The North Pacific v. Grosseschnauzer

Ahem... one week from yesterday falls flat during judicial elections. I think it should be noted that there is no way Punk will be up and prosecuting afterwards, as he's not intending to run for reelection. In this possible scenario that neither I or someone making me a deputy wins, what happens to the case?
 
The law actually states that I need to finish all cases started under my tenure so I think we'll be good. If the new AG would like to take over, they are most welcome, but I think that's one good thing in the law that accounts for changeovers of this type.
 
I will be taking over this case. Given the circumstances of its delay, I see no reason to press forward despite Grosse's personal concerns. I await notice from the Court regarding resumption of this matter, but am in no hurry to get there anytime sooner than a fair and just trial can be guaranteed.
 
As this case never concluded, the current court will take over.

Justice Romanoffia will be acting as presiding judge.

I am recusing myself from hearing this case, as I was part of the original defense. The remaining Justices, Romanoffia and Mall, will decide on the appointment of a Temporary Hearing Officer.
 
I would like to ask the presiding justice to provide counsel with a timetable for the trial with some leniency given the length of time between when the case commenced and now.

The defense has entered a plea but the defendant himself up until recently was unavailable to stand before the court. The court and the previous AG could have pursued the matter in absentia but for whatever reason chose not to, willingly or unwittingly.

Nevertheless, we are here today and your honor, Romanoffia, can give us a little leeway and direction on how to proceed that would be greatly appreciated.
 
I have not fully returned from the leave of absence, and I will not be fully returned going forward. What activity I can muster will be focused on my duties as admin and the Security Council. I have to limit my exposure to all forms of stress, and the way I am proceeding personally is the best that I can do under the circumstances.

Inasmuch as I am represented by counsel, (and as far as I know they have not withdrawn) they have my permission to fully represent me in this matter. I have heard from Elu by email today and they indicate that they are continuing to represent me in this matter.
 
Thank you for your attention to this, Grosse. All possible accommodations due to your partial absence will be considered by the court.

Also, for the record, Kiwi has been appointed as a Temporary Hearing Officer in this matter.

Once everyone involved in this matter are contacted, we shall start proceedings once all the ducks are in a row, which is to say in the next day or so.
 
punk d:
I would like to ask the presiding justice to provide counsel with a timetable for the trial with some leniency given the length of time between when the case commenced and now.

The defense has entered a plea but the defendant himself up until recently was unavailable to stand before the court. The court and the previous AG could have pursued the matter in absentia but for whatever reason chose not to, willingly or unwittingly.

Nevertheless, we are here today and your honor, Romanoffia, can give us a little leeway and direction on how to proceed that would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
All necessary and reasonable leeway will be given due to the extenuating circumstances concerning the defendant and all parties involved.

I will construct a timetable based upon standard procedure with exceptions accommodating the special conditions involved in this case and have it ready as soon as I can.

I ask the AG and Defence to contact their witnesses ASAP and have their evidence and witnesses ready within the next 48 hours and inform me here in this thread if they are having any difficulties in doing so, and to be ready to make available any additional items that may be required for discover which have come to light since the pause in this case.
 
Your honours,

In the interests of seeing this trial make progress, and the good name of the region, is it sensible to allow the defendant to name as his counsel someone who has not logged into this forum once in the past month and who has been absent from the region for several months?

Apologies if this is out of order, but I felt someone ought to say it. this seems like a recipe for more delay.
 
Your honor,

I have contacted 2 of the 3 witnesses. I'm assuming Flem will be available to testify so I did not contact him directly.
 
flemingovia:
Your honours,

In the interests of seeing this trial make progress, and the good name of the region, is it sensible to allow the defendant to name as his counsel someone who has not logged into this forum once in the past month and who has been absent from the region for several months?

Apologies if this is out of order, but I felt someone ought to say it. this seems like a recipe for more delay.
Click to expand...

In theory, I don't see any legal or constitutional conflict in who someone chooses as their defense council unless that particular person is banned from the forum or otherwise prevented from acting as council for a specific legal reason. Which is to say, if the defense chooses someone for council (and a defendant has the right to choose almost anyone as council they see fit to choose) and they show up withing the scheduling constraints of the procedure, they their choice of council is acceptable.

As noted before, I am granting a great deal of leniency due to certain extenuating circumstances. That is not to say that I will allow this trial to turn into a an unreasonably drawn out state. I can assure everyone that this trial will be conducted as quickly and effectively as possible without abridging any parties rights to a fair hearing.



punk d:
Your honor,

I have contacted 2 of the 3 witnesses. I'm assuming Flem will be available to testify so I did not contact him directly.
Click to expand...

Thank you. We should be able to get this moving very soon.

I am also granting a flexible 'grace period' after each procedural step as necessary to make sure that all requirements are met. I have always found that by taking one's time, things get done a lot faster than by trying to speed up the process for the sake of speeding up the process. We will find that things will go quicker and smoother this way.
 
flemingovia:
Your honours,

In the interests of seeing this trial make progress, and the good name of the region, is it sensible to allow the defendant to name as his counsel someone who has not logged into this forum once in the past month and who has been absent from the region for several months?

Apologies if this is out of order, but I felt someone ought to say it. this seems like a recipe for more delay.
Click to expand...

Hi.
 
Romanoffia:
I will construct a timetable based upon standard procedure with exceptions accommodating the special conditions involved in this case and have it ready as soon as I can.

I ask the AG and Defence to contact their witnesses ASAP and have their evidence and witnesses ready within the next 48 hours and inform me here in this thread if they are having any difficulties in doing so, and to be ready to make available any additional items that may be required for discover which have come to light since the pause in this case.
Click to expand...

Are we to enter the Evidence Discovery phase shortly then?
 
Your honor,

For the record, as I did not state so in my previous post reopening the case, and has not been stated otherwise: I have withdrawn from the defense team, as I do not feel it would be appropriate to litigate cases when being part of the Court. Obviously this does not affect the need to recuse myself from hearing the case, given that my original participation in the defense already created an irresolvable conflict of interest.
 
Presuming that the Defense is allowed to submit an incomplete list of witnesses, I would like to submit the below names. If separated, incomplete submissions are not permitted, then please disregard this submission.

1. Tim (A.K.A. Tim-opolis, Tim Stark, Tim Winchester-Stark, etc)
2. Chasmanthe (A.K.A. Babiana, Lapeirousia, etc)
3. McMasterdonia
4. Grosseschnauzer
 
Yes, we may proceed according to the standard court rules, but I will allow for some leeway just in case we run into any kind of clusterfuck as Flemingovia so eloquently commented.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Your honor,

For the record, as I did not state so in my previous post reopening the case, and has not been stated otherwise: I have withdrawn from the defense team, as I do not feel it would be appropriate to litigate cases when being part of the Court. Obviously this does not affect the need to recuse myself from hearing the case, given that my original participation in the defense already created an irresolvable conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Understood.



Also, please not that if there are any pre-trial motions that need to be made, modified or left un-dangling, now is the time to make them.
 
Romanoffia:
r3naissanc3r:
Your honor,

For the record, as I did not state so in my previous post reopening the case, and has not been stated otherwise: I have withdrawn from the defense team, as I do not feel it would be appropriate to litigate cases when being part of the Court. Obviously this does not affect the need to recuse myself from hearing the case, given that my original participation in the defense already created an irresolvable conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Understood.



Also, please not that if there are any pre-trial motions that need to be made, modified or left un-dangling, now is the time to make them.
Click to expand...
When, exactly, is the deadline for pre-trial motions? I would not like to submit inferior work.
 
I will nominally allow another 72 hours from the time of this post with some leeway, if needed. That should permit for the submission of proper work.

Which would be until 11.59 pm EDT on the 5 October 2013 (03:59 GMT on 6 October 2013 if I did my calculations correctly). Extenuating circumstances will be considered if a little flexibility is required.
 
I would like to move that all charges against my client, Grosseschnauzer, be dismissed with prejudice.

My client is charged with Fraud for the following statement:

Grosseschnauzer:
No, I simply followed the precedent of John Hancock when he signed the Declaration of Independence.

I blieve you are aiding a coup d'etat by your actions, and I will continue to seek to have respect given to speech or continue to challenge you illegitimate behavior untl you do.

I refuse to be bullied by your tactics Kingborough, I wonder what Tim has promised you to aid in his coup against the elected Delegate. (It's clear by who is voting and what way that this is a pre-planned manuever, and I will do everything I have to do to derail it.
Click to expand...

The prosecution alleges that:

punk d:
The defendant claimed that Kingborough was aiding a coup d’etat of another Regional Assembly member Tim. The office contends that Tim was not, in fact, attempting a coup and that Grosseschnauzer defrauded the former Speaker in making claims which had no basis in fact. The office contends that Tim was not, in fact, attempting a coup and that Grosseschnauzer defrauded the former Speaker in making claims which had no basis in fact.
The defendant continued further by opining that Tim offered Kingborough something in order to aide Tim in his quest to coup the region. by not allowing the defendant to vote in a manner that was inconsistent with the rules established by Kingborough.
Click to expand...

The charges, therefore, identify only the following excerpt as allegedly fraudulent:

Grosseschnauzer:
I blieve you are aiding a coup d'etat by your actions,
Click to expand...

Yet, the word "believe" in this phrase indicates that it is a statement of Grosseschnauzer's belief. The prosecution stated that they will demonstrate this statement to be fraudulent by showing that Tim was not attempting a coup. However, even if the Prosecution were to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, it would not be evidence that Grosseschnauzer did not believe that Kingborough was aiding an attempted coup.

Criminal Code:
9. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

Since the prosecution has not stated intent to demonstrate that the statement is “an intentional deception,” even if the prosecution proves what they set out to prove, they will not have proven that the statement made by my client is fraudulent, and my client will not have been proven guilty of fraud. For this reason, this case should be dismissed with prejudice, precluding the re-filing of these charges.
 
EDIT: I hate to do this, but I have 2 midterms this week. One tonight and one Wednesday. I tried hard not to, but can we (sigh) recess until Thursday?
 
The Defence's motion be added to the record for consideration by the Court.

The Prosecution's request for an extension for additional motions is granted.

The period for making motions is extended until midnight Saturday, GMT.
 
I think we've had enough time for pre-trail motions.

We will not commence with the discovery phase of the trial for which I will nominally allow five (5) days, extensions due to extenuating circumstances allowed.

Discovery will commence at this time and will be closed at 00:01 GMT on Sunday.
 
As an additional note, and due to things going as they should (no complaints or requests from either party), once discovery has been concluded, the rest of the procedure will follow the rules strictly.

IOW, Prosecution and Defence need to get their ducks in a row from this point on because I want to dispense with this case with all due process properly applied without fail.
 
I wish to inform your munifiboodlenesses justifimakers that I am returned from my vacation and wait with eager anticipation to answer any and every question that the prosecution or defence may have for me. I am keen, sirs, keen as mustard and straining to be of helpful service. In fact, I am straining so hard I made my bowels move just a little bit. In my trousers. That is how keen I am. Please, please don't screw this trial up like you have all those other ones. I am not sure what the disappointment would do to me.
 
(To clarify, the defense is aware the Prosecution has stated that they will also be calling Tim. The defense asks if there has been a declared list of witnesses.)
 
A first evidentiary submission:

hey guys TIm and I have been planning to coup TNP over the past 2-3 months
King Durk the Awesome:
lol jk
Click to expand...
(edited by King Durk the Awesome, (time=1351395360))

King Durk the Awesome:
omg
Click to expand...
(edited by King Durk the Awesome, (time=1351395420))

King Durk the Awesome:
lol just kidding about the coup :trollface:
Click to expand...
(edited by King Durk the Awesome, (time=1351395420))

Tim:
JAL, oh you'll pay for this you little troll :P
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
I wonder how many people saw the original?
Click to expand...

Alicia DiLaurentis:
That's actually quite funny haha :D
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
Aurora DiLaurentis:
That's actually quite funny haha :D
Click to expand...
What is? :)
Click to expand...

Alicia DiLaurentis:
...this thread :P
Click to expand...

Blue Wolf II:
Seems legit.
Click to expand...

Biyah:
Why wasn't I invited? :P
Click to expand...

Tim:
Biyah:
Why wasn't I invited? :P
Click to expand...
You were

Raven Messages aren't the most reliable

And we had to send it from The Wall to Kings Landing, so that's a long flight :P
Click to expand...

Biyah:
Oh. Well, in that case...
Click to expand...

Venico:
Aww Tim I said I wanted in on the next one :(
Click to expand...

Govindia:
:fish:
Click to expand...

King Durk the Awesome:
lol
Click to expand...

Romanoffia:
Why is it that whenever there is a coup, no one ever invited me. :cry: :P
Click to expand...

I would further like to note that I would have liked to include "King Durk the Awesome" also known as Durkadurkiranistan also known as John Ashcroft Land as a witness, and in retrospect myself so that I could authenticate certain evidence in my possession.

In that respect I would like to make a procedural inquiry of the court as to whether we are following the Court Rules of February 26, 2013, the Court Rules of December 2, 2012, or the Court Rules of November 25, 2012. (This trial thread was opened 1 hour after the posting of the Court Rules of December 2, 2012. The indictment was submitted 16 minutes after the posting of the Court Rules of December 2, 2012).
 
flemingovia:
I wish to inform your munifiboodlenesses justifimakers that I am returned from my vacation and wait with eager anticipation to answer any and every question that the prosecution or defence may have for me. I am keen, sirs, keen as mustard and straining to be of helpful service. In fact, I am straining so hard I made my bowels move just a little bit. In my trousers. That is how keen I am. Please, please don't screw this trial up like you have all those other ones. I am not sure what the disappointment would do to me.
Click to expand...
Just as and official note, while I am sitting as the Presiding Justice in this case and while I am fairly tolerant of a rather wide assortment of acts that fall under the heading of jackassification, inane pontification, driveling or any combination thereof; and such acts shall not be encourage, but they will be graded.

However, any and all acts of incontinence whether or not contained withing or without one's trousers will not be tolerated. Anyone who engages in any form of incontinence, literal or metaphorical, Shall, under the special conditions and rules of this hearing (which will change accordingly as required in order to maintain order and bowel control of the participants), be forces to clean up such incontinence through the osculatory action of their mouths and conducted only by the assistance of a drinking straw inserted into the offender's appropriate orifice.

In other words, your or anyone show an outright contempt for this Court actions or these proceedings by verbal or colonic incontinence, you shall be subject to the ancient legal action of pedites ascendo rectus tuum.

So, please keep the merda taurorum to a minimum.

While I am a firm believer that everyone has a right to be a ninny-wit, some people often abuse that right.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. It has no place here.

Carry on.
 
A conversation over the "Skype" internet chat system between Durkadurkiranistan and Eluvatar.:
> [Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:33:46 PM Durkadurkiranistan] you have to log onto the forum! because I don't want to see Tim as delegate :p

> [Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:34:05 PM Durkadurkiranistan] after 14 days (another 4 days) you're automatically recalled i think

> [Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:34:12 PM Durkadurkiranistan] so just do a token login at the very least >_>

> [Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:45:19 PM Durkadurkiranistan] also, Tim wants to coup TNP (i have evidence of this), so if you don't log in within the next 4 days TNP gets couped :p

> [Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:45:26 PM Durkadurkiranistan] so ya, fyi
Click to expand...
kpkz3DL.png
The above log is copied directly from a skype program, on a computer in the US Eastern time zone.[/quote]

If permitted, I will add Durkadurkiranistan aka King Durk the Awesome aka John Ashcroft Land to the witness list in order to authenticate the log.
 
Apologies to the court, I did not originally find the witness list as it was submitted by Iro some time ago.

The defense and the prosecution would like to file a joint motion to request an extension to Discovery for one week, due to RL circumstances preventing either from deposing on weekdays and preventing the Attorney General from deposing during these last two days.

Thirdly, I have another, third, evidentiary submission: If ya smeellll what the Rock is cooking; Coup anyone?. The defense will submit a copy of that topic into the record if required, but currently that is made difficult by the topic being in an archive area.
 
Eluvatar:
A first evidentiary submission:

hey guys TIm and I have been planning to coup TNP over the past 2-3 months
King Durk the Awesome:
lol jk
Click to expand...
(edited by King Durk the Awesome, (time=1351395360))

King Durk the Awesome:
omg
Click to expand...
(edited by King Durk the Awesome, (time=1351395420))

King Durk the Awesome:
lol just kidding about the coup :trollface:
Click to expand...
(edited by King Durk the Awesome, (time=1351395420))

Tim:
JAL, oh you'll pay for this you little troll :P
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
I wonder how many people saw the original?
Click to expand...

Alicia DiLaurentis:
That's actually quite funny haha :D
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
Aurora DiLaurentis:
That's actually quite funny haha :D
Click to expand...
What is? :)
Click to expand...

Alicia DiLaurentis:
...this thread :P
Click to expand...

Blue Wolf II:
Seems legit.
Click to expand...

Biyah:
Why wasn't I invited? :P
Click to expand...

Tim:
Biyah:
Why wasn't I invited? :P
Click to expand...
You were

Raven Messages aren't the most reliable

And we had to send it from The Wall to Kings Landing, so that's a long flight :P
Click to expand...

Biyah:
Oh. Well, in that case...
Click to expand...

Venico:
Aww Tim I said I wanted in on the next one :(
Click to expand...

Govindia:
:fish:
Click to expand...

King Durk the Awesome:
lol
Click to expand...

Romanoffia:
Why is it that whenever there is a coup, no one ever invited me. :cry: :P
Click to expand...

I would further like to note that I would have liked to include "King Durk the Awesome" also known as Durkadurkiranistan also known as John Ashcroft Land as a witness, and in retrospect myself so that I could authenticate certain evidence in my possession.

In that respect I would like to make a procedural inquiry of the court as to whether we are following the Court Rules of February 26, 2013, the Court Rules of December 2, 2012, or the Court Rules of November 25, 2012. (This trial thread was opened 1 hour after the posting of the Court Rules of December 2, 2012. The indictment was submitted 16 minutes after the posting of the Court Rules of December 2, 2012).
Click to expand...
Given the extraordinary circumstances, I will grant an additional week of discovery as requested.

I know how hard some of the archived materials can be to find.

One the first evidentiary submission:

In that respect I would like to make a procedural inquiry of the court as to whether we are following the Court Rules of February 26, 2013, the Court Rules of December 2, 2012, or the Court Rules of November 25, 2012. (This trial thread was opened 1 hour after the posting of the Court Rules of December 2, 2012. The indictment was submitted 16 minutes after the posting of the Court Rules of December 2, 2012).
Click to expand...

I am using the most liberal application of the most recent court rules. I would rather have this trial run a bit longer in time span so that evidence is not discounted as a result of rigid application of technical rules unless they concern constitutional points of due process.
 
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
I wish to inform your munifiboodlenesses justifimakers that I am returned from my vacation and wait with eager anticipation to answer any and every question that the prosecution or defence may have for me. I am keen, sirs, keen as mustard and straining to be of helpful service. In fact, I am straining so hard I made my bowels move just a little bit. In my trousers. That is how keen I am. Please, please don't screw this trial up like you have all those other ones. I am not sure what the disappointment would do to me.
Click to expand...
Just as and official note, while I am sitting as the Presiding Justice in this case and while I am fairly tolerant of a rather wide assortment of acts that fall under the heading of jackassification, inane pontification, driveling or any combination thereof; and such acts shall not be encourage, but they will be graded.

However, any and all acts of incontinence whether or not contained withing or without one's trousers will not be tolerated. Anyone who engages in any form of incontinence, literal or metaphorical, Shall, under the special conditions and rules of this hearing (which will change accordingly as required in order to maintain order and bowel control of the participants), be forces to clean up such incontinence through the osculatory action of their mouths and conducted only by the assistance of a drinking straw inserted into the offender's appropriate orifice.

In other words, your or anyone show an outright contempt for this Court actions or these proceedings by verbal or colonic incontinence, you shall be subject to the ancient legal action of pedites ascendo rectus tuum.

So, please keep the merda taurorum to a minimum.

While I am a firm believer that everyone has a right to be a ninny-wit, some people often abuse that right.

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. It has no place here.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
I thank your honour for the clarification. I will be sure to use the proper terms of address from now on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top