The North Pacific v. JAL

The prosecution would also like to know why the justice, of the six named witnesses who viewed the statement by JAL that he was freedom fighters, the justice selected Eluvatar as witness and did not ask the prosecution to select one witness from among the six named witnesses.

Certainly defense argued that Eluvatar should be a witness, but what compelled the justice to accept defense's suggestion of the prosecution's witness without conferring with the prosecution?
 
I would like to clarify that I never requested that all six be removed. I specifically requested that those five be removed. I did not say "Pick any five and remove them". I specified, and the judge chose to exclude each of those witnesses individually. There was no choice to be made in the matter, on either yours or the judge's part.
 
Two other brief notes:

TNP law does not explicitly bar ex parte discussions during proceedings. Perhaps it should, but currently it does not. If such a discussion impacted a fair trial, it would be illegal under the reasoning I presented in my request for review submitted today, but there is no outright bar on such discussions. If the prosecution wishes to see logs of my conversation with Belschaft, I will gladly exchange them for logs of his conversation with the same individual, so that all parties may be assured that nothing illicit is going on. I'll take PD at his word on the nature of the discussions in question, if he'll take my word on the same. Otherwise, we both disclose.

Secondly, I am curious as to why the prosecution believes it has the authority to continue to question long-completed (relatively speaking) rulings of Justice Belschaft in this case?
 
Gaspo:
Two other brief notes:

TNP law does not explicitly bar ex parte discussions during proceedings. Perhaps it should, but currently it does not. If such a discussion impacted a fair trial, it would be illegal under the reasoning I presented in my request for review submitted today, but there is no outright bar on such discussions. If the prosecution wishes to see logs of my conversation with Belschaft, I will gladly exchange them for logs of his conversation with the same individual, so that all parties may be assured that nothing illicit is going on. I'll take PD at his word on the nature of the discussions in question, if he'll take my word on the same. Otherwise, we both disclose.

Secondly, I am curious as to why the prosecution believes it has the authority to continue to question long-completed (relatively speaking) rulings of Justice Belschaft in this case?
Click to expand...
Surely, you jest regarding TNP law requirements.

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence.
Click to expand...

Ex parte discussions occurring between any of the parties to the case have a direct effect upon the impartiality of the case itself which hampers the ability to have an impartial trial as prescribed by the bill of rights.

As for the log, I do not keep logs. If you'll provide the nature of your conversation with the Justice, I will provide mine with respects to the case. I believe that it is implied - this word will be used ad nauseum in coming days - that ex parte discussions about any case that is being conducted should not occur due to those conversations muddying the impartial waters.

In our conversation, Justice Belschaft directed me to one of his rulings. I made a comment about it, then he did, and then I said we should not discuss this in PM. That was the nature of my conversation. If you could provide the nature of yours that would be helpful. I won't request a log, because I do not log, so I have none to provide.

Regarding Eluvatar...

I actually asked about Eluvatar specifically, because I realized that the justice allowed you to define the case I was presenting and I am inquiring as to why he did not ask me to list the witness most needed? Was the justice aware that Eluvatar was a principle witness or was the justice simply taking your word for it sans discussion with the prosecution? I'm very interested in the court's answer to this, unless i missed something in his original ruling.
 
Firstly, I approve the request for a recess of proceedings. This recess will last until the issues currently under judicial review are resolved. However, both parties should continue to gather evidence ready for submission once the recess is ended.

Secondly, I can confirm that I have held ex parte discussions with both the prosecution and the defence. These have been primarily of a procedural, not a material, nature. They have dealt with a number of topics, such as the defences current request for a judicial review. Where the issues have been material in nature, I have either addressed them here or to both parties concurrently in chambers.

Thirdly, on the issue of Eluvatar. The defence objected to five of the proposed witnesses, but not Eluvatar, as they felt that he posses the capacity to testify on matters other than the existence of Exhibit B. I concureed with this evaluation. If the prosecution does not intend to question him on other matters, then please indicate so; as Exhibit B has been entered via Judicial Notice, such testimony is not required.
 
Yay, recess!

A procedural note: does this recess effectively pause time on the trial schedule, or will we simply remove the duration of the recess from the trial schedule? i.e. is discovery 11 days from the end of the recess, or whatever time is left between the end of the recess, and the end of discovery?
 
I suggest a pause, and latitude during the holidays.

Why did the justice believe that Eluvatar would be able to, above the other witnesses, speak to things beyond Exhibit B. what was the justices basis for such a decision other than the argument of the defense attorney? The answer to this is quite pertinent.

There is a disturbing trend in these proceedings. The court is taking the opinion of defense counsel as fact again and again. With respect to the prosecution's use of witnesses, with respect to the 'withholding' of information. Going forward the prosecution shall require the justice to elucidate the reasoning of his rulings beyond saying such and such is so.

The prosecution has tried to give the court latitude as this is the first case in some time, but that latitude seems to be unduly impairing my ability to prosecute this case under the laws of The North Pacific. It shall be rectified.

...and onto recess. I request this thread be locked until the requests for rulings have been completed and we can continue with the case.

Gaspo - I do hope that you will provide the nature, in specificity, of your conversation with the justice as I have. Good for the goose, good for the gander and all. :)
 
Gaspo:
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.
Click to expand...
I already specified the nature of the conversations, as corroborated by Bel.



As to you continuing to press the Eluvatar issue, go read my actual motion. I specified which witnesses I wanted excluded. The judge didn't have a choice on which 5 of the 6 were excluded. I took that choice away from him, because I felt it would have weakened my motion or have led to an unpredictable result if I left any decisions up in the air. So I moved for specific removals, not "the removal of 5 witnesses". I removed for the removal of 5 specific witnesses. Even if the judge had wanted to remove Elu, he could not have, because there was no motion giving him cause to do so. He didn't take anything I said as fact - I argued for five specific removals, and he granted my motion. Simple as that.
 
The following are entered into the record;

Court Exhibit A - Testimony from Eluvatar on the provision of prosecution Exhibits B and G
[03:36] <Bel> I note the time as 3:36 GMT, December the 4 2012. From this point on we shall be on the record.
[03:37] <Eluvatar> I have volunteered to be deposed immediately regarding the origin of the distinction between Exhibits B and G.
[03:38] <Bel> Witness Eluvtar shall be making an evidentiary deposition regarding the provision to the prosecution of Exhibits B and G.
[03:38] <Bel> First, I would like to call Eluvatar to the stand to provide a summary of the matter. After that, he will be open to examination.
[03:39] <Eluvatar> As you know, the conversation recorded in Exhibigs B and G took place on July 25th.
[03:39] <Eluvatar> I submitted the segment now known as Exhibit B to Attorney General Grosseschnauzer by Private Message on August 1st.
[03:40] <Eluvatar> For the sake of brevity, and because I was not at liberty to devote a great amount of time to the matter immediately, I sent the Attorney General only the conversation immediately surrounding the statement by JAL.
[03:41] <Eluvatar> On August 22nd, the Attorney General's office began organizing the various complaints and created an official submission topic for matter related to this case.
[03:42] <Eluvatar> I then posted what is now known as Exhibit B as well as some additional evidence part of which is now Exhibit C which I had submitted by private message to Grosseschnauzer on August 17th.
[03:43] <Eluvatar> I posted this evidence, carefully stripped of personal identifying information (IP addresses) and rendered timezone-neutral, inhttp://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6951584/1/ using moderation powers to immediately hide them, in the procedure established by Attorney General Grosseschnauzer when he posted there a link to my PMs to him and hid it.
[03:45] <Eluvatar> The August 17th PM contained logs from August 15th exclusively, as of course does Exhibit C.
[03:45] <Eluvatar> During the discussion of Exhibit B in this trial, conversing with Attorney General punkd, I came to realize that an important piece of information was not being established by the evidence submitted.
[03:46] <Eluvatar> In search of evidence to support my clear memories, I found my records of the daily dumps from that period, and later reviewing my logs of those days found the exchange now known as Exhibit G.
[03:47] <Eluvatar> I found it while looking for recorded confirmation of what I remembered: that the motto on TNP Freedom Fighters was set to "I'm Durk." simultaneously or nearly simultaneously to JAL's statement in #tnp that he was TNP Freedom Fighters.
[03:48] <Eluvatar> After finding it, I used my IRC log presentation program which I developed while Minister of Communications in order to save me the time of manually rendering the timestamps timezone-neutral.
[03:49] <Eluvatar> This formatted version, with colored names that the logs submitted in August lack, I then posted in the same thread in the Complaints Docket:http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6951584/2/
[03:49] <Eluvatar> At this time this topic contains 6 hidden posts: 1 by Grosseschnauzer and 5 by Eluvatar.
[03:49] <Gaspo> (I'd like the record to reflect that none of these posts are visible to the defense - we take it on faith and the good will of the prosecution to attest that they are there. We have not and do not expect to be able to see them for ourselves.)
[03:50] <Bel> Please note that the Justice is not able to see that post.
[03:50] <Gaspo> If the justice is not able to see that post, I would therefore note that I will be filing an immediate motion following the resumption of proceedings, to have those posts made visible to the defense and to the justice, or at least to the justice, in the interests of having access to the original evidence and not just what the prosecution claims the evidence contains
[03:51] <Eluvatar> To the best of my knowledge none of these posts contain any exculpatory evidence.
[03:51] <Gaspo> I raise no objection at this time, however, as doing so would not be relevant to Eluvatar's testimony.
[03:51] <Bel> Please continue with the testimony.
[03:51] <Eluvatar> I am done with my summary.
[03:52] <Bel> At this point I will open the floor to the Prosecution, should they wish to examine the witness
[03:59] <punkd> Eluvatar - what was your intent in supplying the former and current prosecution with the evidence you have supplied?
[04:00] <Eluvatar> My intent was to assist the office of Attorney General in seeing justice done against John Ashcroft Land.
[04:12] <punkd> Eluvatar, is it your testimony that you do not believe there to be exculpatory evidence contained within the hidden material you provided, first in August, and then also recently within the complaint thread?
[04:15] <Eluvatar> I stated in my testimony that I don't believe there is any exculpatory evidence in the material I provided to the Attorney General's office.
[04:17] <punkd> Eluvatar - between the time you notified the prosecutor of Exhibit G's contents and when those contents were entered into evidence, how much time lapsed to your recollection?
[04:18] <punkd> I should say submitted...
[04:18] <Eluvatar> To my recollection, about an hour (less than an hour 15 minutes).
[04:19] <Eluvatar> Actually it was an hour 19 minutes.
[04:19] <punkd> thank you
[04:19] <punkd> No more questions your honor
[04:20] <Bel> The defence has the floor
[04:22] <Gaspo> I have no questions at this time, but would ask the court to reserve for the defense, the right to recall this witness for cross-examination on the contents of this deposition, at a later point during trial.
[04:23] <Bel> Very well. Noted and approved.
[04:23] <Bel> Defence will have the opportunity to recall this witness.
[04:25] <Bel> Both of you may recall this witness if you so wish.
[04:25] <Bel> This log will be entered into the record as Court Exhibit A - that is to say, a neutral exhibit.
[04:25] <Bel> Further to this, I will have instructions for the witness.
[04:27] <Bel> This testimony was to establish a simple matter, namely the details of the provision of prosecution evidence. It is the opinion of the court that this has been achieved.
[04:28] <Bel> Eluvatar, you are so ordered to provide a copy of the full log, running from the beginning of Exhibit B to the end of Exhibit G to the presiding justice.
[04:28] <Bel> This will be entered into the record via Judicial Notice as Court Exhibit B.
[04:28] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by "full" ?
[04:28] <Eluvatar> As in, without gaps?
[04:29] <Eluvatar> Or as in, without the removal of IP addresses?
[04:29] <Bel> Without gaps. You may remove IP addresses and correct the time stamps.
[04:30] <Eluvatar> Okay if I use that aforementioned conversion program?
[04:30] <Bel> Yes
[04:30] <Eluvatar> You will receive such a log by personal message shortly.
[04:31] <Bel> Thank you.
[04:47] <Bel> At this point in time, unless either of you have further business, I intend to close the court.
[04:47] <punkd> no
[04:47] <Gaspo> My inquiries have been satisfied.
[04:47] <Bel> In that case, the court is now closed.
[04:48] <Bel> Log ends at 4:48 December the 4th 2012. This log will be edited.

The court notes that this is a heavily redacted version of the log. The court is formally censuring both the Attorney General and Defence Counsel for the behaviour during witness testimony. I do not expect to see the same repeated at a later date.


Court Exhibit B - full log from the start of prosecution Exhibit B to the end of prosecution exhibit G
[(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 :D
[(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
[(time=1343237040)] <Mahaj> ah
[(time=1343237040)] <Mahaj> idiot :P
[(time=1343237040)] <Prince_Windsor> bad durk
[(time=1343237040)] <Asta> No
[(time=1343237040)] <Asta> no bad durk
[(time=1343237040)] <Asta> this is what jal does
[(time=1343237040)] <Mahaj> its like Chantillly VA only even more ineffective
[(time=1343237040)] <Mahaj> *Chantilly
[(time=1343237040)] --- Finn changed mode: +o Asta
[(time=1343237100)] <Finn> (:
[(time=1343237100)] <Asta> !
[(time=1343237100)] <Asta> <3
[(time=1343237100)] <Durkadurkiranistan> LOL Mahaj
[(time=1343237100)] <Gladio> ....
[(time=1343237100)] * Asta gives finn cookies
[(time=1343237100)] <Asta> and muffins
[(time=1343237100)] * Finn accepts cookies and muffins.
[(time=1343237100)] <Asta> <3
[(time=1343237100)] <Mahaj> i was so ready to be a dictator over TNP
[(time=1343237100)] <Mahaj> but you sucked at it
[(time=1343237100)] --- Finn changed mode: -o Asta
[(time=1343237100)] <Mahaj> you *sucked*
[(time=1343237100)] <Asta> :(
[(time=1343237100)] * Finn runs away :p
[(time=1343237100)] * Mahaj smacks Finn
[(time=1343237100)] * Asta takes back cookies
[(time=1343237100)] <Asta> and also muffins
[(time=1343237100)] <Finn> D:
[(time=1343237100)] <Durkadurkiranistan> chantilly va never made a serious run at it... he just sat there for a couple months collecting influence
[(time=1343237100)] <Finn> can I have one at least? :(
[(time=1343237160)] <Asta> okay, fine, one
[(time=1343237160)] <Prince_Windsor> Finn op is not cookies so you give away like that.
[(time=1343237160)] <Finn> :D
[(time=1343237160)] <Finn> fineee.
[(time=1343237160)] <Prince_Windsor> good.
[(time=1343237160)] <Durkadurkiranistan> oh yea, anyone remember Bachman Turner Overdrive?
[(time=1343237160)] <Mahaj> Durkadurkiranistan: i know D:
[(time=1343237160)] <Durkadurkiranistan> from Osiris
[(time=1343237160)] <Gladio> take away op from asta? :P
[(time=1343237160)] <Mahaj> yeah i remember that
[(time=1343237160)] <Mahaj> was that you too?
[(time=1343237160)] <Durkadurkiranistan> guess who he was
[(time=1343237160)] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[(time=1343237160)] <Mahaj> >.>
[(time=1343237160)] * Eluvatar is sooooo surprised
[(time=1343237160)] <Milograd> lol
[(time=1343237160)] * Finn kicks Durk.
[(time=1343237160)] <Mahaj> it was a terrible attempt too
[(time=1343237160)] <Mahaj> why are you so bad at couping durk
[(time=1343237220)] <Finn> Durk, don't say it.
[(time=1343237220)] <Finn> Or I kick you.
[(time=1343237220)] <Durkadurkiranistan> if by terrible you mean it forced a delegate change
[(time=1343237220)] <Finn> ):<
[(time=1343237220)] <Prince_Windsor> haha
[(time=1343237220)] <Durkadurkiranistan> and everyone blamed Tim
[(time=1343237220)] <Milograd> :V
[(time=1343237220)] <Mahaj> lol
[(time=1343237220)] <Mahaj> Tim then wanted in on the action and acted stupid :P
[(time=1343237220)] <flemingovia> seriously, folks. It took me about five seconds. Posting style + vocabulary + nasi seal = JAL
[(time=1343237280)] <Eluvatar> Recruiters: Five, seven, then five
[(time=1343237280)] <Eluvatar> Syllables make a haiku.
[(time=1343237280)] <Eluvatar> No other adspam
[(time=1343237280)] <Eluvatar> ^ acceptable?
[(time=1343237340)] <Finn> Just ban all adspam :)
[(time=1343237340)] <Eluvatar> This is much more fun
[(time=1343237400)] <Milograd> "Now Playing: Super Bass" < D:
[(time=1343237400)] <Finn> :D
[(time=1343237400)] * Finn gives Eluvatar lots of cookies!
[(time=1343237400)] <Mahaj> haiku boring
[(time=1343237400)] <Gladio> with an expired date.
[(time=1343237400)] <Mahaj> make it be a song parody for recruitment
[(time=1343237400)] * Finn should totally run in the next TNP election with a Nicki Minaj flag.
[(time=1343237400)] * Mahaj has the perfect one
[(time=1343237460)] <Bel> Wait? Is Durk serious or not?
[(time=1343237460)] <Durkadurkiranistan> srsly
[(time=1343237460)] <Finn> He's not :p
[(time=1343237460)] <Bel> Didn't think so :P
[(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

Court Exhibit B is entered via Judicial Notice, and covers both Prosecution Exhibits B and G. Whilst arguments regarding their contents will be allowed, arguments regarding their nature as a factual record of statements will not be.

Edited Court Exhibit B to reflect the full information sent to the court including timezone-neutral timestamps with the Moderating Justice's permission
 
Your honor,

I would like to request that the full unedited version of both the deposition and discussion between justice and counsel be preserved as prosecution may ask the justice to reproduce the unedited version at a later date.

Thank you.
 
I would note that I will be lodging a protest in the form of a motion, regarding the above log, as I have issues with its contents in light of unrecorded objections, and answers to succesfully-objected-to questions being allowed into the record despite said objections. I will hold this motion until the recess is over.
 
Your honor, I plan to ask the court for detailed rulings on a number of matters, but will not be able to post these until late tonight or by this time tomorrow at the latest. Defense has raised an argument before the court, but I have others that I must present in order to feel confident that I understand the procedural confines of this office. I request patience as RL is causing a delay.
 
OOC: I won't be able to post the arguments that I intended. We had a production issue on my job Tuesday that dragged into yesterday. I actually really need a week leave of absence honestly. But, I'm going to plod through as best I can. I'll put requests through at a later date, because this weekend I've got to focus on RL as i have my sister's wedding, a paper, a group presentation, a quiz, and putting in a new boiler to focus on. I can multi-task but this is probably pushing me to the limit. I apologize for not getting this done, but I have to face facts. In a week's time things should be better. In other words, we can resume b/c i can't build the arguments i want until next Wednesday which is too long a delay, imo.
 
Punk, you stated that you wouldn't be able to get your requests done till this Wednesday, and suggested that I end the recess as such. Instead I chose to continue it; my duty is to see justice done, and if you feel that you cannot perform your own duties properly without them I do not want to rush you. However, it is now four days past the time when you indicated you would be able to have them ready. Could you please either submit them within the next 48 hours, or state your intent otherwise.
 
I won't be able to submit them and will be very limited in my time until this Wednesday. I can post a couple things here and there, but unfortunately at the moment I'm juggling all cases without the aide of any deputies.

I wish I could tell you otherwise, but it's not going to happen.
 
Do you believe that you will be able to perform your duties fully without the required submissions and review, or will they impact upon your ability to do so?
 
I believe my ability will be impacted if the court does not rule on the issue before it.

But, to be honest, I'm willing to take that risk. I ran on a platform of bringing back common sense and respect to the courts. We've had a significant delay and I'm not willing to hold it up longer because i don't know exactly the confines of what my office can and cannot do.

I'm fine playing it by ear as it were.
 
Very well. If you have any issues, please contact me ex-parte so we may resolve them. The recess is now over. Evidence discovery will run from now until the 23rd, after which there will be a one week Christmas recess from the 24th to the 1st. We will move on to arguments of the evidence on the 2nd of Januray.
 
As a note - as stated in the Official Policy of the AG - I will be 100% online Wednesday. Very touch and go until then.
 
The defense will be submitting its evidence over the next couple of days, and has one deposition to schedule.

Our first item, tagged as Defense Exhibit A, will be: Defense Exhibit A

Our only witness will be Neenee. She will be providing evidence regarding the habits of my client. If there is any question before the court as to what constitutes habit evidence, I would direct any interested party to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habit_evidence. Such evidence is not excluded under the current court rules, nor is it inadmissible in similarly structured court systems elsewhere.

Additional exhibits will be forthcoming.
 
Your honor, I object to defense's exhibit A. Defense has not stated whether this exhibit is real or demonstrative evidence. If defense is submitting as real evidence I object on the grounds that the item in question was not in existence when the alleged activities of the defendant took place.

If demonstrative evidence, I would ask the court to ask defense the purpose behind his exhibit and its relevancy to the case as of now there appears to be no connection between the exhibit and the case at hand.
 
The exhibit is connected to the argument I will offer. Simple as that. I do not wish to disclose its true purpose at this point, as I am under no duty to do so, because I see no point in aiding the prosecution in attacking my client's defense. The prosecution has a duty to prove guilty beyond all reasonable doubt; I have a duty to introduce such doubt. This evidence supports my ability to do so.
 
Your honor, I am arguing that the exhibit submitted by the defense has no relevance to this case at all. I have no way to examine this piece of evidence since I have no idea what it is and why it is involved in this case. Defense has stated that he plans to use this as part of his argument. Fine.

But, I believe we all need to know why the evidence has relevance to this case. I am objecting to the relevance of your evidence and you do have a duty - if the judge also agrees - to provide information detailing its relevance to the case.
 
It's quite simple, really. In order to establish guilt, the AG must demonstrate that the statements of my client, combined with the circumstantial evidence of easily-changed nation attributes, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and to prove that the nation which sent the seditious telegrams belongs to my client beyond a reasonable doubt. The nation I am introducing is specifically designed to demonstrate the ease with which a nation's attributes can be changed by any individual who owns a nation, and to clearly explain how simply stating that one owns a nation, and that nation having an attribute which claims to connect that nation to you, is not sufficient to abolish all reasonable doubt as to the owner of the nation.

In other words, by all external appearances, that nation is JAL's. Except, it's not. It's mine. I will begin voting with it in the RA tomorrow. This evidence demonstrates just how flimsy the "well the motto says 'I'm Durk'" element of the prosecution's case is. The statements my client made were made in a public channel; any of the likely 15 or more individuals present in the channel at the time could be its true owner. The prosecution's only proof beyond my client's un-sworn casual statement is that motto. This evidence proves just how flimsy that motto is.
 
I will be travelling tonight and tomorrow, but will have loads of time to finish evidence submissions on Saturday. I hope to hear from PunkD regarding deposition scheduling sometime soon; my witness is available most of the time throughout any day.
 
If defense believes a nation's motto is the only evidence we have against his client, this case may be more easily won than I initially imagined.

Your honor, I find it a bit disconcerting that defense counsel is impersonating the defendant on the NS site. Indeed, such impersonation is illegal under NS's terms and conditions. Defense has stated that the nation in question, by all external appearances, seems to be the defendant's nation...that's getting close to running afoul of the following:

You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it is not obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, or defamatory, does not invade the privacy or infringe the intellectual property of a third party, and does not constitute "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, attempt to "hack" the site or another player's account, nor otherwise mislead as to the origin of information.

Should you breach these terms and conditions you agree to indemnify NationStates, Max Barry, and any and all employees, agents, administrators, moderators, volunteers, and affiliates associated with NationStates.net from and against any and all third party claims, demands, liabilities, costs or expenses, including reasonable legal fees.
Click to expand...

Bold mine.

I would like to ask the court to rule whether or not such activity by defense counsel is grounds for misconduct and/or removal from this case. In defense counsel's zeal to do any and everything to defend his client, I believe he may be overstepping here.

If the courts find no problem with defense counsel's actions, I ask defense counsel if he will provide his client as witness in order to clearly state that the nation in question was not his, explain why he said it was, and rather than having to use a newly created nation that impersonates the defendant have the defendant clear his own name. Obviously, the defendant is under no obligation to place himself on the witness stand, but I believe that an innocent man whom someone is impersonating would have no problems with stating the same.

But, I do find it curious that only now the issue of the identity of this nation is coming up. Very curious indeed.
 
Whilst the court cannot compel the defendant to testify, I am broadly speaking in agreement with the Attorney General here. If the defense wished to argue that the nation in question, TNP Freedom Fighters, was not that of the defendant then they are free to do so, but I see no need for Defense Exhibit A short of grandstanding. It's existence does not in anyway provide strength to that argument, nor is it needed for demonstrative purposes. I consider it to be neither relevant or material to the case, and as such I will be disallowing it.
 
I will be appealing that ruling to the entire court. Depriving me of the ability to demonstratively dispute the underlying reasoning of the prosecution's case deprives my client of his right to present a reasonable defense. I will address this further when I am more available.

As far as the the AG's ludicrous allegations of violations of NS TOS, I have at no time suggested that anyone other than me owns that nation. Its motto and flag are designed specifically to counter the AG's argument, and serve no purpose beyond that. His accusations are outrageous, and I would ask the court to remind the Prosecutor that he has been censured for his actions in the past (as am I).
 
As to my client's testimony, he will not be taking the stand. I see no need to present my client to the prosecution, nor may he be compelled to do so, nor may his refusal to testify be used in any way to impact a finding of his guilt. The prosecution's evidence as presented is circumstantial, even with the court's refusal to accept Exhibit A.
 
As to the identity of the nation "only coming up now", at no point have we stipulated that my client actually owns the nation in question, and without the prosecution providing evidence to demonstrate that my client's statements of ownership are in fact true, it cannot be assumed as such. Whether or not my client owns the nation in question is precisely the crux of the issue here.
 
Defense counsel stated that he created a nation that appears to be JAL's to expressly demonstrate that a person can do such a thing.

I agree that it is possible for a person to do so. But, the NS TOS are quite clear on the matter. Unfortunately, I will not be able to ask your client, but if I could I would ask him if he ever sought to go to the moderators of the game and charge whomever with impersonating him. Obviously, the moderators can track IPs and if JAL gives them his IP they will be able to validate that the owner of TNP Freedom Fighters was not a JAL owned IP.

If someone tried to impersonate me on the site, that is certainly the avenue i would take to rectify the situation. Further, I am glad the court finds defense's exhibit irrelevant and immaterial.

I was not under the impression that we - as counsel - could appeal decisions made by the moderating justice to the full three-person court. Would the justice please clarify? If that is the case, I would have appealed a few earlier rulings, but that ship has sailed.
 
I believe defense Counsel would do so via a request for Judicial Review. There is no formal process for an appeal of such matters, but that would be permissible I believe.
 
I would be available from 10pm EST tomorrow onward, as will my witness. If that doesn't work out, I suspect we could finalize depositions during the recess, as the judge need not be present, thus preserving his holiday. I'm free the 26th through the 30th, if that becomes necessary.

I will lodge my objections to the already-entered deposition log, as objections I entered were omitted from the record and objected-to questions were answered, within 24 hours.

I will not be challenging the ruling the judge has made; I can get the point across in other ways.

If available, I will be recalling the prosecution's witness, Eluvatar, for cross-examination, either now or during the recess before the beginning of legal arguments on Jan 2nd.

Depending on some research I'm doing, I may have to file another ruling request to clarify a procedural issue. That remains to be seen; I just want to make sure the court has a heads-up on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top