan> http://www.nationstates.net/nation=tnp_freedom_fighters
[(time=1343237460)] <Durkadurkiranistan> check the motto
[(time=1343237520)] <Eluvatar> "I'm JAL" would be better
[(time=1343237520)] <Bel> Huh
[(time=1343237520)] <Eluvatar> or even "Hi, I'm JAL"
[(time=1343237520)] <Bel> Ok, he is serious
[(time=1343237520)] <Eluvatar> :P
[(time=1343237520)] <Prince_Windsor> lol
[(time=1343237520)] <Milograd> 13:31 Finn throws Nicki Minaj CD's at Milograd. < D:
[(time=1343237520)] <Finn> .....
[(time=1343237520)] <Finn> Can we ban him now? :p
[(time=1343237520)] <Bel> Can we try him for this one?
[(time=1343237520)] * Finn hugs Milograd :P
[(time=1343237520)] <Milograd> 13:30 Finn should totally run in the next TNP election with a Nicki Minaj flag. < This is a good way to lose elections. :p
[(time=1343237580)] <Durkadurkiranistan> i didn't violate any laws
[(time=1343237580)] * Finn wouldn't actually..
[(time=1343237580)] <Bel> Section 1.8. Conspiracy 20. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
[(time=1343237580)] <Finn> But I would post lots of those types of songs every day :p
[(time=1343237580)] <Eluvatar> Well Bel, I think the only way to get him would actually be under the Sedition statute
[(time=1343237640)] <Eluvatar> and I don't like that kind of prosecution particularly
[(time=1343237640)] <Bel> 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.
[(time=1343237640)] <Finn> One thing I don't get.
[(time=1343237640)] <Bel> 10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
[(time=1343237640)] <Finn> If Durk is freedom fighters.
[(time=1343237640)] <Finn> why tell them to endo far away?
[(time=1343237640)] <Durkadurkiranistan> that wasn't me
[(time=1343237640)] <Eluvatar> XD
[(time=1343237640)] <Bel> He committed Conspiracy, Sedition and Fraud
[(time=1343237700)] <Durkadurkiranistan> there were two things happening at the same time
[(time=1343237700)] <Eluvatar> Perhaps just to destabilize
[(time=1343237700)] <Durkadurkiranistan> some guy decided to ask everyone to endorse Far Away and McMaster
[(time=1343237700)] <Durkadurkiranistan> that wasn't me
[(time=1343237700)] <Durkadurkiranistan> then I decided to take advantage of the situation and send out my own telegram
[(time=1343237760)] <Eluvatar> "Northern Alert" eh?
[(time=1343237760)] <Prince_Windsor> lol evil
[(time=1343237760)] <Durkadurkiranistan> I was just Freedom Fighters and Chairman Ping
[(time=1343237760)] <Bel> And in doing so committed Conspiracy, Sedition and Fraud
[(time=1343237820)] <Durkadurkiranistan> w/e
[(time=1343237820)] <Eluvatar> "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."
[(time=1343237820)] <Eluvatar> That could well make it fraud and sedition, idk
[(time=1343237820)] <Eluvatar> I am amused though that you went after me for not representing us in the WA
[(time=1343237880)] * Asta snickers
Click to expand...
 
The defense is preparing a response, but would like to immediately register strenuous opposition to the prosecution's motion to cast this proceeding into even further upheaval. A more complete response will be coming shortly; I just wanted to make it clear right away that the defense does not wish to see Bel recuse himself.
 
I am interested to hear the defense's argument that Justice Belschaft does not have a conflict of interest here after stating:

[Jul 25 2012, 01:34 PM] <Bel> He committed Conspiracy, Sedition and Fraud*

*time is in PD's timezone, it may show differently for the observer.
Click to expand...

Obviously, Justice Belschaft's statement suggests your client is guilty. I am asking the Justice to recuse himself, not because I disagree with his statement, but because I believe that his statement will provide me with an unfair advantage in this proceeding. The justice may have since changed his opinion on the matter, but making such a public statement at the time appears to me to be a conflict of interest.

This office desires to convict JAL, but desires to do so in a fair manner, that is the reason for the motion.
 
The defense would appreciate it if the court would instruct the prosecution to restrain its foolishness to attempts to make its own case, rather than flailing about, erroneously trying to make ours for us. As stated previously, a statement on this matter will be forthcoming, when RL time permits (few more hours).
 
The defense strenuously opposes the prosecutor's motion to force recusal of Justice Bel. While we are amused at the prosecutor's apparent attempt to keep our best interests in mind (which, again, is not his job), we cannot help but note that that request is paired with a demand for a second crack at all the points of procedure on which he has thus far lost. He wants another crack at shortened discovery, and another crack at his ridiculous witness list. He probably wants another crack at having me ruled ineligible to be counsel, so that he won't have to deal with me. That's not the way the courts work. You don't get to try again because you don't like the results.

As to the issue of bias, I would dispute that there even is conclusive proof of bias (a matter which will be addressed shortly). Even if there were such proof, however, the bias would exclusively be in the prosecution's favor. There is no appeals process in TNP, so Punk D is either the most upstanding and righteous, by-the-book prosecutor ever (protip: he's not), or he's got an ulterior motive which he seeks to hide from the court. So if the bias is in his favor, and he still wants it thrown out, what's the reason? He claims a righteous and humble respect for my client's rights under the law. HA! At no point has he shown any such indication. So, he wants to get a second chance on the points he's lost so far. Again, that's not the way the courts work. Sorry.

So let's say there is bias, and it's against my side. Do I care? No, frankly. Bel has proven in his rulings thus far that he has a keen understanding of the particular elements of logic at play here, and of the distinguishing arguments being made by both sides. He's found balance in his rulings, and has remained to all appearances, objective. If he were biased against us, would we have our delay to allow a proper defense? No. Would I be sitting in on 5 meaningless and frivolous depositions? Yes, yes I would. It is generally within the rights of the side against whom bias is found, to move for recusal on the basis of that bias. The bias (if it exists) is unequivocally against the defense. We don't care. The defense would prefer that Belschaft remain on the bench for the duration of this trial, as we are satisfied through his conduct (rather than 5-month-old statements) that he is suitable for the task, and will ensure a fair and even verdict.

As to the question of the bias even being proven by the prosecution's evidence, I suggest that that is not conclusively the case. Bel quoted sections of the legal code, and noted what he believed at the time to be similarities. Judges are allowed to have opinions, you know. They're even allowed to talk about them. Look at US Chief Justice Scalia, for example. The guy writes big long books about how his way of being a judge is better than everyone else's. You can predict how he'll vote on any case with almost perfect accuracy. Does that make him a less objective jurist? No, it does not. We believe that the same may be said of Belschaft. He is predictable and biased only to the extent that his adherence to the letter of the law, not anything either side wishes to contort the law to say, is guaranteed. We strenuously object to the prosecution's self-serving motion to remove him.

Finally, as a contingent argument, we flatly refuse to accept the prosecution's request that another judge insert himself in the middle of this proceeding. If Bel (or the court as a whole) rules Bel unfit to continue this proceeding (and we, the ones against whom any bias may exist, do not believe he is unfit), we will move immediately for a mistrial. The prosecution may bring charges again, as is its right under the law, but we will not tolerate the prosecution making a mid-game substitution because it doesn't like the results it sees so far. This evidence is the continuation of the conversation in Exhibit B, and yet was only disclosed after the Prosecution's initial strategy suffered serious blows regarding its witness list and said Exhibit B. We can only conclude from this that the Prosecution sought to use this evidence only if necessary, as a do-over in effect, if it didn't like the way things were going. That is not acceptable. Either Bel stays, or the defense moves for an immediate mistrial on grounds of judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct.
 
If the justice in this case recuses himself and defense would like to submit a motion of mistrial, the prosecution will not object to any such motion.

I can think of a myriad of reasons to object, but the defense seems to think that this office is in the habit of disrespecting previous court rulings when it most certainly is not. If defense feels his case would be injured due to the time Justice Belschaft presided over this trial and would like to begin with an impartial justice, the prosecution will not object.

The defense makes the claim that the prosecution withheld the most recent IRC conversation because I "want[ed] another crack at shortened discovery, and another crack at his ridiculous witness list. He probably want[ed] another crack at having me ruled ineligible to be counsel, so that he won't have to deal with me."

First - defense requested the delay in proceedings, not the prosecution. The court obliged defense counsel.

Second - I submitted my witness list, the court curtailed that list per the objection raised by defense counsel. When submitting this latest conversation no additional witnesses went along with the request. The new justice should review Belschaft's rulings so that neither defense nor prosecution can motion for a mistrial and the motion have merit. I will not be making new arguments on those points.

Third - At what point during this proceeding have I made any references much less a specific request to remove defense counsel? Please demonstrate this point to the court and its relevancy to your client's defense.

As to the original charge that I purposely withheld this 'continuation' of the conversation (defense's words, not mine), I would be willing to submit the timeline in which I received both the original exhibits and the latest. If defense counsel would like to know what the prosecutor was thinking, you need only ask not flail about because your position is lacking. Without your request here is why I sought additional evidence against your client. I inferred by your own pending arguments that additional evidence would buttress the prosecution's case and I sought such evidence out. I did not count on you calling ALL evidence that supports the prosecution's case redundant. But indeed, that appears to be the line defense is taking.

Thankfully, I was able to obtain such evidence, and this office will continue to gather evidence to convict your client for the crime I believe he committed. That it appears to be overwhelming should not be held against this office.

Defense's conspiracy theory was amusing to read, though.

As to defense's refusal to my motion to recuse Justice Belschaft, if Justice Belschaft does not recuse himself in this case because of the comments he made regarding your clients activities, he will have just made it that much more difficult for defense attorneys to ask for judicial recusals in the future on similar grounds. He will have established a precedent that I hope the courts will not be keen to adopt.

Also, and let me make this point very clear, the prosecution has no desire to convict JAL or any member of The North Pacific in a manner that is unfair and biased. This prosecutor has seen many a biased case in his lifetime, and I have no desire to take part in one. I made this motion with that in mind as I believe Justice Belschaft's comments represent a conflict of interest, a significant one at that. No more, no less.

If you and Justice Belschaft disagree, so be it, but in any future court case which faces a similar situation, Justice Belschaft's decision would be cited and, in my opinion, severely narrow the definition of conflict of interest as to potentially impair the ability of future defenses.

I do find it quite comical that I am the one arguing for Justice Belschaft's recusal in order to maintain the integrity of these proceedings while defense spent a significant amount of time opining about the bias nature of the Attorney General's office.

Your honor, my points are listed above and you ar free to rule how you see fit. I have, obviously, no concerns with you being biased against me or the prosecution's case. You have ruled on some items I have disagreed with, but this is your courtroom and I do not believe any ruling is unbecoming of a Justice. I am simply making the claim that the hint of impropriety - and your honor's comments are a bit more than hinting at your opinion at the time - is something that should not be present within the courts, especially since the defendant is currently be tried for one the acts which your honor referenced that he had 'committed'. I will respect your decision, but request that you ask defense counsel to stop with his unsubstantiated attacks against the integrity of this office.
 
The prosecution misinterprets my words. I don't want a mistrial. I want to continue with Bel, even though the prosecution asserts he's biased against us. (Why the prosecutor continues to argue for my client, when he is obligated to do the opposite, is beyond my ken at this juncture.)

The prosecution requested that a different judge step in in place of Bel and re-examine all decisions made thus far by Bel. In this most recent post, he provided a very convenient list of all the times in which I've gotten what I wanted, and he hasn't. Thank you, sir, for illustrating quite clearly why I don't want a new judge. A new judge gives you a second shot at winning on some or all of those points. It gives you a second chance at getting your 5 ridiculous witnesses in. It gives you a second chance at a difficult trial schedule.

My comments regarding removal of me as defense counsel are related to the proescution's attempts to argue that the law requires counsel to be of the defendant's choosing and immediately available. Success on that argument would have rendered me unable to provide an adequate defense for my client (as I stated), and I would therefore be unable to continue as defense counsel. Though the prosecutor may not have explicitly stated that that was his intent, his actions speak to the strong possibility that he sought to make it as difficult as possible, or impossible, for me to adequately represent my client. So yes, I do think you took a position and argued in favor of creating an environment where I would be unable to serve as counsel. I do believe that to be the case.

I would love to see that timeline. Please present it to me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I can't know until I ask. The manner in which it was presented, such that it was timed with a motion to remove the judge, gives rise to reasonable suspicion of your intentions. As you so aptly illustrated, I've been at least partially successful on every single point thus far argued before this judge. And now you conveniently have evidence which gives you an excuse to force the judge out so that you can get a second opinion on all those motions? Seems fishy to me. But please, prove me wrong. Prove to me, and to everyone, that your actions were taken purely in the interests of preserving the integrity of the court and in protecting my client's rights, and I will gladly back down on that matter.

Now, moving on to an actual matter of law...

The issue of precedent is well stated, but insignificant. Ruling in your favor on this matter would go against public policy in establishing precedent. We are not, by any measure, a large community here in TNP. We number several dozen, perhaps, but the active core of the region does not number in the scores. The precedent you wish to see established through your motion is that any commentary by anyone who ever becomes a judge, over a matter in question, should exclude that justice from ruling on that issue, even if a significant amount of time has passed (4 months) and the party against whom the bias may exist, does not wish to exercise their right to raise the issue of bias. That is the precedent that would be established by this. It would mean, for example, that I couldn't ever hear a case before this court. I, like every single one of us, happen to have these pesky opinions. We're all friends (sort of), and so we all talk about the things happening in our region. Opinions get expressed. It's a part of life. To exclude any justice because they expressed an opinion on a matter, particularly when they were not even serving on the bench at the time, would create a broad precedent allowing any statement of opinion or commentary on any directly or tangentially related issue, to be grounds to excuse any justice. Your office is already unable to pursue charges against Eluvatar because of judicial conflicts; do the courts really wish to establish an even broader basis for the exclusion of justices in the future?

I suggest that the justices should look to the supposed victims of the alleged bias for their opinion. The bias is against us; that it happens to be self-serving to the prosecution to push the issue should not be relevant. I am frankly furious regarding the prosecution's conduct on this matter. He fancies himself a white night, protector of civil rights far and wide. That is not his job. He does not represent my client, and I strenuously object to any and all assertions that he is looking out for my client's best interests. He is oblgiated by law, not to do that. If he doesn't want to convict anyone unfairly, fine. Then he should argue a fair case, and leave the defending to the defense. In light of these repeated assertions to the effect that he is representing my client, I request that the court reprimand the Attorney General for these grossly out-of-line statements, and that he be made to apologize to my client for overstepping his bounds.

The biased nature of the AG's office is not at issue here; the bias of the courts is. If you'd like to bring me up on charges relating to my statements regarding my opinion of the AG's office, please do so. Otherwise, you defending your office to attempt to confuse the issue has no place here.

As to the prosecutor's syccophantic final statement, I would only note that the defense, against whom the bias might go, has at no time expressed a desire to act on this evidence of bias. As the bias would go against us, it should be within our sole discretion to act if we so choose. The prosecution has grossly overstepped his bounds by both impugning the impartiality of this court, and inserting himself self-righteously into the defense's camp. We are not amused by these actions. We request that this motion be denied, and that these proceedings finally move on through the rest of discovery. Failing that, as stated previously, a motion for mistrial on grounds of bias and prosecutorial misconduct, coupled with a motion for sanctions against the Attorney General, will be forthcoming.
 
That Justice Belschaft has awarded you a few procedural motion ‘victories’ does not equate that he also plans to rule in favor of your client with respect to guilt or innocence. However, I believe if defense counsel does believe that, he is making a mistake. One could argue that he awarded your request because he believed my submission – barring any evidence you presumably will supply but as yet have only hinted at – is factually correct and thus not needing the additional support of other witness testimony.

That Justice Belschaft allowed the discovery period to last two weeks only means he is most likely not as anal as the prosecutor – which is not a very difficult position to attain.

Speaking of anal…The prosecution does not wish to ‘get rid of’ Justice Belscaft and any insinuation of the kind is not based in fact, at all. I would again ask defense counsel to monitor his statements and couch them with facts and not mere conjecture. This is a court of law after all. The prosecution wishes for a fair trial for your client and, as I said, all clients who come under the purview of this court. The prosecution has been and will be quite anal about impartiality. Nonetheless, I believe we shall convict your client and do so fairly.

If Justice Belschaft recuses himself and you chose to pursue sanctions against this office I shall look forward to defending the right of all nations to a fair trial. When posting this evidence I hesitated bringing forth the motion, but I thought the text of the chat so blatantly biased towards our case that it would be very disingenuous not to do so. I am very glad I did because through this exchange you have strengthened my resolve to ensure that this office protects the integrity of impartiality.

If you wish to pursue grounds of misconduct against this office because this office desired an impartial trial, it would be an honor to demonstrate that this office’s number one priority is to ensure the integrity of the judicial system and not pursue rulings that favor the prosecution. Some would say such thinking is foolhardy and altruistic. If so, then please call the holder of this office an altruistic fool.

As for filing charges against the defense, the prosecution’s office is not in the habit of disagreeing with a fellow attorney and immediately calling for sanctions for “bias and prosecutorial misconduct” as some other attorneys are wont to do. This office takes the perspective that defense counsel will and should do anything to ensure their client is not convicted. This office is not offended by the antics of defense, simply amused. Thus, defense counsel should not fear any petty charges against the defense. This office would hope that defense counsel would also hold to the same standard.

Now, we do need the justice to rule on this motion and the dialogue that has transpired has been most enlightening. Most enlightening.

Also…

I’d like to ask the defense if he will be providing a witness list and/or evidence in the near future?

Defense has questioned the prosecution’s timing of supplying evidence to this court – despite the fact that 11 days remain in the discovery period - and it is my hope that he would adhere to the same standards for which he would like this office held, namely supplying the court with evidence well in advance of the discovery end date and not delaying for some type of rhetorical advantage.

The prosecution awaits the reply from Defense counsel and eagerly looks forward to inspecting evidence that refutes what has been supplied to this court.
 
I have 14 days for discovery. Justice Belschaft has informed me that 11th-hour submissions are not considered kindly - I had no intention of any such submsisions. By my math, we're 3/14ths of the way through this discovery period. 21%. 11th hour (out of 12) is 91% of the way through the 12 hours. So I've got some time to play with. There's no rule saying I have to disclose my evidence on your timeline, prosecutor. Only within the period graciously outlined by the court.

I will reserve comments on matters of law for the next phase of this proceeding.
 
Gaspo:
I have 14 days for discovery. Justice Belschaft has informed me that 11th-hour submissions are not considered kindly - I had no intention of any such submsisions. By my math, we're 3/14ths of the way through this discovery period. 21%. 11th hour (out of 12) is 91% of the way through the 12 hours. So I've got some time to play with. There's no rule saying I have to disclose my evidence on your timeline, prosecutor. Only within the period graciously outlined by the court.

I will reserve comments on matters of law for the next phase of this proceeding.
Click to expand...
So why is defense concerned with the prosecution submitting evidence 3/14ths of the way through the process?
 
I have considered both your arguments and have come to a decision. My decision in this matter is final, and further discussion of this point will not be tolerated.

I do not believe that I posses a conflict of interest in this matter. Prior statements made by myself in my capacity as a private citizen cannot and should not be used to infer bias against either part in this trial. They were part of a wider discussion regarding the defendants statements, in which I opinioned which sections of the legal code I believed him to be in breach of. I do not posses a material interest or knowledge in this matter that would produce a conflict of interest; rather, I was at that time a non involved observer and am now an impartial officer of the law, tasked with upholding the law and seeing to its correct enactment regardless of my personal opinions.

As such I will not be recusing myself.

Administration is instructed to remove all posts from this thread dealing with administrative matters - namely the correction of typo's.

Further, I would note that whilst the defence has a legal requirement to supply both the court and the prosecution with any and all evidence they intent to introduce, they are not required to do so at the convenience of the prosecution. However, the court will not look kindly at any eleventh hour submissions, and expects both parties to present their evidence at the earliest possible opportunity so as to allow a timely response and the gathering of any and all necessary testimony.
 
punk d:
Gaspo:
I have 14 days for discovery. Justice Belschaft has informed me that 11th-hour submissions are not considered kindly - I had no intention of any such submsisions. By my math, we're 3/14ths of the way through this discovery period. 21%. 11th hour (out of 12) is 91% of the way through the 12 hours. So I've got some time to play with. There's no rule saying I have to disclose my evidence on your timeline, prosecutor. Only within the period graciously outlined by the court.

I will reserve comments on matters of law for the next phase of this proceeding.
Click to expand...
So why is defense concerned with the prosecution submitting evidence 3/14ths of the way through the process?
Click to expand...
Justice Belschaft's decision is noted, and we appreciate your consideration of both sides of the matter.

I would like to state, again, that I am not upset about the disclosure's timestamp in the context of the overall discovery period, but rather curious as to its disclosure only taking place concurrent with a motion which few sane prosecutors would make; namely, to exclude a judge who is biased in their favor. Most prosecutors would disclose the evidence, and then pray that the defense doesn't notice. The prosecutor chose a conspicuously different route.

Given the nature of Exhibit E as a near-immediate continuation of Exhibit B, I am curious to know the timestamps on the disclosure of each, that I might be satisfied that the prosecutor is keeping with his duty to disclose evidence as soon as possible where it has bearing on the defense's case, and has not retained such evidence until such a time as he believed it to be necessary or useful for him to enter, in support of another motion. The defense has already indicated that he believes the acceptance of Exhibit B to mean an acceptance of the truth of Exhibit B. Under that model, he would have no need to introduce Exhibit E, except to satisfy his duty or in support of a motion. He clearly made the disclosure in support of the latter option; I want him to disclose the timeline so that I may be satisfied that he did it for the former reason, as well. If he held onto the evidence until it was useful to him, then he has committed an illegal act. If not, he hasn't. I simply wish to explore every avenue in ensuring my client receives all the rights and protections due to him by law.
 
Your honor,

I made note of when the defense would submit evidence because defense questioned the timeline of this office's submission of evidence.

Does the justice have any concerns with the statements made by defense or has defense's statements been above board with respect to the evidence and timeliness of supplying the same by the prosecution?

I ask the Justice to be clear on this point based upon the Justice's comment that defense not supply evidence at the pleasure of the prosecution when in fact, the deefense was decrying the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. For reference, defense stated:

This evidence is the continuation of the conversation in Exhibit B, and yet was only disclosed after the Prosecution's initial strategy suffered serious blows regarding its witness list and said Exhibit B. We can only conclude from this that the Prosecution sought to use this evidence only if necessary, as a do-over in effect, if it didn't like the way things were going.
Click to expand...

In the post above defense is questioning the timeliness of evidence supplied by this office requesting a timeline even. I replied by asking when defense would supply evidence. Your honor replied by stating:

I would note that whilst the defence has a legal requirement to supply both the court and the prosecution with any and all evidence they intent to introduce, they are not required to do so at the convenience of the prosecution.
Click to expand...

You state the prosecution is not required to introduce evidence at the convenience of the defense, but the defense is the one who questioned the timing of evidence supplied in this case. I ask that the Justice be so kind as to advise both counsel if the Justice has any concerns with the assumption presumed fact presented by the defense regarding evidence timeliness of this office thus far. If the Justice has no such concerns and believes defense counsel's prior comments shall be afforded bandwidth in this courtroom, the prosecution shall take note.

If not, the prosecution would like the Justice to ascribe the source of questioning the timeliness of evidence, to the attributable party - the defense.

Thank you for addressing the motion of recusal, even though I strongly disagree with your interpretation on the matter. It should be an interesting legal question in the months that follow.
 
The prosecution would like to ask the court if the prosecution is obligated to tell defense the following - Exhibit G was received by the office after Exhibit B was posted as evidence.

If the court requires more specificity than the above, please confirm.
 
Bellow is the log of a discussion between myself, the Attorney General and Defence Counsel.

[23:27] <Bel> This should be brief.
[23:27] <punkd> ok
[23:27] <punkd> ah, good
[23:29] <Bel> Gaspo has concerns that the prosecution may be withholding evidence beneficial to the defence. Whilst legally your office has no requirement to release such evidence, I would like to clarify this matter.
[23:29] <Gaspo> I have an argument in support of such a duty if you'd like to hear it
[23:29] <Gaspo> but
[23:29] <Gaspo> that's up to you.
[23:30] <punkd> I have concerns that the court is allowing Gaspo to disparrage the office of the Attorney General unchecked and have raised a concern for the court.
[23:30] <Bel> There is not such a duty that I know of in TNP law. If you have such and argument, please PM me it.
[23:31] <Bel> If you have such an argument, again, please PM me it.
[23:31] <punkd> It's posted within the trial thread. I hope the court will respond.
[23:31] <Bel> I simply request clarification of the matter Gaspo has raised regarding Exhibit G
[23:32] <Gaspo> PM here or on forums.
[23:32] <punkd> As stated - Exhibit B was received. Exhibit G was received after Exhibit B was posted into evidence.
[23:32] <Bel> Forums
[23:33] <punkd> I posted as such on the forums and will request the court to respond to that inquiry on the forums and not in this media unless the court will supply the transcript of this discussion within the trial thread.
[23:33] <Gaspo> As is the case with the contents of exhibit B, I would like something more than the word of the prosecutor on the matter. I'd like to know precisely when, or have a timeline shown to me whose proof has been provided in confidence to the judge.
[23:33] <Bel> For what reason was the release of Exhibit G, which is a continuation of Exhibit B, withheld and released at a later date?
[23:34] <punkd> Your honor - I have stated that Exhibit G was not withheld.
[23:34] <Bel> And yes, I will be providing this log on the forums
[23:34] <punkd> Withheld means that I had the evidence in my possession and deliberately did not post it for whatever reason.
[23:34] <Bel> Defence counsel has raised an issue of timeline. I am trying to ascertain the facts regarding them.
[23:34] <Bel> That is all.
[23:34] <punkd> No, your honor is utilizing the language of the defense.
[23:35] <Gaspo> That could mean that he agrees with me. just sayin.
[23:35] <Bel> My primary concern is that this is to be a fair trial. The defence has raised an issue, I am seeking to resolve it.
[23:35] <punkd> I believe defense counsel may be correct, but if so, your honor is agreeing with defense without a proof of fact.
[23:36] <punkd> The prosecution maintains that Exhibit G was received after Exhibit B was posted. Period.
[23:36] <Gaspo> I'm asking you to prove that that statement is true.
[23:36] <Gaspo> Simple as that.
[23:36] <Bel> I ask again; for what reason was Exhibit G separated from Exhibit B and held back till a later date?
[23:37] <Bel> Considering that they are from the same IRC log, as far as I am aware.
[23:37] <Gaspo> That would seem to be the case, yes. The timestamps are remarkably close.
[23:38] <punkd> I would like to pose a question to the court. If Exhibit G & B were received by the prosecution at the same time, what impropriety would have occurred?
[23:39] <Bel> Please answer my question Punk.
[23:39] <punkd> The answer to your question is the prosectution did not separate Exhibit G & B.
[23:39] <punkd> The prosecution would like an answer to my inquiry
[23:40] <Bel> How then did two sections of the same log come to be presented separately?
[23:40] <punkd> I have previously answered this question
[23:40] <Bel> You will receive one, once I am satisfied with your answers.
[23:40] <Bel> Not to my satisfaction.
[23:42] <punkd> I will then direct the court to advise the prosecution as to why this is a concern citing which court procedures the prosecution is or allegedly is doing that is unfairly harming the defense?
[23:43] <Bel> You may do so. Now stop avoiding my question and provide me with an answer.
[23:43] <punkd> I have previously answered this question
[23:43] <punkd> Will the court advise the prosecution what, if any, court procedure he may be in violation of?
[23:44] <Bel> You have not. You have asserted that you received Exhibit G separately, but have not explained how you came to receive two parts of the same log separately.
[23:44] <punkd> If the court will not advise the prosecution what, if any, court procedure he may be in violation of, my answer to your question remains as noted above.
[23:45] <punkd> Exhibit G was received by the prosecution after Exhibit B was posted.
[23:45] <punkd> Thus, the prosecution withheld no evidence from defense
[23:45] <Bel> You are not in vialition of any court procedure as currently written.
[23:45] <Bel> Please explain how this occurred.
[23:45] <Gaspo> My PM will be coming in a couple seconds Bel
[23:46] <Bel> How did the prosecution obtain two parts of the same log separately?
[23:46] <punkd> Is the court suggesting that this log is the same as Exhibit B
[23:47] <punkd> not suggesting, but stating?
[23:47] <Bel> I believe it to be so. If it is not, please correct me.
[23:47] <punkd> If the court is stating as such, does the court have evidence that the prosecution does not have which reflects that the logs in B & G are the same.
[23:48] <punkd> As stated, the prosecution received G after B was posted. I will state this ad nauseum if necessary.
[23:48] <Bel> The court does not at this time, but could acquire such. We do not wish to have to do so; we would prefer if the AG could simply provide us with a straight answer.
[23:48] <Bel> Are B and G from the same log?
[23:50] <Bel> Punk, you do not seem to be grasping just how seriously I am treating this matter.
[23:51] <Bel> Please provide me with a straight answer, or I will be forced to compel you to do so.
[23:51] <Gaspo> PM Sent, Bel.
[23:51] <punkd> I do not believe the court is grasping how seriously the defense is treating this matter.
[23:52] <punkd> The court has not stated that the defense would be harmed if B & G were provided to the prosecution together.
[23:52] <punkd> The defense has opined.
[23:53] <punkd> But has produced nothing of fact...that he has produced nothing of fact and the court has taken measures to browbeat the prosecution, is a very serious concern for the prosecution.
[23:53] <Gaspo> Nor do I have to. There is no burden of proof here.
[23:54] <Bel> That is irrelevant to this matter. I am concerned with impropriety within your office, specifically the intentional withholding of sections of evidence.
[23:54] <punkd> I do not believe I have a burden of proof in this situation either.
[23:54] <punkd> Unless the court can provide me with a reason.
[23:54] <Bel> I will ask for the last time; do you confirm or deny that Exhibits B and G were from the same log?
[23:57] <punkd> I will tell the court again, that this office received Exhibits B & G seperately. This office shall appeal to the chief Justice in whatever manner necessary if the court impairs this office from prosecuting its case.
[23:57] <punkd> Thus, this office can only conclude the logs were different as they were received on seperate occassions.
[23:58] <punkd> and contained different text
[23:58] <Bel> Can you explain how the AG's office received two parts of the same IRC log, separated by roughly ten minutes, separately?
[23:59] <Bel> BRB
[23:59] <punkd> The prosecution answered the court's question and will remind the court that the Justice advised he would address the prosecutions concerns after answering said question.
[00:00] <punkd> The prosecution would like to alert the court that the defense has charged this office with impropriety with no basis in fact and that the court, through this line of questioning is encouraging such questioning.
[00:01] <punkd> The prosecution would like to know if the court will indulge the prosecution should the occassion arise in the future?
[00:01] <Bel> Back
[00:02] <Bel> Indulge the prosecution in what manner?
[00:03] <punkd> If the prosecution asserts a claim against the defense counsel without a basis in fact, I hope the justice will require the defense counsel to submit to similar line of questioning.
[00:03] <Gaspo> I have asserted no such claim.
[00:04] <Gaspo> I have asked for disclosures to be made to provide indication as to whether there may or may not be basis for such a claim.
[00:04] <Gaspo> If I assert a claim, there will be either a formal motion, or I will file a separate criminal complaint.
[00:04] <punkd> The defense forgets that he asserted tt the prosecution "withheld" evidence.
[00:04] <punkd> Does the defense not believe this was a 'claim' or was it a 'fact'?
[00:05] <punkd> The court also noted that the prosecution withheld evidence.
[00:05] <Bel> Punk, at this point in time I must inform you that you have not provided answers to my enquiries in a satisfactory manner. Your answers have been evasive. The defence has brought to my attention an issue, and have provided me with an argument from the law to support that. At my request they are submitting such for judicial review, in which I will not participate.
[00:06] <punkd> What 'issue'?
[00:06] <Bel> To see that this trial is fairly conducted, I have no option at this point but to issue a court order requiring you to disclose the details behind Exhibits B and G, as you will not do so of you own volition.
[00:06] <punkd> Is the prosecution not allowed to see the issue supplied to the court?
[00:06] <Bel> It will be done so shortly, once the defence presents it formally.
[00:07] <Bel> Gaspo, could you please advise on that matter?
[00:07] <Bel> When will your request for review be presented?
[00:07] <punkd> The court has requested a timeline of when the exhibits B & G were received by the prosecution, correct?
[00:08] <punkd> OOC: I hate you guys that you did this to me so late in my day. Dang you Legal-esers!!! :p
[00:08] <Bel> It has, but no explanation for how this occurred. Considering that Exhibits B and G are from the same log, separated by only ten minutes, I do not consider your answer satisfactory.
[00:09] <punkd> The prosecution can provide the court with the PM when Exhibity G was supplied to the prosecution confirming the time.
[00:10] <Bel> Please, do so.
[00:10] <punkd> That time, will confirm that the prosecution received Exhibit G within an hour of posting the evidence.
[00:10] <punkd> Obviously well after Exhibit B was posted
[00:10] <punkd> The supplier of Exhibit G can be deposed if the court pleases.
[00:10] <Bel> I will also require details of how you received Exhibit B.
[00:11] <punkd> Exhibit B was received well in advance of Exhibit G.
[00:11] <Bel> Via PM?
[00:11] <Gaspo> Regarding my request for review
[00:11] <punkd> by default if Exhibit G's receipt is after Exhibit B was posted the office could not have had both at the same time.
[00:12] <punkd> which is the question before the court.
[00:12] <punkd> claimed by the defense
[00:12] <Bel> Not if Exhibit B was drawn from a log also containing Exhibit G.
[00:12] <Gaspo> My request for review will be lodged separately from this proceeding and iwll ask the full court to determine whether or not a duty to disclose allr elelvant evidence exists on the part of the prosecution, withr egard to the accused's right to a fair trial.
[00:12] * Bel nods
[00:13] <punkd> If the prosecution received two separate log files
[00:13] <Gaspo> I find no cause to move that the review be categorized as interlocutory (interrupting this proceeding) as the rulings thus far have satisfied the defense, provided the prosecution continues to comply with the orders of the court as it would appear it is on the verge of finally doing.
[00:13] <punkd> how are they from the same log?
[00:14] <Gaspo> If they're from the same channel, mere minutes apart, and are from the same source, I'd say that such a determination would be reasonable.
[00:14] <punkd> and the prosecution would like the court to answer prior questions posed to the court.
[00:14] <Bel> They are from the same conversation, in the same channel, within ten minutes of each other.
[00:14] <punkd> I believe the court is not understanding the question
[00:14] <Gaspo> Given those facts, I would wonder whether or not the prosector investigated to determine why Exhibit G was provided so much later, why it was withheld, and whether or not its veracity can be independantly verified.
[00:15] <punkd> If the prosecution received log file A...then later received log file B...even if the logs are mere minutes apart, how would the prosecution know that the files were the same?
[00:15] <Gaspo> (If PD wants to like, go home from his job or something and pick this up in an hour or two, that's fine with me if it' sfine with Bel. I don't want to ruin his RL day)
[00:15] <punkd> OOC: nah, we'll be finished soon.
[00:16] <Gaspo> Whatever suits you.
[00:16] <punkd> and is the court directing the prosecution not to file new evidence if it is discovered in such a manner?
[00:16] <Bel> At this point in time I am sattisifed. I will post this discussion in the trial thread, and will answer all issues raised by the attorney general there. Punk, you are instructed to forward to me the PM's where you received Exhibits B and G in full within 24 hours.
[00:16] <punkd> I ask the court to answer the questions posed to him in this discussion.
[00:16] <punkd> as the prosecution has obliged the court.
[00:16] <Bel> I will do so.
[00:17] <punkd> As a note, Exhibit B was not provided via PM. Only Exhibit G.
[00:17] <Bel> How did you receive Exhibit B?
[00:18] <Gaspo> When the court receives those PMs, what happens then? Will the timeline initially proffered by the prosecution be provided to the defense? will the court compel the prosecution to reveal any work it has done to verify the authenticity of the second snippet, given that it came so much later and yet is clearly from the same conversation?
[00:18] <Gaspo> or should these matters be raised separately, in the course of other motions.
[00:18] <punkd> Is the court aware of moderated comments?
[00:18] <Bel> Separately, if they are so required.
[00:18] <punkd> the prosecution was not until exposed to such.
[00:19] <Gaspo> Very well.
[00:19] <Bel> Moderated comments?
[00:19] <punkd> The defense must feel special to have his questioned answered by the court so swiftly. Were the prosecution to have such feelings.
[00:19] <Bel> Please clarify
[00:20] <punkd> The prosecution was not aware that on some areas of the forum there are moderated comments
[00:20] <Bel> Such comments are unnesercery Punk, and beneath your office
[00:20] <punkd> which means comments that are posted but not actually visible
[00:20] <punkd> indeed, the admins of the forum suggested the use thereof, iirc.
[00:20] <Bel> That only occurs when an individual is on moderator preview, or if there is a setting for that subforum
[00:21] <punkd> the moderated comments contained Exhibit B
[00:21] <Bel> For example, new thread in the Court area must be approved
[00:21] <punkd> and had been posted well in advance of this prosecutor taking office
[00:21] <Bel> I would assume they were posted in the AG's office?
[00:21] <punkd> This prosecutor had no idea they even existed until directed to look at them.
[00:22] * Bel nods
[00:23] <punkd> But they exist.
[00:23] <punkd> Exhibit B was drawn from those comments.
[00:23] <punkd> Exhibit G was not contained in those comments but came at the prosecutor's request of additional evidence to corroborate Exhibit B
[00:24] <Bel> Please provide further details via PM. Preferably a verbatim copy of the comment in question.
[00:24] <punkd> as stated earlier today
[00:24] <Bel> I am satisfied that you have answered my questions, and will not further impeach on your time.
[00:24] <Gaspo> This entire log will be posted yes?
[00:24] <Bel> Yes
[00:24] <Gaspo> Fine by me.
[00:25] <punkd> The defense has other questions
[00:25] <Gaspo> anyways
[00:25] <punkd> and would like to be so indulged
[00:25] <Gaspo> I have no questions at this time.
[00:25] <Gaspo> I am the defense.
[00:25] <Bel> Hmm?
[00:25] <punkd> oops
[00:25] <Bel> Go ahead, Punk
[00:26] <punkd> The prosecution would like to know why the court directed his questioning to the prosecution without any evidence? Or if there is evidence what is it?
[00:27] <punkd> The prosecution would also like to ask the court again, what injury occurs when Exhibit G & B are not disclosed at the same time even if the prosecution held them both at the same time? I did not, but what is the injury to defense?
[00:28] <punkd> These are critical questions, the prosecution needs to know because the prosecution does not know what the court is requiring.
[00:28] <punkd> Example, should the prosecution asked the source of the evidence why he had not posted Exhibit G and only B in the moderated comments section?
[00:29] <punkd> What burden is upon the prosecution, is the essential question I am asking this court in order to proceed appropriately.
[00:30] <punkd> Actually, this question begs a larger question, what constitutes the "same log"?
[00:30] <Gaspo> I would not deign to answer for the court, but the basic idea is that there's no indication you would ever have disclosed G if you hadn't done so at the time. It could be damaging to your case, because teh judge is biased in your favor (in theory, not in fact). it helps the defense, so you have incentive to h ide it. however, the idea is that you hiding it violates my client's right
[00:30] <Gaspo> to a fair trial, so you ought to be oblgiated to disclose it, or at least to answer questions about it upon its disclosure, to determine if the disclosure was made because of tactical convenience, or because it was your duty to disclose.
[00:30] <Gaspo> If the court has a different htought, by all means, correct me.
[00:30] <Bel> The wider issue is that the defence feels that the prosecution may be holding back exculpatory evidence, specifically in relation Exhibits B and G, and expressed concern due to the fact that they - two parts of the same log - where provided separately. Whilst such a requirement is not explicitly stated in the law, the defence feels that it does exist, and this will be the nature of their request for judicial review.
[00:31] <Bel> I am attempting to clarify this matter, and make sure that this is not the case. The mere appearance of such would have a potentially disastrous impact both on the court and any verdict it so reaches.
[00:33] <punkd> If the court was concerned about appearances, I believe the justice would have recused himself, as the prosecution clearly stated as such.
[00:33] <punkd> But why is the court now concerned about appearances when he was not in relation to the recusal.
[00:33] <punkd> The prosecution is very concerned by some of the inconsistencies with the justice.
[00:34] <punkd> The justice noted that there is no explicit requirement in the law, but the court indulged his inquiry.
[00:34] <Bel> I do not believe their is any such inconsistency.
[00:34] <punkd> The prosecution did not think the court would. But the prosecution wanted it so noted.
[00:35] <Bel> Whilst it is not explicitly stated, I feel that it may be implicit. As such, I instructed the defence to submit a request for judicial review.
[00:35] <punkd> "Feel", the courtroom is not a place for feelings.
[00:35] <Bel> Your objections are noted.
[00:36] <Bel> Substitute 'believe' for 'feel' if you so wish.
[00:36] <punkd> The prosecution provided the court with written statements by the court in which the justice stated the defendant "commited" the crime for which he is now being charged.
[00:36] <Bel> Regardless, in this matter I am erring on the side of caution.
[00:36] <punkd> but yet the justice does not believe such statements are cause for a conflict.
[00:37] <punkd> In this matter, the justice is, in the matter of a conflict of interest you clearly are not.
[00:37] <Bel> Prior statements do not produce a conflict of interest. I posses neither material interest or knowledge in this matter.
[00:37] <punkd> Do you not see the inconsistency? The prosecution understands if the justice would like to take a position, but the prosecution would like said position consistently applied.
[00:37] <Bel> Such would be grounds for a conflict of interest.
[00:38] <Bel> These are very different matters. Furthermore, as I have stated my ruling is final. Further pursuit of this line will result in censure.
[00:38] <punkd> The prosecution will be filing a brief with the court regarding the inquirt contained herein.
[00:39] <Bel> Of course.
[00:39] <punkd> The court agrees that the defense's alleged requirement are not explicitly stated in law...and the prosecution will need for the full court to provide guidance to this office.
[00:40] <punkd> As such, I am making a motion to recess proceedings until such time as the court rules on the filing made by the prosecution.
[00:40] <Gaspo> The defense already intends to ask the court to review the matter of whether or not such a duty exists, but will not delay this proceeding by doing so in an interlocutory fashion.
[00:40] <Bel> Yes. I will also require such guidance.
[00:40] <Gaspo> Or, the prosecution will do so.
[00:40] <Gaspo> I have no objection to the wheels of justice grinding to a halt for a while.
[00:40] <Bel> I will grant such a motion. Please file it formally.
[00:41] <Bel> Unless there is anything further, may I consider this discussion over?
[00:41] <punkd> Because, whether the justice understands or not, if the justice holds the prosecution liable in some fashion for not following an 'implicit' that has no citation, that will be very concerning.
[00:41] <punkd> implicit law that is.
[00:41] <punkd> or requirement
[00:41] <Bel> Hence the review.
[00:42] <Gaspo> Fine by me. I bill by the hour - the longer this takes the happier I am.
[00:42] <Bel> -CHAMBERS OVER, END OF LOG FOR POSTING-

Further to this discussion, the court expects the following within the next 24 hours;
  1. Defence Counsel to submit their request for judicial review
  2. The attorney general to provide the details of how they received Exhibits B and G, including verbatim copies of such, to the presiding justice
  3. The attorney general to submit a motion to recess the court until such time as said judicial review has occurred
 
For the record, I attest to the veracity of the above-posted log. Furthermore, I would note that as agreed, my request for review has been submitted here. I will not lodge any objection to the prosecution's motion for recess, provided no other matters other than the need for recess for the specific purpose of the judicial review are addressed in said motion.
 
Regarding Item #2, the prosecution requests that until the request for ruling to be filed by the prosecution within 24 hours has been completed, that the request for items listed in #2 be delayed.

With respect to Item #3, I request an immediate recess to these proceedings in order to address the serious questions that both the defense and prosecution are about to ask the courts to rule on.
 
The prosecution would like to note that a quick conversation between the justice, absent the presence of the defense, occurred a day or so ago wherein the justice directed the prosecution to a ruling made earlier.

The prosecution would like to ask the court if he has engaged in any private conversations, absent the prosecution, with the defense counsel with respect to the proceedings of this case after the commencement of the trial and up to this point. If the answer is yes, the prosecution asks what the nature of these conversations were. We await reply.
 
I can answer that. Two points of order clarifications regarding the judge's ruling today took place in #tnp - one directing me not to post, and one permitting a post for a specific purpose. Privately, Bel asked me a question about my opinion, regarding whether or not I could directly point to law about it. We discussed the theory behind the issue, but no arguments or determinations were made, and Bel made particular note of the fact that he held theoretical discussions separate from what law he was able to enforce. I am able to provide logs as necessary, but I await the word of the court on that - he was an equal participant in those discussions, and as such has a say in the manner in which they are disclosed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top