The North Pacific v. Grosseschnauzer

flemingovia:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm going to say something here as a warning to all, so, Flem, don't take this personally.

I will not take any crap from anyone even in the sense of sarcasm or maudlin humour here that will even remotely affect any legal opinion I have in this case when all is said and done. I have read your comment(s) and taken them into consideration as they relate to this case and the TNP Consitution.

Now I am going to make a comment that is possibly OOC and probably inappropriate here, but it has a direct bearing on my level of tolerance and sense of humour in relation to this case or anything else on this forum.

My father is 92 years old and he is dying. He, as an American, volunteered to serve in the RAF in WWII to save your sorry asses in the face of the onslaught of the Nazis. He shot down a dozen or so Luftwaffe pilots and when the US entered the war, he served against the Japanese for the rest of the war, above and beyond the call of duty.

He always taught me that whether it is play or not, you deal fairly with all parties, enemy or not. This was an absolute. You obey the rules, and you play by the rules regardless of whether the enemy obeyed by the rules or not. Trying to influence people with inane babbling and obfuscation is to be ignored.

Frankly, in character or not, I don't give a crap. I understand you are a God-Mod admin on this board. You have the ability to silence anything anyone says, dictatorially. But don't ever, every, ever push my good disposition.

Yeah, I am pissed, but not at you specifically nor anyone else. I am pissed at the general disrespect some people have at the TNP Court because they want a decision before it it is rendered after due consideration.

I am just about the most fair person that you will find in TNP to deal with court cases because, frankly, after about 12 years of BS and bickering I have arrived at a state of I don't give a sod when it concerns political influence that is presented in an attempt to influence my decisions. I will make a decision based upon the evidence presented and according to the TNP, God forbid, Rules, laws, regulations and (God forbid) tradition in terms of the intents of said laws.

DO NOT come into this court room and present unrequested nor unwarranted material.

In other words, As presiding judge, I will expect you to display the proper level of respect, regardless of your admin status, or STFU unless you are called a witness in this case.

As a matter of personal honour and in the spirit of keeping a 'stiff upper lip', regardless of personal RL tragedy, I will continue to preside over this case with all due diligence and in respect to the proper and honourable delivery of justice in a fashion that my father would be proud of, game or RL.

In other words, cut out the crap. Let's get this case over with in a fair and impartial way. And I don't want to have to use my abilities in this section of the forum to silence contemptuous behaviour.

Nothing personal, but I'm getting a little bit pissed off about the flippancy here. If anyone wants this case over and done with, or any such case before my bench, then I suggest that the idiotic comments from the peanut gallery be dispensed with.

I will not take any crap from anyone.

Do I make myself clear?

OK, in a radical judicial action, I am going to ask everyone here if discovery has been properly accomplished and if there are no objections, I would like to move this on ASAP.

We are going to need till Monday, your honor.

The prosecution hates using the excuse of RL, but RL has been a bugger the last few weeks as evidenced by much of my absence. I am going to try to work with defense to complete discovery by Monday, with respect to your honor.

OK, Monday is fine with me.

You know, I'm not trying to be a martyr here, but I will try to tell the truth, I don't have time to execute the duties of my office.

I could give you the reasons, but they'd just be excuses. I've tried to focus on this, but with other things going on, it is not possible. I apologize to the court, to the voters, to TNP, and to the defendant.

Here is what I'd like the court to consider. We are in the midst of elections, this case (unfortunately) fell off the radar for months, could we possible give the next AG the opportunity to view this quickly and move on it? I know that is asking much of this court but I will not be able to fulfill my role in this courtroom and that is no one's fault but my own.

The defense, understanding that the court rules limit its ability to gather evidence in the absence of the prosecution, is prepared to wait for a prosecutor to be available.

punk d:

You know, I'm not trying to be a martyr here, but I will try to tell the truth, I don't have time to execute the duties of my office.

I could give you the reasons, but they'd just be excuses. I've tried to focus on this, but with other things going on, it is not possible. I apologize to the court, to the voters, to TNP, and to the defendant.

Here is what I'd like the court to consider. We are in the midst of elections, this case (unfortunately) fell off the radar for months, could we possible give the next AG the opportunity to view this quickly and move on it? I know that is asking much of this court but I will not be able to fulfill my role in this courtroom and that is no one's fault but my own.

Click to expand...

That would be acceptable. Granted.

Eluvatar:

The defense, understanding that the court rules limit its ability to gather evidence in the absence of the prosecution, is prepared to wait for a prosecutor to be available.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

We shall continue upon the installation of the next AG.

Thank you, your honor.

That said, while we wait, could an answer to the defense's motion to dismiss be formulated? I don't believe further evidence is required to answer it.

Let me give all the evidence a good going over again and I will render a determination ASAP.

I need to remind the Court that I am currently serving as a THO on this case.

It seems more practical to continue with the current AG rather than switching to a new THO + AG. (Perhaps a little presumptuous to assume I will be taking over as AG but that looks to be the outcome.)

After the election is over,the current AG will be retired. That much is certain so i do not believe the current AG will be available to finish the case.

I thought about allowing the current AG to continue on the case, but, as the current AG has noted, he will likely not be available after the election to do so.

I currently have not decided whether I will personally prosecute this case. I will wait to see if anyone else shows an interest (a period of approx 24-48 hours).

In the interim I request that the Court select a Chief Justice and confirm which Justice will continue as moderating justice.

Furthermore, I ask that the court suspend any decision on any outstanding requests from opposing counsel.

Thank you, Kiwi.

The justices are now in the process of selecting a chief justice. My suspicion is that - on pure common sense grounds - Roman will continue to oversee this case. But that will be up to whoever gets the Chief justice hat.

Kiwi:

I currently have not decided whether I will personally prosecute this case. I will wait to see if anyone else shows an interest (a period of approx 24-48 hours).

In the interim I request that the Court select a Chief Justice and confirm which Justice will continue as moderating justice.

Furthermore, I ask that the court suspend any decision on any outstanding requests from opposing counsel.

Click to expand...

Granted by the Court.

flemingovia:

Thank you, Kiwi.

The justices are now in the process of selecting a chief justice. My suspicion is that - on pure common sense grounds - Roman will continue to oversee this case. But that will be up to whoever gets the Chief justice hat.

Click to expand...

I shall indeed be continuing with this case and we shall proceed to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Romanoffia:

Kiwi:

I currently have not decided whether I will personally prosecute this case. I will wait to see if anyone else shows an interest (a period of approx 24-48 hours).

In the interim I request that the Court select a Chief Justice and confirm which Justice will continue as moderating justice.

Furthermore, I ask that the court suspend any decision on any outstanding requests from opposing counsel.

Click to expand...

Granted by the Court.

Click to expand...

Until what time has the decision regarding the motion to dismiss been suspended?

Correct.

Once the new AG is up to speed on this, which I will give about three or four days to be so, I will go over everything again that has been presented and render a decision (after consulting with the other Justices) as to whether or not we dismiss or continue.

My apologies to the Court for my delayed response to this matter. I've been trying to decide whether I should be prosecuting this matter and whether I can find someone else to do it justice. Unfortunately, no one else seems to be in a position to prosecute the case in a timely manner.

Furthermore, with all due respect to the former Attorney General, this entire case stinks of incompetence. The former AG swore in his oath that he would not commit nonfeasance in his duties but that is exactly what has happened here. To this effect, I have received no notes, correspondence or any other material indicative of a trial strategy. I have personally had to go through the previous lists of witnesses and evidence given to try ascertain the direction sought by the former AG in these proceedings. This is quite the undertaking considering I'm the third or fourth AG to prosecute this case. (I'm still very much in the process of doing this.)

Most seriously several pieces of evidence proposed for admission by Eluvatar seemingly encroach on areas forbidden by the evidential rules of this Court. I note that Eluvatar diligently has acknowledged this and gone to lengths to remedy this to some extent. The former AG (as I understand it) should have posted a submission on this point but has failed to do so to the detriment of the Citizens of the North Pacific. That said, I note that we are still in the discovery phase of the trial so this can be remedied.

If the Court will permit me to do so, I would like to prosecute this case but I request a little bit of leeway given the aforementioned points and thus request that the Court:

• allow me to provide a submission on the evidence given before any ruling is made on the admissibility of evidence already provided by opposing counsel (as we are still in discovery this shouldn't be an issue)
• allow me to provide a rebuttal submission to the motion to dismiss requested by opposing counsel before any determination is made
• allow myself and Eluvatar a reasonable period of time to conduct depositions given our differing timezones and the availability of witnesses

As I understand them, the witness lists are currently the following:

The Defence:
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

The Prosecution:
1. Kingborough
2. Tim
3. Flemingovia

I have contacted Kingborough and Tim to ascertain that they are available to give evidence. I note the witness list that I have managed to piece together includes Flemingovia. I would thus also ask that his honour step down and a THO be appointed. Furthermore, I would ask that witness examination be in the form of deposition as opposed to affidavit as several of the defences witnesses should realistically have also been listed for the prosecution.

I apologise if this message has become nonsensical but it has taken me quite some time to piece together the clusterf*** that is this trial thread.

Your requests are granted. Since Flemingovia is a Justice, he will obviously have to recuse himself in the capacity of a Justice (naturally). So, I will get together with the Chief Justice and we will assign a new THO for this case.

Despite the current court procedural rules, I think we can get this trial completed soon.

Thank you, your honour. I'll post my submission on the motion to dismiss first, within 24 hours.

I apologise again that it has taken me a while to get this submission together. Ironically I imply that Eluvatar has gone too far into substantive matters that are best decided in a trial and I do that exact same thing myself in my rebuttal to his motion to dismiss.

The important point here though is that the defence is using a fact in issue as a mechanism to dismiss all charges. The fact that it is "in issue" says it all. A trial needs to happen before the Court can decide whether there is an intentional deception or not.

I've included the rest of my submission below but it is regrettably still clunky, doesn't read well in places and goes into too much detail for a rebuttal submission. I submit it to the Court now for the benefit of expediency, so make of it what you will.

Rebuttal Submission:

As I understand it your honour, almost all indictments are accepted assuming they comply with the basic procedural formalities. A motion to dismiss thus is the first barrier preventing an action that is entirely without cause or lacks an arguable case. Putting this another way, a motion to dismiss should only be accepted where the Court and the decision maker or fact finder would not benefit from a substantive trial. Opposing counsel has based his motion to dismiss on a factual argument relying on a fact in issue. A fact in issue being a fact that is contentious which neither side agrees on. The defence believes that Grosseschnauzer lacked the intentional deception necessary to meet the definition of fraud. With all due respect to Eluvatar, the prosecution does not agree. A motion to dismiss should not rely on a fact in issue when the determination of which is best left to a substantive hearing, not to a motion to dismiss.

I submit to the court that "intention" as an element of an offence (known as the Mens rea or "guilty mind") can take many forms. Conduct is intended when the accused intends a particular consequence of their act (direct intention) or where the event is a so-called "natural consequence" of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such (known as oblique intention). Alternatively for the sake of simplicity and sanity, the Court may take a less rigid interpretation of the definition allowing a lesser requirement of recklessness. The idea being that Grosseschnauzer acted so recklessly as to whether his comments were damaging and deceptive, that it ought to meet the definition of fraud anyway. At any rate, I reiterate to the Court that such a discussion of the requirement of "intentional deception" in this context is best left to a substantive hearing.

The defence refers to Grosseschnauzer's 'belief' but even if such an argument is accepted by this Court, Grosseschnauzer used words indicative of his claim having a basis in fact i.e. "It's clear by who is voting and what way that this is a pre-planned manuever ". Tim didn't coup therefore the aforementioned clarity relating to voting happenings, did not exist and thus referencing such clarity is prima facie, fraudulent.

I submit that while the former Attorney General has erred in his statement of claim, Grosseschnauzer's fraud has taken several forms. He claims that Kingborough aided in a Coup by his actions, that his course of conduct is illegitimate, infers that he was promised something for his assistance and finally that this series of actions is pre-planned. As a result the defence is incorrect in speculating that only part of the passage is fraudulent. Indeed, if testimony can establish that any of these listed events have not occurred in fact and intention can be inferred from Grosse's conduct, he will be guilty of fraud. Grosse was angry that his vote was invalidated by the speaker so he lashed out by making damaging speculatory statements that had no basis in fact. When Grosse's statements were unsuccessful he sought a recall of Kingborough, persisted in the conduct prohibited by the speaker and finally sought Court intervention. All of which failed. Grosse (as far as this office is aware) has not retracted his statements and thus arguably a lack of such a retraction is another possible avenue allowing an inference of intention.

From the evidence it is clear that the defence wishes to establish that it was reasonable to believe that Tim wanted to coup the region. Even if the defence can prove that there was a possibility that Tim did intend to Coup the region, it cannot substantiate the entirety of the allegation made by Grosseschaunzer i.e. that Tim was planning to coup the region, that Kingborough was aiding him in doing so and that this aid took the form of invalidating the accused's vote. Nor would such evidence account for the entirety of the statement made by Grosse. (See above paragraph)

Furthermore, with all due respect, I submit to the Court that the vote of the accused would have made no material difference, even if it were valid. This is pertinent given that this is the so-called support that Kingborough was using to assist in a coup. This point will be confirmed in testimony to come. In other words, the accused cannot have believed that Kingborough was invalidating his vote to aid Tim in couping the North Pacific. Indeed, if Tim had wanted to coup the region, he could have done so, changed forum and invalidated any need for assistance from the Speaker.

Unfortunately in text communications evidence of an intentional deception is hard to come by but the prosecution seeks to utilise witness testimony combined with substantive legal arguments to prove this point beyond reasonable doubt. I submit to the Court that the motion to dismiss should be denied on the basis that there is a more than minimal case to argue and thus the trial should proceed on that basis.

Furthermore, the prosecution submits that while there may be a situation in which the belief of the accused is relevant in ascertaining whether a falsehood is in fact an intentional deception, stating "I believe" before a statement does not prevent a statement being both false and an intentional deception. An example would be where I state: "I believe McMasterdonia is not the delegate". While I have stated that McMasterdonia is not delegate, the Court could easily draw the inference that this is a falsehood and an intentional deception.

Alternatively, if the Court believes that a belief is enough to shield a statement maker from criminal charges for fraud, I would argue that such statements or conduct would need to be based on a belief reasonably held. If the defence wishes to use such a shield, they would thus have the onus of proving such a belief existed and that it is one which is reasonably held. Again, such a discussion is more in the realm of a substantive discussion among legal arguments.

Even if such a motion was to be accepted by this Court (the prosecution in no way concedes to such a suggestion), there is no reason for it to be with prejudice. The Court has accommodated all of the defendant's requests for delay and realistically the charges should only be discharged with prejudice in extenuating circumstances quite different from the present case. In this case, to the contrary, the extended delay has unfairly prejudiced the prosecution in securing witness testimony (Kingborough has thus far not replied to my messages).

Click to expand...

Your honour I've also noticed in the Attorney General's office a piece of evidence that should have been submitted earlier in discovery. If not to the Court but at least to opposing counsel.

I submit this evidence to the Court now (although it suffers from the same issue of hearsay that arises in some of the defence's evidence) but given that King has not returned my messages, it may be the only evidence from him we will receive.

I will consider the additional evidence submitted. I will also re-examine all the evidence submitted by the Prosecution as a whole and make a determination as it is relevant to the Defense's motion to dismiss, and as to whether or not, if dismissed, it should be with or without prejudice or go to full trial.

Your honour, the prosecution wishes to see a speedy resolution to this matter.

After 5 days, has the Court made a decision on the outstanding motion to dismiss?

I will deliver a decision on the motion to dismiss within 24 hours.

If I may clarify, the defense's submission in the motion to dismiss is not that there was no intended deception (though that is the case) but that the stated charges do not allege intended deception.

Eluvatar:

If I may clarify, the defense's submission in the motion to dismiss is not that there was no intended deception (though that is the case) but that the stated charges do not allege intended deception.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, it is my submission to the Court that the statement within the indictment itself need not explain that there is intentional deception.

It is implied by the combination of the charge and PunkD's statement of events that the prosecution believes an intentional deception exists.

For the record, I am recused as a justice pertaining to this trial. I will not be taking any part in these proceedings except as a witness and will neither view nor take part in discussions in closed chambers.

Working on the decision concerning the request for dismissal at this time. A decision has not been arrived at yet.

Kiwi:

Eluvatar:

If I may clarify, the defense's submission in the motion to dismiss is not that there was no intended deception (though that is the case) but that the stated charges do not allege intended deception.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, it is my submission to the Court that the statement within the indictment itself need not explain that there is intentional deception.

It is implied by the combination of the charge and PunkD's statement of events that the prosecution believes an intentional deception exists.

Click to expand...

While the implication that the accuser believes Grosseschnauzer intentionally deceives exists, the Defense cannot know how the charges mean Grosseschnauzer to have intentionally deceived if the charges do not say. A trial cannot be fair if the defense knows not how the defendant is accused of having broken the law. As an aside, as of the Court's opinion in regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Tim on the Attorney General Refusing to bring Trials to the Court, the prosecution is obligated to file charges regardless of whether they believe them, so we do not know that the prosecution believes this. That question however is not relevant. What is relevant is not what the prosecution believes, but what it has stated to the Court.

OK, here we go.

Motion to Dismiss, denied:

I don't see anything technically defective with the indictment to the point that suggests the case should be dismissed. This has been going on for a year and I think it's about time it be resolved via a full trial for better or worse. I will not see this case come back again after this, one way or another.

From this point on, we will obey a strict time table.

A five (5) day period, beginning now, for discovery and depositions will now commence. That means there will be 5 days for discovery, 3 days for arguments, 4 days for deliberation and verdict, no ifs, ands or buts.

The Prosecution and Defense will also collect all the evidence they've submitted, and add anything else they need and put it all in one coherent post so that the Court doesn't have to go digging around for submitted evidence.

You have five (5) days to get it done. So, get working.

An inquiry of the Court: Will the defense be permitted to depose "King Durk the Awesome" to authenticate evidence?

I will submit that as the Court only recently settled pretrial motions, under Article 2 Clause 4 of the rules, Discovery only just commenced. Therefore I am declaring "King Durk the Awesome" as a witness for the defense.

Eluvatar:

An inquiry of the Court: Will the defense be permitted to depose "King Durk the Awesome" to authenticate evidence?

Click to expand...

The Defense and Prosecution shall be afforded such depositions.

Eluvatar:

I will submit that as the Court only recently settled pretrial motions, under Article 2 Clause 4 of the rules, Discovery only just commenced. Therefore I am declaring "King Durk the Awesome" as a witness for the defense.

Click to expand...

This is permitted.

As a judicial note, Blue Wolf has accepted an appointment as THO in this case.

Depositions for both JAL and Tim have so far been conducted.

I have no idea whether we're going to be able to have them all done by the end of the supplied 5 days, however.

Try to get them done within the time limit. I would make life go easier for all involved.

JAL Deposition for the Defense:

[(time=1386385380)] --> omgitsjackwtf joined the channel
[(time=1386385380)] <omgitsjackwtf> I like big butts and I cannot lie
[(time=1386385380)] <omgitsjackwtf> and I want that on the record
[(time=1386385500)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, the basic rules for these, as I understand them, are that first the calling party goes than the other party gets a chance to cross-examine. During each phase, the questioner asks a question, then the other party states an objection or not. If they say they are not objecting, you can immediately answer. If they object, the questioner will make clear if, after the objection is on the record, you should answer anyway.
[(time=1386385560)] <Eluvatar> Did that make any sense?
[(time=1386385560)] <omgitsjackwtf> sure
[(time=1386385560)] <Eluvatar> (The court goes through later to strip out questions and answers where they sustain the objection)
[(time=1386385620)] <Eluvatar> While Kiwi's getting ready, I'll leave this question for him to address when he's ready, and you to answer:
[(time=1386385680)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, are you the person known as John Ashcroft Land, Durkadurkiranistan, and "King Durk the Awesome" currently?
[(time=1386385680)] <omgitsjackwtf> I'm your every fantasy and wildest dream
[(time=1386385740)] <omgitsjackwtf> also yes, i am
[(time=1386385740)] <Eluvatar> >.<
[(time=1386385740)] <Kiwi> No objection - keep going Elu I'll keep up
[(time=1386385800)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, is http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8118505&t=6991367 an accurate transcription of a conversation we had, at the time described?
[(time=1386385860)] <omgitsjackwtf> correct, it is
[(time=1386385920)] <Kiwi> no objection (lol wrong order but oh well)
[(time=1386385920)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, is http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8121864&t=6991367 a correct copy of some conversations between you and Tim which you posted in this topic: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6977196/1/ ?
[(time=1386385980)] <Kiwi> no objection
[(time=1386385980)] <omgitsjackwtf> correct
[(time=1386386040)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, why did you remove the conversations between you and Tim from the aforementioned topic?
[(time=1386386040)] <omgitsjackwtf> cause Tim is my favorite teen wonder
[(time=1386386040)] <omgitsjackwtf> slightly edging out Mahaj
[(time=1386386040)] <omgitsjackwtf> also i think i felt bad for him at the time for some reason
[(time=1386386100)] <Eluvatar> Kiwi?
[(time=1386386100)] <Kiwi> Erm, no objection... at least not to what you've said >_>
[(time=1386386100)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, did Tim ask you to remove them?
[(time=1386386100)] <Kiwi> Leading the witness
[(time=1386386160)] <Eluvatar> D:
[(time=1386386160)] <omgitsjackwtf> I think so
[(time=1386386160)] <omgitsjackwtf> don't really remember tbh
[(time=1386386160)] <omgitsjackwtf> but it sounds likely
[(time=1386386160)] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, why did your feelings toward Tim cause you to remove the logs?
[(time=1386386160)] <omgitsjackwtf> because he asked
[(time=1386386160)] <Kiwi> no objection
[(time=1386386160)] <omgitsjackwtf> probably
[(time=1386386160)] <Eluvatar> OK
[(time=1386386220)] <omgitsjackwtf> brb have to fap
[(time=1386386220)] <Eluvatar> No further questions
[(time=1386386220)] <omgitsjackwtf> ok
[(time=1386386220)] <omgitsjackwtf> (typing w/ one hand)
[(time=1386386220)] <omgitsjackwtf> jk
[(time=1386386280)] <Eluvatar> Uh, please allow Kiwi to cross-examine
[(time=1386386280)] <omgitsjackwtf> ok
[(time=1386386280)] <Kiwi> In discussing a possible coup of TNP with Tim, were you serious?
[(time=1386386280)] <omgitsjackwtf> yes
[(time=1386386340)] <Eluvatar> no objection
[(time=1386386340)] <omgitsjackwtf> OBJECTION!
[(time=1386386340)] <Kiwi> Did this plan require help from anyone else other than Tim?
[(time=1386386340)] <omgitsjackwtf> I don't recall
[(time=1386386340)] <Eluvatar> no objection
[(time=1386386340)] <omgitsjackwtf> I think the idea was just to have the masses elect him as delegate
[(time=1386386400)] <Kiwi> Grosse alleged that King (as the speaker of the time) discounted Grosse's vote to assist Tim and yourself couping the region. Was this the case?
[(time=1386386460)] <Eluvatar> Objection
[(time=1386386460)] <Eluvatar> er, withdrawn
[(time=1386386460)] <Eluvatar> no objection
[(time=1386386580)] <Kiwi> omgitsjackwtf: You may answer
[(time=1386386760)] <omgitsjackwtf> oh right
[(time=1386386820)] <omgitsjackwtf> I was not aware of such an arrangement
[(time=1386386880)] <Kiwi> Did you ever talk to King about couping the region or his assistance in doing so?
[(time=1386386940)] <Eluvatar> Objection, relevance?
[(time=1386387000)] <Eluvatar> (Grosse is accused of Fraud in saying Kingborough was working with Tim toward a coup)
[(time=1386387000)] <Eluvatar> (Tim, not JAL)
[(time=1386387060)] <Kiwi> JAL was part of the plot so it stands to reason that he may have knowledge of what occured.
[(time=1386387060)] <Kiwi> The Court can decide that one. Proceed JAL.
[(time=1386387360)] <omgitsjackwtf> i did not talk to King
[(time=1386387360)] <omgitsjackwtf> Tim was the main driver behind the plot
[(time=1386387360)] <Kiwi> That's all I need. Anything you want to re-examine on Eluvatar?
[(time=1386387420)] <Eluvatar> Nope.
[(time=1386387420)] <omgitsjackwtf> ok cool
[(time=1386387420)] <omgitsjackwtf> so which side are each of you on?
[(time=1386387420)] <omgitsjackwtf>
[(time=1386387420)] <Eluvatar> LOL
[(time=1386387420)] <omgitsjackwtf> i have no idea what's going on
[(time=1386387420)] <Eluvatar> I'm Grosse's defense attorney
[(time=1386387420)] <omgitsjackwtf> ok cool
[(time=1386387420)] <Eluvatar> Kiwi is the Attorney Geberak
[(time=1386387480)] <Eluvatar> Romanoffia is the presiding justice btw
[(time=1386387480)] <Eluvatar> COE is Chief Justice of the court however, and also part of the panel for this case.
[(time=1386387480)] <Eluvatar> He is present here as a neutral witness.
[(time=1386387540)] <omgitsjackwtf> kewl

Judicial note: No objections were sustained.

Tim Deposition for the Defense:

[(time=1386376500)] --> You joined the channel
[(time=1386376500)] --- warden.esper.net changed mode: +nt
[(time=1386376920)] --> COE joined the channel
[(time=1386376920)] <Eluvatar> Kiwi and Tim have been invited and are online
[(time=1386376920)] <COE> Is this an impromptu deposition or something?
[(time=1386376920)] --> Kiwi joined the channel
[(time=1386376920)] --- Eluvatar changed mode: +o COE
[(time=1386376920)] --- Eluvatar changed mode: -o Eluvatar
[(time=1386376920)] <Eluvatar> I will go bother Tim again
[(time=1386376920)] <Kiwi> Hola! Sorry was a bit preoccupied.
[(time=1386376920)] <Kiwi> Okie dokie. Five day discovery is going to be... fun.
[(time=1386376980)] --> Tim joined the channel
[(time=1386376980)] <Tim>
[(time=1386376980)] <Kiwi> A wild Tim appears!
[(time=1386376980)] <Eluvatar> Excellent
[(time=1386376980)] <Tim> What happened!
[(time=1386376980)] <Tim>
[(time=1386376980)] <Tim> Am I on trial?!
[(time=1386376980)] <Eluvatar> We would like to depose you for TNP v Grosseschnauzer
[(time=1386376980)] <Eluvatar> as a witness
[(time=1386376980)] <Kiwi> Tim: You're always on trial... but the witness part is true too
[(time=1386376980)] <Tim> For or Against?
[(time=1386376980)] <Tim>
[(time=1386377040)] <Kiwi> Both.
[(time=1386377040)] <COE> My presence here is unnecessary - any objections to questions need to be decided by Roman, as the moderating justice
[(time=1386377040)] <Kiwi> With a deposition all objections are preserved for the record to be decided alter
[(time=1386377040)] <Kiwi> **later
[(time=1386377040)] <Eluvatar> I ask you to be present as an impartial witness COE
[(time=1386377100)] <COE> Ah, fair enough
[(time=1386377100)] <COE> [19:44] <Kiwi> With a deposition all objections are preserved for the record to be decided alter << was about to point that out
[(time=1386377100)] <Eluvatar> You arenot required to submit a copy of the deposition by the court rules COE
[(time=1386377100)] <Eluvatar> but if you could verify the copies Kiwi and I submit that would be great
[(time=1386377100)] <COE> Sure
[(time=1386377160)] <Eluvatar> Kiwi, would you like to depose Tim first?
[(time=1386377160)] <Kiwi> It's up to you - I'm just having a quick re-read of the deposition rules
[(time=1386377160)] <Kiwi> So if you want to go first, you can.
[(time=1386377220)] <Eluvatar> Let me just check the review that I needed before deposing Tim in the first place..
[(time=1386377220)] <Eluvatar> OK
[(time=1386377280)] <Eluvatar> Tim, did you ever talk to JALby about couping TNP?
[(time=1386377280)] <Kiwi> No objection
[(time=1386377340)] <Tim> We did joke about the matter, yes.
[(time=1386377400)] <Eluvatar> Tim, could you explain a bit how you joked about couping TNP?
[(time=1386377400)] <Kiwi> no objection
[(time=1386377760)] <Tim> The usual stuff. "Lol man u run del and I run VD. Totes coup"
[(time=1386377760)] <Tim> Basically, JAL was joking about couping TNP by winning the election. I assumed he was kidding because he had no way in hell of winning the election.
[(time=1386377820)] <Tim> So I, assuming it was basically a conversation between friends, discussed the topic with him; similarly to the 1000+ conversations that we all know have happened to joke about couping TP, or something similar.
[(time=1386377880)] <Eluvatar> Tim, are you familiar with this topic: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6977196/1/
[(time=1386377880)] <Kiwi> No objections
[(time=1386377880)] <Tim> Of course.
[(time=1386377940)] <Eluvatar> Tim, could you explain what was in the first two posts prior to JAL editing them?
[(time=1386377940)] <Eluvatar> *three
[(time=1386377940)] <Kiwi> no objections
[(time=1386378240)] <Tim> I honestly can't remember the details. I'd assume it'd be logs of us chatting/joking about it?
[(time=1386378240)] <Eluvatar> Was it this: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8121864&t=6991367 ?
[(time=1386378240)] <Kiwi> no objection
[(time=1386378360)] <Tim> Seems familiar.
[(time=1386378420)] <Eluvatar> Tim, was material which was that submission or text equally revealing posted by JAL in this topic: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6977196/1/ ?
[(time=1386378420)] <Tim> I would assume so.
[(time=1386378420)] <Tim> As said, it was a year ago, I can't remember details if I wanted to.
[(time=1386378480)] <Eluvatar> Quite understandable.
[(time=1386378540)] <Kiwi> Indeed.

[(time=1386378540)] Objection by Kiwi to relevance of question sustained
[(time=1386378600)]
[(time=1386378660)]
[(time=1386378720)]
[(time=1386378720)]
[(time=1386378720)]
[(time=1386378720)]
[(time=1386378780)]

[(time=1386378780)] <Tim> I'm doing other things too, so not paying the best attention.
[(time=1386378780)] <Kiwi> All good. I have to go to an appointment for 30 mins Tim. Will you be around after then?
[(time=1386378780)] <Tim> Likely.
[(time=1386378840)] <Kiwi> Okay. Eluvatar - recess for 30 mins assuming Tim is still around?
[(time=1386378840)] <Eluvatar> Kiwi: I have 1 more question, probably, fwiw.
[(time=1386378840)] <Eluvatar> Sure.
[(time=1386378840)] <Kiwi> Ah okay.

[(time=1386378840)] Answer to sustained objection to question.
[(time=1386378840)]

[(time=1386378840)] <Eluvatar> Tim, did you ask JAL to redact the posts in the previously mentioned topic where he posted logs of discussing couping TNP with you?
[(time=1386378840)] <Eluvatar> er Kiwi hasn't responded to that
[(time=1386378840)] <Eluvatar> so belay that until after we resume, I guess.
[(time=1386378900)] <Kiwi> Yeah that's fine. We'll deal with the latter one when I get back lol.
[(time=1386378900)] <Eluvatar> OK
[(time=1386378900)] <Kiwi> Going to be cutting it close! brb!
[(time=1386378900)] <Eluvatar> Tim, you may answer the question about whether you asked JAL to redact the posts.
[(time=1386378900)] <Tim> [08:11:44] <Eluvatar> Tim, did you ask JAL to redact the posts in the previously mentioned topic where he posted logs of discussing couping TNP with you? <- Yes. I didn't see reason for him to shit stir on a matter that had been closed and resolved. It was, at least on my end, joking; yet as you know, we have our Gameplay shitstirrers who'd assume quite differently.
[(time=1386378960)] <Eluvatar> OK
[(time=1386378960)] <Eluvatar> No further questions.
[(time=1386379020)] <Eluvatar> The prosecution will question you after our recess
[(time=1386379020)] <Tim> Alright.
[(time=1386380940)] <Tim> 30 minutes. :S
[(time=1386381120)] <Eluvatar> Kiwi?
[(time=1386381180)] <Eluvatar> I'd pretend to be Kiwi and ask questions and then act as me and object/not object to them but that'd break all the ethical rules
[(time=1386381240)] <Eluvatar> (brb in 2-3 minutes)
[(time=1386381360)] <Eluvatar> (back)
[(time=1386381480)] * Tim nods.
[(time=1386381480)] <Tim> Heh.
[(time=1386381480)] <Eluvatar> I didn't lie!
[(time=1386382860)] <Eluvatar> I move to adjourn, though I will obviously come back if I am available and Kiwi shows up.
[(time=1386382920)] <Kiwi> Sorry - just back, will be ready in 5 if you both are still around.
[(time=1386382980)] <Tim> Eluvatar!
[(time=1386382980)] <Tim>
[(time=1386382980)] <Eluvatar> oh
[(time=1386382980)] <Eluvatar> I'm here
[(time=1386383040)] <COE> Still witnessing
[(time=1386383040)] <Eluvatar> I'd rather do this now than later!
[(time=1386383040)] <Kiwi> Yep - righto. One moment.
[(time=1386383100)] <Kiwi> You have said that you joked about couping the region. Has anyone, including prominent government officials, to your knowledge, done the same?
[(time=1386383100)] <Kiwi> Eluvatar: You will need to state whether you object or not
[(time=1386383160)] <Eluvatar> No objection.
[(time=1386383220)] <Tim> I believe I have witnessed McMasterdonia making jokes on the matter in Cabinet a few times. JAL used to be a prominent government official... so JAL. Mall, obviously, as well.
[(time=1386383220)] <Tim> So, yes.
[(time=1386383280)] <Kiwi> Have you ever seriously considered couping the region?
[(time=1386383280)] <Eluvatar> No objection
[(time=1386383340)] <Tim> No.
[(time=1386383400)] <Kiwi> When you requested that JAL edit the posts in question - was it because you were worried about your reputation or because other citizens of TNP might consider this a credible threat to TNP security?
[(time=1386383460)] <Tim> Both.
[(time=1386383460)] <Tim> More the latter.
[(time=1386383460)] <Eluvatar> No objection :|
[(time=1386383460)] <Tim> Oh, sorry Elu ><
[(time=1386383460)] <Tim> My reputation has suffered worse than coup allegations, so I didn't care too much there. The latter was worrysome, since it might cause panic.
[(time=1386383520)] <Kiwi> Tim: Beyond what we have seen in the evidential logs etc. Did you ever get into substantive details about when, if and how a coup might occur?
[(time=1386383580)] <Eluvatar> No objection.
[(time=1386383760)] <Tim> No.
[(time=1386383760)] <Tim> That would involve planning to be taken to an actual level, which I had no plans on ever doing.
[(time=1386383760)] <Kiwi> Right.
[(time=1386383760)] <Kiwi> Would any such plans have involved the speaker and would the speaker's help have been necessary?
[(time=1386383820)] <Eluvatar> Objection, you're asking Tim to speculate.
[(time=1386383820)] <Kiwi> I'll rephrase
[(time=1386383880)] <Kiwi> Actually - answer anyway, the Court can remove it if necessary.
[(time=1386383880)] <Tim> In my thoughts, absolutely not.
[(time=1386383940)] <Kiwi> Did you ever converse with King at the time?
[(time=1386384000)] <Eluvatar> Objection, vague??
[(time=1386384000)] <Eluvatar> and/or irrelevant?
[(time=1386384000)] <Kiwi> Okay. I'll withdraw that one.
[(time=1386384060)] <Kiwi> Have you ever talked to King about couping the region?
[(time=1386384060)] <Eluvatar> No objection.
[(time=1386384300)] * Eluvatar pings Tim >__>
[(time=1386384600)] <Tim> Sorry, back.
[(time=1386384600)] <Eluvatar> ah!
[(time=1386384660)] <Tim> I did not speak to Kingborough on the matter ever, nor did JAL; to my knowledge.
[(time=1386384660)] <Kiwi> Okay. Great. One final question.
[(time=1386384660)] <Kiwi> Hmm actually I'll leave it there.
[(time=1386384660)] <Eluvatar> No objection.
[(time=1386384720)] <Eluvatar> Thank you for your testimony, Tim
[(time=1386384720)] <Kiwi> Obviously I reserve the right to depose at a later date etcetc
[(time=1386384720)] <Kiwi> Indeed, thanks for your time Tim

Judicial note: Sustained objection to question and specific relevant answer redacted.

Considering my spontaneous work commitments and the fact that some of the depositions require alignment of three separate timezones in some instances, I have taken an affidavit from Flemingovia and McMasterdonia in the hope of speeding up the process.

I have tried to do this as fairly as possible. I do request however that discovery be extended so that I (or Elu) can get one from Chasmanthe. I would like one from king too but I don't see that happening.