The North Pacific v. JAL

[20:53] <@Gaspo> The Deposition of Blue Wolf in the case of TNP v JAL (round 3) begins now. Blue Wolf is an expert Legal witness for the defense..
[20:54] <@Gaspo> this log will be submitted in its entirety, in accordance with the court rules, to moderating justice belschaft at the conclusion of this deposition.
[20:54] <@punkd> objection, witness is speaking out of turn. Please strike the previous. SUSTAINED
[20:54] <@Gaspo> The defense calls Blue Wolf to the stand, and will begin by certifying him as a legal expert.
[20:55] <@Gaspo> Blue wolf, do you swear to be honest and not lie and not deceive the court and so forth?
[20:55] <Blue_Wolf> I do.
[20:56] <@Gaspo> The defense would like to cerityf Blue Wolf as a legal expert, citing his recently completed service as an Associate Justice of this very court as evidence of his expertise in the legal field.
[20:56] <@Gaspo> Please verify that this is correct information.
[20:57] <@Gaspo> Blue Wolf?
[20:58] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, I can verify
[20:58] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[20:58] <@Gaspo> Are you familiar with the legal code and constitution, as well as the bill of rights, and have you reviewed the facts of this case thus far submitted as potential evidence?
[20:58] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, I have
[20:59] <@Gaspo> Does the prosectuion object to this witness being certified as an expert? Note that at this stage, it is allowed for the opposing party to attempt to dispute the qualifications of the witness, if they wish.
[20:59] <@Gaspo> Do you so wish?
[21:00] <@punkd> The prosecution does not object to this witness being certified as an expert on the Legal Code and Constitution.
[21:00] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[21:00] <@Gaspo> With no objections, the defense will proceed with questioning on the assumption that the court will accept the witness's unopposed certification.
[21:01] <@Gaspo> The defense will now begin its direct examination.
[21:01] <@Gaspo> Blue Wolf, in your opinion as a legal expert, is the sedition law as it currently stands constitutional?
[21:01] <Blue_Wolf> No, it is not.
[21:02] <@Gaspo> Would you please expand on that?
[21:02] <@punkd> Objection - this case is not being asked to determine the constitutionality of the sedition statute.
[21:04] <@punkd> The prosecution does not feel this question is germane to the case at hand. If the court would like to determine if the statute is constitutional or not, that is for a different time. /end objection note.
[21:04] <@Gaspo> The defense believes the law being asserted is in conflict with the constitutional right to freedom of speech. The witness is here to testify as to that conflcit, and attempt to aid the court in resolving it. /end opposition to objection.

OBJECTION SUSTAINED – Witness testimony is not the place for such aid to be given to the Court.

[21:04] <Blue_Wolf> Should I continue?
[21:04] <@punkd> yes
[21:04] <@Gaspo> Pause a moment
[21:04] <@punkd> oops
[21:04] <@Gaspo> NP
[21:05] <@Gaspo> after each objection, the objector will note the end of their objection, then the other side gets to argue against the objection. when both sides have spoken, then you may answer, blue wolf. The court willd etermine if your answer is to be accepted.
[21:05] <@Gaspo> We will now continue.
[21:06] <@Gaspo> Does there exist any sanctioned means of voicing opposition to the government, in the constitution or bill of rights?
[21:07] <@Gaspo> (perhaps you should say "no objection" when you don't have one, PD, so we don't all sit here silently waiting for each other to talk)
[21:07] <Blue_Wolf> There is none defined, no.
[21:07] <@punkd> (ok, no problem)
[21:08] <@Gaspo> So the sedition law says that you can oppose the government in sanctioned ways, but there are none sanctioned?
[21:09] <@punkd> NO
[21:09] <@punkd> N.O. = no objection
[21:09] <@Gaspo> Please answer, Blue Wolf.
[21:09] <Blue_Wolf> Of course, yes, that's exactly what the law says.
[21:11] <@Gaspo> In the field of law, is freedom of speech considered to extend to cover civil disobedience and protest speech?
[21:11] <@punkd> NO
[21:11] <@punkd> (no obj = no objection, NO just looks weird)
[21:11] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, it is, in the field of law.
[21:12] <@Gaspo> (I'll do the same)
[21:12] <@Gaspo> So in effect, the sedition law bars people from opposign the government in any non-sanctioned way, but the bill of rights sanctions and protects speech in protest against the government. When there's a conflict between the law and the constituion, which one trumps? The law as passed by the legislature, or the fundamental rights outlined in the constitution?
[21:15] <Blue_Wolf> The Constitution always trumps the Codified Law of The North Pacific when a conflict exists.
[21:15] <@Gaspo> in the future, please wait for the other side to state any objection or lack thereof, to make reading this easier for the court.
[21:15] <@Gaspo> Any objection to that question, Punk?
[21:15] <@punkd> sorry - writing.
[21:15] <@Gaspo> NP
[21:15] <@Gaspo> take your time
[21:16] <@punkd> objection as the question asks the witness to define 'the law' which includes the Constitution.
[21:17] <@Gaspo> I believe it is implied that the Legal Code is held separate from the constitution, in both my question and in the witness's answer.
[21:17] <@punkd> /end objection
[21:17] <@Gaspo> ./end response

OBJECTION OVERRULED

[21:17] <@Gaspo> One more quick question, blue wolf.
[21:19] <@punkd> Objection - the question asks the witness to have full knowledge of the acts allegedly committed by the defendant. The witness is a legal expert of the law, not a material witness as to the actual facts of the case.
[21:20] <@punkd> The witness' testimony should be confined to questions related to the law, not factual elements of this particular case that have - as yet - to be established and accepted by this court.
[21:21] <@punkd> /end objection
[21:21] <@Gaspo> I will rephrase, the defendant's answer at 21:19 may be struck from the record. blue wolf, if only one nation is shown to have been incited to revolt, can a conviction under this law still be obtained, given that the wording of the law specifically requires that the nations, plural, be incited to revolt?
[21:22] <@punkd> no obj
[21:24] <@Gaspo> BW, please answer.
[21:24] <Blue_Wolf> That remains to be seen, but I would say no.
[21:24] <@Gaspo> It is your expert legal opinion that no conviction can be obtained under the law as written?
[21:25] <@punkd> objection the witness has answered the question
[21:25] <@punkd> /end objection
[21:25] <@Gaspo> I'm asking him to clarify. /end response.

OBJECTION OVERRULED

[21:25] <@Gaspo> please answer, BW.
[21:26] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, it is.
[21:26] <@Gaspo> Thank you. No further questions. Prosecutor, you may proceed with your cross-examination. The same procedure will be followed - question, then objection or statement of no objection, response to objection, and lastly the witness will answer.
[21:26] <@Gaspo> Your witness.
[21:27] <@punkd> Defense asked you regarding ‘sanctioned means of voicing opposition’ is there a sanctioned means of voicing support to the government?
[21:27] <Blue_Wolf> No, there is not, unless you consider obeying the laws to be, by proxy, a voicing of support.
[21:27] <@Gaspo> objection, the defense questions relevance. the law does not mention sanctioning support, only that it promises to sanction some form of opposition, of whcih there is none sanctioned. /end objection.
[21:29] <@punkd> Defense has stated that there are no sanctioned means of voicing opposition to the government. The prosecution is asking the legal expert whether there are santioned means to support the government. We are establishing something based upon the witnesses answer to the question which is germane to the argument raised by defense.
[21:29] <@punkd> /end response

OBJECTION OVERRULED

[21:30] <@Gaspo> witness answered at 21:27; prosecution may move on to next question.
[21:30] <@punkd> (i'm typing )
[21:31] <@punkd> If there is no sanctioned method to support the government, per your answer, and there is no sanctioned method to voice opposition, what is the problem with the sedition law?
[21:32] <@Gaspo> objection
[21:32] <@Gaspo> again
[21:33] <@Gaspo> the law specifies that it will sanction dissent, but never does so. it makes no mention of support; as such, this line of questioning remains irrelevant and is an attempt to dilute the issue. /end
[21:34] <@punkd> that the law does not mention sanctioned support and that the defense is trying to make the argument that the absence of sanctioned dissent is relevant to this case, makes the case that the absence of sanctioned support within the law is very relevant indeed. /end response. You may answer BW.

OBJECTION OVERRULED

[21:35] <Blue_Wolf> The problem would be in its wording. It specifically says "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." Since there is no matter defined as "sanctioned", then just about anything can be considered to be Sedition if it is thought that
[21:35] <Blue_Wolf> there is an intentional attempt to incite revolt
[21:37] <@punkd> So then it is your belief, that the law, as currently defined should be interpreted to reflect a broad understanding of the word "incite"?
[21:37] <@Gaspo> no objection
[21:38] <Blue_Wolf> I believe that it is vague, at best.
[21:40] <@punkd> Let me rephrase, given your statement that 'just about anything can be considered" Sedition as the law is currently written, is it your expert opinion that such an interpretation is the only interpretation that can be made if the court is presented with evidence that appears to intentionally incite nations?
[21:41] <@Gaspo> no obj
[21:42] <Blue_Wolf> It is my personal opinion that my interpretation is correct, yes.
[21:43] <@punkd> Do you believe that an "unendorsement telegram campaign" constitutes the telegramming of multiple nations?
[21:44] <@Gaspo> no objection
[21:44] <Blue_Wolf> By its definition, yes.
[21:44] <Blue_Wolf> But that is only how I would use the word
[21:44] <Blue_Wolf> *term
[21:46] <@punkd> Given that interpretation, if a defendant was shown to have been part of such a campaign would "multiple" actual telegrams need be entered into evidence in order to meet the definition of "nations" versus nation as stated within the law?
[21:46] <@Gaspo> objection, the prosecution seems to be vaguely referring to facts not in evidence.
[21:47] <@Gaspo> there has been absolutely no mention in any evidence of any campaign taking place, how is such a campaign relevant? /end
[21:49] <@punkd> The prosecution is asking the expert his thoughts on an unendorsement campaign and if he, the legal expert, believes that multiple telegrams sent during a particular campaign need to be shown in order to meet the definition of nations. The prosecution is interested in the legal opinion of this expert on the matter introduced by the defense. /end

OBJECTION OVERRULED

[21:49] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, it would have to by multiple to fit that definition
[21:49] <@punkd> Do you believe sending a telegram asking a nation to unendorse the sitting legally elected delegate to be an act of freedom of speech or a criminal act?
[21:51] <@Gaspo> no objection
[21:52] <Blue_Wolf> Strictly speaking, no. No nation is forced to endorse the delegate and my unendorse him/her at any time. To say that the act you just described is illegal would be to imply that the action can only be taken legally if it is not talked about with others.
[21:52] <Blue_Wolf> The action of unendorsing, that is
[21:54] <@punkd> Based upon your answer, you believe that sending a telegram requesting that the sitting legally elected delegate to be an act of freedom of speech? You answered "no" which I believe refers to the criminal act, but you did not specifically answer "yes" to speech, and I am seeking clarification.
[21:55] <@Gaspo> no obj
[21:55] <Blue_Wolf> I assume you mean "requesting that the sitting legally elected delegate be unendorsed"?
[21:56] <@punkd> correct.
[21:56] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, I believe it to be freedom of speech unless you can prove it to be part of some larger plot.
[21:57] <@punkd> If sending a telegram to a nation asking a nation to unendorsed the sitting legally elected delegate is a matter of freedom of speech, do you believe this act ever moves to one of a criminal nature? For example, sending 10,20, or 30 similar telegrams to many nations.
[21:58] <Blue_Wolf> I believe it enters criminal nature when there is a proven intent to overthrow the delegate.
[21:59] <@Gaspo> no objection btw
[21:59] <@Gaspo> proceed
[22:01] <@punkd> Thank you, moving to another matter entirely - As a legal expert of TNP law, do you believe it is within the power of the justices in this case to determine the constitutionality of the law in this case? This is a criminal case and is not a case requesting the justices to determine the constitutionality of the law in which they are being asked to judge.
[22:01] <@punkd> by "the law", I mean the Sedition Law.
[22:02] <Blue_Wolf> I believe it is within their powers, yes.
[22:02] <@Gaspo> no objection
[22:05] <@Gaspo> objection
[22:05] <@punkd> I'd like to strike the question
[22:05] <@Gaspo> fine.
[22:06] <@punkd> One last question, what legal basis are you utilizing to say that in a criminal case a court can address the constitutionality of a law?
[22:08] <Blue_Wolf> The fact that they can do so when it is presented to them as a legal question. I believe those questions can be presented alone, as traditionally done, or be presented within a criminal proceeding. Either is acceptable.
[22:09] <@Gaspo> no objection.
[22:10] <@punkd> In what way is the constitutionality of the Sedition Law presented to justices when justices are asked to answer the question of innocence or guilt in a case involving Sedition? I'd like your answer for the record.
[22:12] <@Gaspo> no obj
[22:12] <Blue_Wolf> It is up to the defense to present it to the Justices
[22:13] <@punkd> Thank you, no more questions.
[22:13] <@Gaspo> Might i ask one question on re-direct?
[22:13] <@punkd> no obj
[22:14] <@Gaspo> Blue wolf, is it generally the practice of the courts to only examine the law before them for guilt or innocence, in a vacuum, or is the court bound by duty to consider all of the law, and consider the law before them in the context of the rights granted to citizens, the duties imposed on them, and the laws which bind them and which bind the government?
[22:15] <Blue_Wolf> I no of no case where the law was examined "in a vacuum" as you put it. All laws are considered when reviewing a matter.
[22:15] <@punkd> objection - there's no need to consider the 'practice of the courts' in a vacuum, but the actual law of TNP. /end
[22:16] <@Gaspo> the constitution overrides all other laws in TNP, the courts have a duty to uphold that constitution, and if they are asked to punish under an unconstitutional law, a duty extends to them to invalidate that law, or to explain why it should not apply in the circumstnaces placed before it. /end.

OBJECTION OVERRULED

[22:16] <@Gaspo> Anything else, punkd?
[22:17] <@punkd> yes - i'd like for Belscaft to note that Gaspo and I followed the rules and that Blue_Wolf violated them on several occasions. :p
[22:17] <@Gaspo>
[22:18] <@Gaspo> I am closing this deposition here. A full copy of the logs will be both posted in the thread, and PMed to Belschaft, as per the rules.