The North Pacific v. JAL

As to the proseuction's talk of impersonation, I genuinely cannot follow that section of his post. Something about moderators, IP tracking, and impersonation charges. I'm at a loss, frankly. As I have said repeatedly, the nation was never represented as being JAL's, simply as a demonstration of just how easy it is to change the attribute the prosecution is alleging proves my client's guilt. The nation is and has always been mine; why he would ask my client if my client were offended by this alleged impersonation is beyond me. I would appreciate it if the court would instruct the prosecution to confine his comments to the matters at hand, and save his speculation and libelous implications for a different forum.
 
The defense will be supplementing its witness list as follows:

Former Associate Justice and current Vice Delegate Blue Wolf II will be called as a legal expert.
 
I object to this witness as the witness was formerly a justice in this trial. And if not mistaken, is probably still a justice in this trial, no?
 
The individual in question was never a moderating justice and has rendered no opinions which have any impact on this court, and has resigned here. He is as such a private citizen and is fully allowed to testify. His expertise in legal issues is very relevant to the defense's case. If he is not allowed to testify, a ruling from the full court will be necessary to clarify the procedure for a justice's resignation, as by all external appearances, he has resigned fully from his role, and is no longer a Justice.
 
He resigned from his role, but there has been no mention of a change in justice and I may be wrong, but i think the law talks about justices completing their current cases. Might just be the AG, but I don't think so.

In any event, a former sitting judge on this case, imo, cannot serve as a legal expert in the same case.
 
Your honor,

I'm going to request rescheduling the witness testimony. I've been around a while, and unfortunately need to go to bed. Gaspo came along but none of the witnesses were available when we were both on.
 
I would note that I was around at the time I said I would be; witnesses didn't work out. Not disagreeing with the prosecution's statements, just want it to be clear as to who was around when they said they'd be - i.e. both of us. :P
 
I would like to move that the justice please review the contents of the deposition which he has entered as Court Exhibit A. There is an objection noted which was sustained by the justice. Excerpts below:

[22:55] <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?
[22:55] <Eluvatar> I do not believe that there is any.
[22:55] <Gaspo> I would object
[22:55] <Gaspo> the question calls for the witness to speculate as to the existence of testimony
[22:56] <Gaspo> rather than to testify as to whether or not the witness is aware in fact of any testimony
[22:56] <Gaspo> the witness is not an expert; therefore his opinions are not admissible.
[22:57] <Eluvatar> Are you saying I can't say that I don't think anything of what I have submitted casts doubt on JAL's guilt?
[22:57] <Gaspo> I would ask the witness not to answer until the judge has ruled on my objection.
[22:58] <Gaspo> My main issue is based on the use of the word "believe" in the prosecution's question. It implies speculation or belief, not testimony to fact.
[22:58] <@Bel> Objection upheld. Prosecution will rephrase the question.
Click to expand...

Later, in the same deposition:

[23:12] <punkd> I shall ask again - 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?
[23:12] <@Bel> The court notes the defences objection, and instructs the prosecution to continue. Please limit your questions to the issues at hand.
Click to expand...

The objection to this specific question was previously sustained by the moderating justice, yet the exact same question was asked later and the objection was noted and ignored, despite its previous acceptance. Neither of these objections was noted in the record (all objections should be part of the official record), and the prosecution was allowed to ask an excluded question over the objections of the prosecution. I would request that the justice or if necessary the full court review the log to ascertain whether or not the answer to this question should be admitted as evidence.
 
I will review all outstanding matters later today. This is a reminder that the court recess will start tomorrow; I will be accepting no further evidence submissions or witnesses after the 24th, however outstanding testimony may be gathered during the recess so long as it is provided to the moderating justice before it ends.
 
I am going to appeal this to the full court. appealing that no testimony be accepted after the 24th.

The defense and prosecution had a time, and unfortunately no witnesses were available at that time. In order to present a case, I need to speak to witnesses.

I ask the court to give us an additional few days to get witness testimony in. If the justice does not allow this, I will appeal that decision to the full court.
 
I'm fine with that. Can we all agree on a hard cutoff for new testimony of Dec 31st, so that we can be sure to have at least a day to prepare arguments?
 
The court acknowledges Blue Wolf II as a defense expert witness. At no point did the former Justice comment on either a material or procedural matter of this case, and as such I do not see a conflict of interest. At this time I note two defense witnesses; Neenee and Blue Wolf II.


As to the matter of Court Exhibit A, I am satisfied with it in it's present form. Provided bellow is the full, unedited log. This is not entered as an exhibit, merely provided for the purposes of clarity.

[03:36] <Bel> I note the time as 3:35 GMT, December the 4 2012. From this point on we shall be on the record.
[03:36] <Bel> Make that 3:36
[03:37] <Eluvatar> I have volunteered to be deposed immediately regarding the origin of the distinction between Exhibits B and G.
[03:37] <punkd> i would suggest that Gaspo offer the direct examination since I have not depose Eluvatar.
[03:38] <Bel> Witness Eluvtar shall be making an evidentiary deposition regarding the provision on prosecution of Exhibits B and G.
[03:38] <punkd> ok
[03:38] <Eluvatar> May I just tell the story and then answer questions?
[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.
[03:38] <Eluvatar> Okay :)
[03:39] <punkd> great
[03:39] <Bel> Please, go ahead
[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 objectino 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.
[03:51] <Gaspo> Doesn't matter. Logic dictates that we have a right to examine the evidence against us; we should not have to take the prosecution's word that it is as he says it is.
[03:51] <Gaspo> We will, however, accept the court's word if the forum adminstration is unwilling to publish those posts. I'm done, sorry to interrupt.
[03:51] <Gaspo> Please continue.
[03:52] <punkd> the witness is saying that it is what it is.
[03:52] <Bel> At this point I will open the floor to the Prosecution, should they wish to examine the witness
[03:52] <punkd> The prosecution has not as yet said anything.
[03:52] <Bel> Note: Please do not comment without prior permission when we are taking testimony
[03:52] <Bel> Does the prosecution wish to examine the witness?
[03:53] <Gaspo> I have a reply to the prosecution's prior comment, but will refrain until this deposition is submitted publicly as evidence, and will object at that time.
[03:53] <punkd> said after the prosecution's two comments but not the 6 made by the defense.
[03:53] <punkd> does prosecution have the floor or shall defense continue to speak as he pleases?
[03:53] <Bel> It was directed at the defence; at the time I typed that you had yet to comment
[03:53] <Bel> The prosecution has the floor.
[03:54] <punkd> Good, thank you.
[03:54] <Bel> Short of an objection, further comments out of turn will not be tolerated
[03:54] <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?
[03:55] <Eluvatar> I do not believe that there is any.
[03:55] <Gaspo> I would object
[03:55] <Gaspo> the question calls for the witness to speculate as to the existence of testimony
[03:56] <Gaspo> rather than to testify as to whether or not the witness is aware in fact of any testimony
[03:56] <Gaspo> the witness is not an expert; therefore his opinions are not admissible.
[03:57] <Eluvatar> Are you saying I can't say that I don't think anything of what I have submitted casts doubt on JAL's guilt?
[03:57] <Gaspo> I would ask the witness not to answer until the judge has ruled on my objection.
[03:58] <Gaspo> My main issue is based on the use of the word "believe" in the prosecution's question. It implies speculation or belief, not testimony to fact.
[03:58] <Bel> Objection upheld. Prosecution will rephrase the question.
[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.
[04:01] <punkd> In the log files of Exhibit G & B, is there any mention made by JAL that he is not TNP Freedom Fighters to your recollection.
[04:01] <Eluvatar> No.
[04:02] <punkd> In the log files of Exhibit G & B, is there mention made that someone else could be TNP Freedom Fighter, to the best of your recollection?
[04:02] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by log files?
[04:03] <punkd> Let me rephrase, In Exhibit B & G, is there mention made that someone else could be TNP Freedom Fighters?
[04:03] <Eluvatar> Yes, JAL mentions that many had believed it was the person known as Haxstree or Frak the Third or Anur-Sanur.
[04:04] <punkd> I would like the court to note that these mentions were not excluded from either exhibit.
[04:04] <Bel> The court notes such.
[04:04] <punkd> I would now like to offer Eluvatar as an expert in law.
[04:05] <Gaspo> Objection
[04:05] <Gaspo> The prosecution did not disclose an intent to offer Eluvatar's testimony as such
[04:05] <Gaspo> the defense has not had adequate notice of such intent to allow it to prepare for such a deposition.
[04:05] <Gaspo> The prosecution only offered Eluvatar's testimony as...
[04:05] <Gaspo> a moment plaese while I retrieve the exact quote
[04:05] <punkd> Prosecution was forced into this deposition at a moment's notice and availed himself.
[04:06] <Gaspo> "- The above were present during a conversation when John Ashcroft Land aka Durkadurkiranistan revealed himself as TNP Freedom Fighters"
[04:06] <punkd> I ask the court to consider this when rendering a decision.
[04:06] <Gaspo> Prosecution separately listed Flemingovia as a legal expert
[04:06] <Gaspo> Prosecution therefore had intent to use at least someone as a legal expert
[04:06] <Gaspo> and chose willfully not to list this witness as such
[04:06] <Gaspo> furthermore
[04:06] <punkd> This deposition is not in regards to those items, your honor.
[04:06] <Gaspo> Depositions of prosecution's witnesses are the prosecution's to schedule
[04:07] <Gaspo> It's not the defense's fault that he agreed to this last-minute request
[04:07] <Gaspo> there was no order compelling him to conduct the deposition at this time.]
[04:07] <Eluvatar> I asked the prosecution for permission to arrange a deposition right now to clarify the questions the defense has asked about exhibits B and G
[04:07] <Bel> Objection approved. This testimony is only to gather details regarding the provisions of Exhibits B and G, and whether or not exculpatory evidence exists within the missing sections. Testimony regarding the contents shall be gathered at a later date.
[04:07] <punkd> This deposition is in regards to the nature of the timeliness of the prosecution delivering Exhibit G & B to the defense. The prosecution did not know this deposition would occur or it would have offered Eluvatar as an expert.
[04:08] <Bel> The court will edit the record accordingly when this testimony is entered.
[04:08] <punkd> Your honor, you have stated the nature of this deposition is for "whether or not exculpatory evidence exists"
[04:08] <punkd> I am offering Eluvatar as a legal expert on that matter
[04:08] <punkd> this deposition was requested moments before it began.
[04:08] <Eluvatar> 22:38 <@Bel> Witness Eluvtar shall be making an evidentiary deposition regarding the provision on prosecution of Exhibits B and G.
[04:09] <Bel> Eluvatar is considered as such in this manner.
[04:09] <Gaspo> I would note that the purpose of an expert witness is to provide testimony into a technical or specialized field, or analysis of the facts presented in terms of presenting his own opinion about them. Such testimony is very different from factual testimony from a non-expert witness.
[04:10] <Gaspo> Given that Eluvatar was never listed as an expert witness, the defense has had absolutely zero notice of his status as such. We have not had time to prepare for an expert witness deposition.
[04:10] <punkd> Neither have we. But here we are.
[04:11] <Gaspo> So the prosecution is stating that it agreed to a deposition that it had no obligation to agree to, and that it was unprepared for? And is suddenlyd eciding to pursue expert testimony?
[04:11] <Gaspo> I wonder if perhaps the prosecution is in such a hurry to have this deposition recorded
[04:11] <Gaspo> so that it may be used as evidence outside this proceeding, perhaps to influence other matters being conducted elsewhere in the court system?
[04:11] <Eluvatar> OOC: punkd wanted not to stay for long due to RL..
[04:11] <Gaspo> Otherwise, I do not see the urgency.
[04:11] <punkd> You are allowed to wonder.
[04:11] <Gaspo> I don't want to stay long either.
[04:11] <Bel> ORDER! ORDER!
[04:12] <punkd> I shall ask again - 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?
[04:12] <Bel> The court notes the defences objection, and instructs the prosecution to continue. Please limit your questions to the issues at hand.
[04:12] <Gaspo> May I clarify then that Eluvatar is not certified as an expert
[04:12] <Gaspo> and as such may not testify as to matters of law, or his opinion of such matters or his opinnion of the facts at hand?
[04:13] <Bel> ORDER!
[04:13] <Bel> The court orders the defence to wait his turn.
[04:13] <Eluvatar> What, if anything, am I supposed to be answering right now?
[04:14] <Bel> This testimony deals only with the provision of evidence by the witness. He is not being called on to testify on matters of law.
[04:14] <Bel> Punk, you have the floor
[04:14] <Eluvatar> Bel: can I answer his last question or not?
[04:14] <Gaspo> I object to that question, as I did before. Eluvatar is not certified as an expert, and as such cannot testify as to his opinion in any way, shape or form.
[04:14] <Bel> Further interruption other than objections will not be tolerated
[04:14] <Bel> Yes, you
[04:15] <Gaspo> The question continues to address Eluvatar's beliefs, not matters of fact, and as such must be objected to.
[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.
[04:15] <Bel> The witness may testify as to what he evidence he provided
[04:16] <Eluvatar> Does that answer your question, pundk?
[04:16] <Bel> Does the prosecution have any further questions?
[04:16] <Eluvatar> *punkd
[04:16] <punkd> I am here.
[04:16] <punkd> just not going to shout.
[04:16] <punkd> may I continue?
[04:16] <Bel> You may
[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] <punkd> please edit this - 6 minutes my behind Eluvatar!!!
[04:20] <Bel> The court will edit the record as necessary.
[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. The defense was not adequately informed in advance of this deposition, and as it is a prosecution witness, the burden was on the prosecution to schedule such a deposition and provide
[04:22] <Gaspo> adequate notice of such. I agreed to this out of respect for the time of everyone, but am frankly not fully prepared and as such would like to be able to recall this witness later, should questions arise after I've had time to prepare.
[04:23] <punkd> I object your honor, defense agreed to this deposition.
[04:23] <Bel> Very well. Noted and approved.
[04:23] <Gaspo> Mucha ppreciated, your honor.
[04:23] <Bel> Defence will have the opportunity to recall this witness.
[04:23] <Eluvatar> Aren't I testifying about the facts, later?
[04:23] <punkd> Your honor, both parties agreed to this deposition
[04:24] <Bel> You are, yes
[04:24] <Bel> And I granted it. The defences request is not unreasonable.
[04:24] <punkd> at a moment's notice, you are unduly favoring the defense by allowing him to prepare questions when I was not afforded the same amount of pre time.
[04:24] <Gaspo> He's your witness - you could have scheduled this at your convenience.
[04:24] <punkd> you coulld have declined
[04:25] <Bel> Both of you may recall this witness if you so wish.
[04:25] <punkd> Thank you, your honor.
[04:25] <Gaspo> I would ask your honor to instruct teh prosecution
[04:25] <Bel> This log will be entered into the record as Court Exhibit A - that is to say, a neutral exhibit.
[04:25] <punkd> I should have declined if defense was going to do this, and will in the future.
[04:25] <Gaspo> to only schedule depositions it is prepared for in the future.
[04:25] <Bel> Further to this, I will have instructions for the witness.
[04:25] <Gaspo> and to give adequate ntoice to the defense, so that all parties may be prepared.
[04:26] <punkd> if he instructs defense to accept depositions that he is prepared for.
[04:26] <punkd> and refuse those he is not.
[04:26] <Eluvatar> I asked the prosecution to hold this deposition now
[04:26] <Eluvatar> because it was a time convenient for me, and the evidence history was being discussed rather... fervently <_<
[04:26] <Bel> The court is annoyed with both counsels at this moment in time. Further argument of this issue is not encouraged.
[04:26] <punkd> as a courtesy I did. Defense agreed as well. Defense now claims, all of a sudden, he has no time to prepare because the facts of the case do not support his assumption.
[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] <punkd> Your honor, I would like to ask that if I provide informatio to this court, it be believed unless evidence shows the contrary.
[04:28] <punkd> in the future that is.
[04:28] <Gaspo> I must object to that, most strenously.
[04:28] <punkd> The defense had no basis for his accusation.
[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] <punkd> None has been supplied.
[04:28] <Bel> This will be entered into the record via Judicial Notices 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] <Gaspo> I will wait for the court and Elu to finish talkin, and for recognition from the court, before I address my objection.
[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> Prosecution is asked to clarify their request
[04:30] <Bel> Yes
[04:30] <Eluvatar> You will receive such a log by personal message shortly.
[04:31] <Bel> Thank you.
[04:31] <punkd> Your honor, if I provide evidence to this court, I am requesting that if I state the time and nature of the evidence's source, that I not be subjected to what I have been put through today without at least something other than the defense's claims.
[04:31] <Gaspo> Please advise me when it is acceptable for me to explain my objection to this outlandish request.
[04:31] <Bel> You will not be. I consider this a unique circumstance.
[04:31] <Bel> Defence may address the court.
[04:31] <punkd> I hope that it is.
[04:32] <Gaspo> Your honor, the prosecution's actual words, as stated
[04:32] <Gaspo> "Your honor, I would like to ask that if I provide informatio to this court, it be believed unless evidence shows the contrary."
[04:32] <Gaspo> His words literally say "I wish the court to consider all my evidence to be factually true, and place a burden on the defense to prove them wrong."
[04:32] <Gaspo> This is a gross distortion of the fundamental basis of criminal burden of proof, and the presumption of innocence.
[04:32] <punkd> your honor, asked me to rephrase...i did.
[04:32] <Gaspo> The burden in a criminal matter lies with the state, not the defense.
[04:33] <Gaspo> Your restatement took the form of an emotional appeal, not a legal statement of procedure. It is incoherent to the defense, relative to your initial statement. You asked that you not be subjected to having to defend your evidence - I find such a request to be outrageous.
[04:34] <punkd> Regardless, the court responded to my subsequent statement.
[04:34] <Gaspo> The court responded before I was given the opportunity to voice my objection, and as the court has stated, I have the floor. It is not your turn to speak.
[04:34] <Gaspo> You said your piece; now I have said mine.
[04:34] <Gaspo> I await the justice's decision on this matter.
[04:35] <Bel> Your objection is noted. The court will not accept any evidentiary submissions without evidence of their factual basis. However, we will not be working on the basis that all submissions are false until proven otherwise. If either party believes there is an issue with a submission, please bring it to the courts attention.
[04:35] <Bel> We do not however expect to have to receive testimony such as this for every piece of evidence.
[04:35] <punkd> AMEN!!
[04:35] <Gaspo> Perfectly fine by me. Submissions are simply submissions; they must be proven one way or the other, as they should be.
[04:36] <Bel> Indeed.
[04:36] <Gaspo> As long as a submission is not presumed to be conclusive fact purely because the AG HIMSELF submitted it, I have no objections.
[04:36] <Gaspo> I have nothing further, let's close this up yeah?
[04:36] <punkd> Your honor
[04:36] <Bel> Yes?
[04:37] <punkd> defense dragged all of is into this today by claiming I withheld evidence purposefully, correct?
[04:37] <Bel> They raised a concern relating to a missing ten minutes of a log.
[04:37] <Gaspo> I claimed no such thing - I asked to have proof to eliminate the possiblity of such an analysis. I leveled no formal charge or accusation of such.
[04:37] <Bel> I have sought to get to the bottom of this issue.
[04:37] <Gaspo> Apologies to the court for my interruption.
[04:38] <punkd> please hold while I retrieve comments from defense....sigh...
[04:38] <Bel> BRB
[04:40] <punkd> 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 thing
[04:40] <Eluvatar> Message Sent.
[04:40] <punkd> this is from the defense
[04:40] <Eluvatar> (To the Moderating Justice)
[04:40] <Gaspo> I would like an opportunity to provide context to that, but I await the justice's discretion.
[04:41] <punkd> who states that the prosecution used the evidence in exhibit G as a way of do-over and purposefully withheld said evidence until I lost the procedural motions.
[04:41] <punkd> my question remains, defense dragged all of is into this today by claiming I withheld evidence purposefully, correct?
[04:41] <Bel> Back
[04:42] <Bel> I believe so, yes
[04:42] <Gaspo> I object to that characterization your honor. Please advise me when I may speak as to this absurdity.
[04:42] <Bel> Speak
[04:43] <Gaspo> Am I on trial here? I made a statement which I asserted may be true, based on one interpretation of the facts, and invited the prosecution to provide evidence proving me wrong. He has (both in our conversation and with Eluvatar's testimony). I'm not pursuing that.
[04:43] <Gaspo> The prosecution seems to be upset that I dared to challenge him on something.
[04:43] <Gaspo> He seems to be unhappy that I said mean things to him, or said he might have done somethign bad based on one interpretation of the facts that were at that time available.
[04:43] <Gaspo> He seeks now to have an official on the record confirmation of a rhetorical device I used
[04:43] <Gaspo> as though it was a formal accusation leveled at him.
[04:43] <Gaspo> Why?
[04:43] <Gaspo> i'm not on trial here.
[04:44] <punkd> Your honor, is there a point to this?
[04:44] <Bel> I do not believe so.
[04:44] <Gaspo> A moment, please.
[04:45] <Gaspo> I'm trying to understand why the prosecution is asking the judge to explicitly state that I made what the prosecution characterizes as a false accusation.
[04:45] <punkd> Your honor, I am satisfied that you have acknowledged that the defense counsel made the claims that the prosecution withheld evidence. I assert the defense had no basis for those claims.
[04:45] <Bel> Defence counsel raised an issue were they had concerns. Having investigated it, I can now conclude that these concerns were unfounded.
[04:45] <Gaspo> I'm curious as to what his motives for that are, given that he has prevailed on the matter at hand (the timeline is no longer in dispute) and we are moving on.
[04:45] <Bel> As such I consider this matter dealt with.
[04:45] <punkd> Your honor, the defense has wasted the courts time today.
[04:46] <Gaspo> I don't know why he keeps going on about, unless he is looking for satisfaction for his good name or something, or he wants to sanction me for explorign every avenue in my client's defense.
[04:46] <punkd> I could opine as to why, but it would not be based in fact so I decline.
[04:46] <punkd> so let's close this up, yeah?
[04:47] <Bel> At this point in time, unless either of you have further business, I intend to close the court.
[04:47] <Gaspo> I asked for that 11 minutes ago, but then the prosecutino sought to have the court make a statement about my intentions.
[04:47] <punkd> no
[04:47] <Gaspo> I wanted to close then; I want to close now, too. My inquiries have been satisfied.
[04:47] <Gaspo> Let's end this.
[04:47] <Bel> In that case, the court is now closed.
[04:47] <punkd> the prosecution desired for the court to acknowledge the baseless accusations of the defense
[04:48] <Bel> Log ends at 4:48 December the 4th 2012. This log will be edited.
 
While I will respect the court's ruling, I am staggered that sustained objections are simply ignored and omitted from the official record, and that such actions are satisfactory. Time to move on, however.
 
So just to clarify, you're trying to argue that someone who has made no impact in any way on the case, and cannot impact the case from a judicial standpoint, should be ineligible to be a witness, on the basis that he has impacted the case and/or could impact it?
 
Your honor, court is due to resume in approximately three hours and change. I have waited as long as I can prior to filing this motion, to give the prosecutor sufficient time to produce his evidence, but I cannot wait any longer. It has been a month; I can wait no more.

The defense hereby moves that prosecution submitted Exhibit A, located HERE, be excluded from this trial as hearsay. The prosecution has failed, during this one-month discovery phase, to produce any testimony sufficient to authenticate this telegram. As such, it is inadmissible as hearsay, pursuant to the court's rules.

Court Rules Article 6 cover Hearsay. I will reproduce the entire Article below, relevant parts bolded (my bolding):
Court Rules:
1."Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted as opposed to proving the fact that the statement was made.
2.A statement that has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and the general purposes of these guidelines and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
3. Examples of such statements are written statements, the authenticity of which can be shown in the absence of editing or tampering at a subsequent time by any person, records of the government or other authority, or substantiation of the statement by other evidence.
Click to expand...

Addressing Clause 1 first, hearsay is a statement made by anyone other than the witness testifying. Exhibit A is sourced by the prosecution from the original thread, located HERE. It is submitted to the court as plain text, derived of context and attributed to TNP Freedom Fighters, the nation my client is accused of controlling, and by extension accused of committing sedition through. So, it is hearsay – Pasagard did not send the telegram, he is simply claiming he received it.

Clause 2 notes that hearsay evidence may be admissible (when it otherwise would not be), if circumstances indicate it may be considered trustworthy. Maybe we believe Pasagard, maybe we do not. But it is hard to determine what circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness really means.

Thankfully, that is where Clause 3 comes in. Clause 3 provides several relevant examples of conditions which might authenticate evidence in the absence of testimony, or directly through testimony. For example, if the post in question had never been edited, it can be assumed to be authentic. Oh wait, Pasgard's post (linked again HERE) has been edited. It is not a screenshot, mind you, so we cannot look at the pixels to know if it has been edited (as dubious a test as that is, even if it were applicable). So we have to take it at face value, and its face value has been edited. The court notes, later, that official government records may be taken as authentic. This is a citizen's submission to the court; it was not produced in the course of a government official's duties. As such, it is not protected by this exception.

Lastly, Clause 3 states that the evidence may be authenticated by "substantiation of the statement by other evidence." So, other evidence that proves that Exhibit A was sent, in this case. Except there isn't any. The prosecution has produced zero supporting evidence, or eyewitness testimony, sufficient to authenticate this evidence. It is clearly hearsay, and in the absence of any of the accepted forms of authentication, it must be excluded as such.

As I said previously, I apologize for the lateness of the motion; however, I wished to grant the prosecution the fullest measure of good faith in this difficult season. The trial starts tomorrow, and this evidence still isn't authenticated. As such, it must go.

The defense furthermore wishes to file identically-justified motions to exclude Prosecution Submissions D and E, for the same lack of authentication. The statements are not authenticated by testimony, their source is unlisted apart from being stated as ingame API records, and they are not government records. As such, they too must be excluded, because no circumstantial or direct evidence in support of their authenticity exists.

Lastly, the defense wishes all involved in this trial, and all those watching, a happy New Year.
 
I just realized I said "lastly" twice in that last post. I'm not editing it, because most lawyers can't edit here, and I don't want to seem as though I'm crossing any lines, no matter how minor, in my work in this trial. So, my typo stands.
 
Blue Wolf has been deposed, and his testimony submitted via PM to the moderating justice for review.
 
I have a question for defense before addressing his objection in full, if Pasargad, received Exhibit A personally, how is it hearsay?

For instance, if a defendant tells me "i committed this crime" isn't that the definition of non-hearsay?
 
Its admission is hearsay because he hasn't testified that he received it personally. There's no testimony or evidence which supports authentication of the document. It's hearsay because what's effectively happened is that Pasagard hasn't said, in court, that he received the telegram. You've said he received the telegram - you don't have direct knowledge of the telegram being received, nor do any other witnesses, so it's hearsay, because noone can directly testify that they received such a telegram.

See: Hearsay Rule and Documentary Evidence. The former discusses hearsay and explains that we can't consider something as factual unless a person with direct knowledge of it testifies to its factual nature. The latter explains that documents have to be authenticated before they can be admitted; I think we can all agree that a telegram is easily considered a document.
 
A point of clarification, your honor. You noted an end to discovery on the 24th, but indicated that testimony could be obtained after that. Given that arguments on evidence and the law cannot take place if evidence continues to flow in, I interpreted this to mean that no evidence could be submitted (i.e. testimony) after the arguments phase began, in approximately 34 minutes. Please clarify whether or not you will accept additional testimony after this time, or whether we can actually proceed with this case, after a month of discovery.
 
As an addendum to my prior motion to exclude evidence, I would also note Court Rules Article 3.9, which states:
Parties are responsible for documenting all forms of electronic evidence, such as forum posts, private messages, NS telegrams, or IRC logs before they are presented at trial.
Click to expand...
While "documenting" is vague, it does clearly indicate that the evidence in question, an NS telegram, may be considered to be a document, and as such must be authenticated. Its only form of documentation is a forum post whose circumstantial viability has been compromised, and no testimony is available to authenticate it. As such, it must be excluded as hearsay, and furthermore it was not properly documented as per Rule 3.9.
 
One final submission for the night, your honor. My apologies for the wall of posts; this discovery period has been a scheduling minefield and I've put off some of these matters in the hope that I wouldn't have to raise them at all.

In an attempt to ensure that evidence was submitted by all allowable means, I undertook a close reading of the Court Rules. They specify that both sides must be represented when witnesses are questioned, but makes no comment on sworn statements made unilaterally by the witness, unprompted by a question. While I would not deign to deny the other side the right to cross-examine a witness, the Court Rules specify only the conditions for questioning, and note that all other evidence is generally admissible. I can find no other rule excluding the concept of an affidavit under current court rules.

As such, I humbly submit the following chat log as a witnessed affidavit of Neenee, providing habit evidence related to the habits of my client. Habit evidence is not excluded from use by the legal code, and is a separate category from character evidence. Character evidence is specifically barred, but this type is not mentioned; as such, it can be assumed to be allowed under Rule 3.1.

What follows is Neenee's affidavit, sworn by her and witnessed by New Kervoskia. This affidavit was recorded on December 26th.
Session Start: Wed Dec 26 22:44:01 2012
Session Ident: #conferenceroom
[22:44] * Now talking in #conferenceroom
[22:44] * portlane.esper.net sets mode: +nt
[22:44] * Neenee (~Neenee@96-40-160-255.dhcp.mtpk.ca.charter.com) has joined #conferenceroom
[22:45] * RabbiCellophane (~RabbiCell@adsl-98-87-155-240.bna.bellsouth.net) has joined #conferenceroom
[22:45] <@Gaspo> I would like the record to reflect that RabbiCellophane/New Kervoskia is present as a witness, to lend credence to the swearing of the forthcoming affidavit.
[22:45] <@Gaspo> NK, please verify that you are here as a witness to the affidavit of Neenee, which will be forthcoming.
[22:46] <RabbiCellophane> I, RabbiCellophane/New Kervoskia, am here as a witness to the affidavit of Neenee.
[22:46] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[22:47] <@Gaspo> Neenee is here to provide habit evidence for the defense in the case of TNP v. JAL. I would note that the time is currentl 10:46pm EST, on Wednesday, December 26th.
[22:47] <@Gaspo> By signing the affidavit, she swears that everything she tells is the truth regarding JAL's habits, and that she is willing and available to be cross-examined on this evidence in the course of a trial.
[22:48] <@Gaspo> Neenee, do you so swear that what you are about to say is the complete and utter truth, confined to the subject of your personal knowledge of the defendant's habits and proclivities?
[22:48] <Neenee> I do, yes.
[22:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[22:49] <@Gaspo> Please make your statement for the record, and indicate when it is complete by stating that the preceding statement is a complete factual account of things you know personally through direct experience.
[22:49] <@Gaspo> The floor is yours.
[22:50] <Neenee> I have known JAL for at least 7 years. During this time, in addition to having worked with him a few times, I have been on IRC with him interacting in that way. JAL habitually lies, and says whatever will get him attention. It is a habit to the point of compulsion. He just does it even when there is no gain for himself. He has, more than once, told me one thing when he knew another was
[22:50] <Neenee> true, or said one thing would happen, when he opposite is what happens, by his own design. His habit is to use outrageous lies to get attention for himself in public. I have found the best course of action in dealing with him is to take nothing he says seriously.
[22:50] <Neenee> That statement is a complete factual account of things I know personally through direct experience.
[22:51] <@Gaspo> Thank you for your testimony; as we have discussed, the prosecution may wish to speak with you to discuss your knowledge of my client at some point later in the trial; by making this statement you are expected to remain reasonably available until the trial is complete.
[22:51] <@Gaspo> Thank you for your testimony. NK, please verify that you remain present and have witnessed this statement.
[22:52] <RabbiCellophane> I am present and have witness this statement in its entirety.
[22:53] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[22:53] <@Gaspo> You may be called upon to verify the authenticity of this exchange; please retain an unedited copy of the logs.
[22:53] <@Gaspo> I will be posting this log in its entirety to the TNP forums; thank you both for your time.
[22:59] <@Gaspo> thanks guys
[22:59] <@Gaspo> you can leave if you want
[22:59] * Neenee (~Neenee@96-40-160-255.dhcp.mtpk.ca.charter.com) has left #conferenceroom
[22:59] <@Gaspo> or you can cackle with me about hwo PunkD is gonna shit himself
[23:01] * RabbiCellophane (~RabbiCell@adsl-98-87-155-240.bna.bellsouth.net) has left #conferenceroom
Session Close: Thu Dec 27 00:00:00 2012
 
Your honor,

I'd like to examine Eluvatar tomorrow evening. We've all 3 agreed on the time and place. So can we have an extension?
 
punk d:
He also included it in the original complain he posted regarding TNP Freedom Fighters.
Click to expand...
That is the post which I linked in my motion. It has been edited, thus depriving it of hearsay exceptions under Rule 9 Clause 3.
 
punk d:
Your honor,

I'd like to examine Eluvatar tomorrow evening. We've all 3 agreed on the time and place. So can we have an extension?
Click to expand...
So long as any extension is confined exclusively to the testimony of Eluvatar, and noone else, and is confined to the topics already declared as within Eluvatar's purview, I have no issue with a 24-hour extension for this specific purpose, and no other.
 
Your honor,
I object to the late hour defense is making the objection to Exhibit A. You previously made note that you didn’t want a late-game shenanigans, as it were. Defense is certainly aware that had he made this objection earlier in the process, you may have requested the prosecution to produce additional details regarding Exhibit A.

As it is, both you and I probably believed that defense’s silence on the subject of Exhibit A was his tacit approval of such evidence. That defense waited until a late hour to produce such an objection to exhibit A reeks of an attempt to utilize the time constraints of this court to his advantage.

I have sent a telegram to Pasargad, who is the one who made the original complaint against the defendant in posting the telegram to confirm that he indeed received the telegram (exhibit A) from TNP Freedom Fighters. I have not been able to catch this witness online in order to examine him, unfortunately. The same is true for Flemingovia, but we are hopeful to depose Eluvatar this evening. The IRC deposition method is a method that I am coming to dislike because it requires all 3 parties to be online at the same time. This is not always possible and in the case of Exhibit A, the defense is using such a scenario against the prosecution.

I ask the court to please not disallow evidence that defense never raised a word against until the late hour knowing full well that the prosecution would not have time – based upon the court timelines – to respond. This is contrary to what the court outlined previously.

Also, I would like to ask the court to respond to my request to appeal to the full court regarding the testimony of Blue Wolf.

Thank you.
 
The prosecution listed Pasagard as a witness for the stated purpose of authenticating the telegram, as he was the one who was going to testify that he received it. They did not produce this witness for a month. A month. I waited as long as I could so I wouldn't file a motion, have it overruled because there was still time to have it authenticated, and then have to do it all over again when it wasn't authenticated. Furthermore, Discovery is a process for discovering evidence, which ends at a set time. Evidence is not actually entered until the trial commences - it is merely submitted and is open for motions. If I waited til the trial started, or until the court stopped accepting testimony, then yes, I would have waited too long. I didn't. You don't get to put in totally unsubstantiated evidence just because you want it in. It's inadmissible, as noone has testified to its veracity.

As to the court's comments about 11th-hour submissions, it stated that it would frown upon 11th-hour submissions of new evidence. This is no such thing - this is giving you every opportunity to do your job, and not speaking up until my client's guilt or innocence hinges in part on the fact that you failed to do a portion of that job.
 
I ask the court to please not disallow evidence that defense never raised a word against until the late hour knowing full well that the prosecution would not have time – based upon the court timelines – to respond. This is contrary to what the court outlined previously.
Click to expand...
Court Rules Article 9.3 state that you have a duty to substantiate hearsay evidence if it cannot be taken as truth at face value. You failed in that duty; I had no duty to oppose it, and I didn't raise this objection until you'd failed to exercise that duty for nearly a month. That's your fault, not mine.
 
Sorry for multi-posts - one last note about timing. Motions in limine to exclude evidence can be submitted at any time; they are not time-barred like some types of motions are. Any time, any place, you can move to exclude evidence. That way, you can exclude things that are later revealed to be false, you don't have to pretend they're true and ruin the whole idea of justice, because of procedural timing.
 
Can the defense posts be merged somehow?

I await the ruling of the court. I also believe the court was quite clear about last minute shenanigans and this reeks of it.
 
With the court's leave, I'll condense them myself; I just don't want any appearances of shenanigans by editing them without leave.
 
I would like to request defense send the transcript of the examination of Eluvatar to myself and Justice Belschaft.
 
Given that he was your witness, it should be your duty to do so, not mine. Since it would seem that that has not happened, however, I will send the copy I have retained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top