The North Pacific v. Grosseschnauzer

I would like to comply with the Court's directive to combine all evidence in one post, but the forum does not permit me to make such a post. If it is okay, I will post a series of links to the submissions instead?

Evidence submissions by the Defense:

Eluvatar:

A first evidentiary submission:

Spoiler: Defense Evidentiary Submission 1

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

Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:

I wonder how many people saw the original?

Click to expand...

Alicia DiLaurentis:

That's actually quite funny haha

Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:

Aurora DiLaurentis:

That's actually quite funny haha

Click to expand...

What is?

Click to expand...

Alicia DiLaurentis:

...this thread

Click to expand...

Blue Wolf II:

Seems legit.

Click to expand...

Biyah:

Why wasn't I invited?

Click to expand...

Tim:

Biyah:

Why wasn't I invited?

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

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:

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.

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...

Eluvatar:

Spoiler: Defense Evidentiary Submission 2

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...

Spoiler: Screenshot

The above log is copied directly from a skype program, on a computer in the US Eastern time zone.

Click to expand...

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.[/quote]

Eluvatar:

Spoiler: Defense Evidentiary Submission 3

An IRC conversation between the person now known as King Durk the Awesome and Tim.:

Session Start: Mon Aug 13 22:24:45 2012
Session Ident: Tim
[22:24] Session Ident: Tim (EsperNet, Durkadurkiranistan) (~Tim@<ip of tim>)
[22:24] <Tim> We can call it a hostile takeover of TRR instead
[22:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> LOL
[22:25] <Tim> But srsly... I won't endorse a coup... I'll act shocked
[22:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> :p
[22:25] <Tim> And then purge when I get delegate
[22:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> it'd be awesome to have someone on the other side
[22:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> ya
[22:25] <Tim> Double Purge xD
[22:26] <Durkadurkiranistan>
[22:30] <Tim> Though we're not a combined ticket
[22:30] <Tim> So we both have to win
[22:30] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[22:30] <Durkadurkiranistan> you're more likely than me :p
[22:32] <Tim> Heh.... Yeah
[22:32] <Tim> But I'll resign if I win Vice to a boring Del
[22:32] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah it's not a fun job
[22:32] <Tim> Or tart to get within like 10...
[22:32] <Tim> And then call TBR xD
[22:32] <Durkadurkiranistan> LOL
[22:32] <Durkadurkiranistan> yup
[22:33] <Tim> We can call a lot of raiders in a feeder coup xD
[22:33] <Tim> Probably 30 at update if we try
[22:33] <Tim> And then pile the rest
[22:34] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[22:34] <Durkadurkiranistan> definitely doable
[22:35] <Tim> But first we have to swamp TNP with voters and satire
[22:36] <Durkadurkiranistan> yup
[22:36] <Tim> Slow and steady, we will swamp
[22:36] <Durkadurkiranistan> that's how ya do it
[22:41] <Tim> Hellz yeah
Session Close: Mon Aug 13 23:01:31 2012

Session Start: Mon Aug 13 23:23:51 2012
Session Ident: Tim
[23:23] Session Ident: Tim (EsperNet, Durkadurkiranistan) (~Tim@<ip of tim>)
[23:23] <Tim> Wow... Way to tell our plan?
[23:24] <Durkadurkiranistan> LOL
[23:24] <Tim> Now we have to actually campaign and stuff
[23:24] <Durkadurkiranistan> it doesn't matter... I was pretty sure it was illegal anyway
[23:24] <Durkadurkiranistan> nahhh
[23:24] <Tim> Oh it was illegal
[23:24] <Durkadurkiranistan> our plan is different :p
[23:24] <Tim> What is our plan?
[23:24] <Durkadurkiranistan> idk
[23:24] <Tim> Just straight up
[23:24] <Tim> Get people?
[23:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> have more raiders join the RA i guess
[23:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[23:25] <Tim> Heh.
[23:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> having newbies sign up and vote for us would be a terrible strategy
[23:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> I want them to think that's what we're doing
[23:25] <Tim> Mmhm
[23:25] <Tim> I'll get 1-2 TBR people
[23:25] <Tim> And start preparing our smear campaign
[23:25] <Tim>
[23:25] <Durkadurkiranistan>
[23:25] <Tim> Romney v. Obama style smear
[23:25] <Durkadurkiranistan> yaaaa
[23:26] <Tim> Eluvatar has puppets stored in off-region puppet vaults
[23:27] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[23:27] <Durkadurkiranistan> Elu has multiple puppets in the RA
[23:27] <Tim> Haha
[23:27] <Tim> He does
[23:27] <Durkadurkiranistan> ya
[23:27] <Durkadurkiranistan> def true
[23:28] <Tim> And we need to slander Tyler a bit
[23:28] <Durkadurkiranistan> yeah
[23:28] <Tim> Nah...
[23:28] <Tim> A lot!
[23:28] <Tim> But not enough to make people feel sorry for him

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Obviously, I would also like the two depositions counted as evidence:



As the affidavit obtained from mcmasterdonia has not been posted, I will refer to it only by reference: I would like it included.

I have submitted affidavit from Chasmanthe to Romanoffia, though I would definitely prefer a deposition. (Kiwi became unavailable at the last minute earlier today).

(It turns out I can post it cleanly if I turn off emoticons).

Kiwi:

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.

Click to expand...

OK, I've got a bunch of times that just came in via PM and I will get them up as soon as I peruse them for any relevance issues (which there should be none) and for which order I will post them in for clarity's sake.

I'll tack on another day for discover (and perhaps yet another if needed).

By some miracle Eluvatar and I have managed to get a deposition done for both Chasmanthe and Kingborough today. My hat goes off to Eluvatar who delayed work and sleep to try and fit them in. Well done Elu!

It will probably be at least 24 hours from this post before I can repost all evidence. Eluvatar and myself also need to make any submissions on the evidence before the end of discovery too so that possibly may necessitate a further 24 hours.

After the deposition of Chasmanthe...

Kings deposition with edits for sustained objections:


[18:34] <Eluvatar> Deposition as long as it isn't horribly long
[18:35] <Kiwi> Naw it'll be as quick as possible.
[18:35] <Kiwi> Did you want to start or shall I?
[18:35] <Kingborough> which debacle?
[18:35] <Kingborough> There were several
[18:35] <Kiwi> Hold up - we'll ask you questions in a sec
[18:36] <Eluvatar> I believe Kingborough is prosecution's witness
[18:36] <Kiwi> Right.
[18:36] <Kiwi> So what happens Kingborough is I ask a question, elu says if he objects and then you answer.
[18:36] <Eluvatar> btw the rules are that the questioner asks the question, the opposing counsel objects or doesn't object, and then the witness answers
[18:36] <Eluvatar> yeah
[18:36] <Kiwi> But if he does object i can provide a reason
[18:36] <Kiwi> and then you still answer
[18:36] <Kiwi> make sense?
[18:37] <Kingborough> Okay.
[18:37] <Kiwi> Apologies if Elu thinks this is leading but just to refresh your memory. The trial is TNP v Grosse - Grosse is accused of fraud as he stated you were aiding Tim in his coup attempt. Essentially.
[18:38] <Kiwi> Kingborough: Ring any bells?
[18:38] <Eluvatar> That's fine
[18:38] <Kingborough> Yes, I recall that.
[18:39] <Kiwi> So just for the record - were you communicating with Tim at the time?
[18:39] <Kiwi> So communicating might be IRC chat, forum PM, whatever you can recall. Even just in #TNP although to a lesser degree.
[18:40] <Kiwi> Eluvatar: object
[18:40] <Eluvatar> No objection
[18:41] <Kingborough> I believe I had said hello to him in #TNP and possibly #TNP-cabinet, but I had no communication with him beyond that. He'd been the subject of a fall out with the Mythika's some time before and was still not on good terms with us.
[18:41] <Kiwi> Have you ever talked to Tim about couping the region, even in jest?
[18:42] <Kiwi> or has he ever talked to you about it?
[18:42] <Eluvatar> No objection
[18:43] <Kingborough> No, I've never discussed the proposition with him or actually anyone else at any time.
[18:43] Defense objection sustained
[18:44]
[18:44]
[18:44]
[18:45]
[18:45]
[18:46]
[18:46]
[18:46]
[18:47] Defense objection sustained
[18:47]
[18:48]
[18:48]
[18:50]
[18:50]
[18:51]
[18:51]
[18:52] <Kiwi> Excellent. Nearly done.
[18:53] Defense objection sustained.
[18:54]
[18:55]
[18:55]
[18:55]
[18:55]
[18:55]
[18:56]
[18:56]
[18:56]
[18:56]
[18:56]
[18:56]
[18:56]
[18:57]
[18:58]
[18:58]
[19:03]
[19:03]
[19:04]
[19:04] <Kiwi> Has Grosse ever apologised for his claims or withdrawn his comments about your alleged aiding in the coup?
[19:05] <Eluvatar> ... no objection
[19:05] <Kingborough> Not in any form that I have witnessed.
[19:05] <Kiwi> Excellent. Eluvatar the floor is yours good sir.
[19:06] <Eluvatar> Just a second
[19:07] <Kiwi> Not a problem.
[19:07] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, are you familiar with this topic: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6979531/1/ ?
[19:08] <Eluvatar> Kiwi: do you object?
[19:09] <Kiwi> Sorry just opening the topic
[19:09] <Kiwi> No objection
[19:09] <Kingborough> No I'm not.
[19:10] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, are you familiar with this topic: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6977196/1/ ?
[19:11] <Kiwi> Erm no objection
[19:12] <Kingborough> I have seen it but not before Durk had edited whatever was in it out,
[19:13] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, did you see it before the incident of November 1st this trial is about?
[19:13] <Kiwi> no objection
[19:15] <Kingborough> I wouldn't be able to reliably answer that. I may have seen it before or after, it wasn't really that notable to me. A few people were laughing at durk in IRC but it really didn't seem that important.
[19:15] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, were you at all suspicious of Tim on and around November 1st?
[19:16] <Kiwi> no objection
[19:17] <Kingborough> I was suspicious of Tim at all times during his inhabitance in TNP. He had repeatedly switched allegiances, which was rather untrustworthy in my view.
[19:17] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, did you have any reason to believe Tim harbored intentions to coup the region?
[19:18] <Kiwi> no objection
[19:19] <Kingborough> I had suspicions but no concrete proof.
[19:19] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, how would you characterize your relationship with Grosseschnauzer at the time of the incident?
[19:22] * Joins: Juris (*Judicial note: IP address removed*)
[19:23] <Kingborough> uh, Kiwi?
[19:23] <Juris> pingy
[19:23] <Juris> and hello there King
[19:24] <Kingborough> Hi
[19:24] <Eluvatar> (We're in the end stages of a deposition)
[19:25] <Kiwi> no objection
[19:25] <Kingborough> I'd best describe it as hostile.
[19:26] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, could you tell us a little more about that hostility?
[19:27] <Eluvatar> (i.e. was it mutual? one-sided? How did it happen?)
[19:28] <Kiwi> no objection
[19:29] <Juris> (I am logging this for anti-corruption and feel good reasons.)
[19:30] <Kiwi> By all means - COE is witnessing it too.
[19:31] <Kiwi> Kingborough: still alive?
[19:32] <Kingborough> (sorry I mother arrived home I had to go say hello)
[19:32] <Kingborough> my mother*
[19:32] <Kiwi> All good
[19:32] <Eluvatar> (Unless there are objections I'll be censoring these personal asides from the log I send Romanoffia, just as I remove IPs)
[19:33] <Kiwi> I'm lazy so I send him the full thing anyway. But yeah - by all means.
[19:33] <Kingborough> Well I can't know how Grosse felt but based on his actions I would imagine it was mutual. And it was caused by various issues, I think it began when as one of my earliest actions in the region I campaigned heavily to get rid of Grosse when he held the AG's office.
[19:35] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, can you tell me what the particular matter of contention was at the time of the incident?
[19:37] <Kiwi> no objection
[19:40] <Kiwi> Kingborough: Sorry but we sort of should try move along. Elu should have been in bed quite a while ago.
[19:42] <Eluvatar>
[19:43] <Kingborough> Sorry again mother wanted me to fill in a job app
[19:43] <Kiwi> All good.
[19:43] <Eluvatar> important!
[19:43] <Eluvatar> Do we need to recess?
[19:44] <Kingborough> To answer the question, the matter of contention at the time was I believe regarding me refusing to allow Grosse to post in large coloured text or make extra commentary during voting in the assembly due to my belief it could sway undecided voters in that persons direction if they saw someone of standing making such a display
[19:46] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, do you think Grosseschnauzer was seeking to deceive when he made the post in question?
[19:46] <Kiwi> objection calls for speculation + his opinion
[19:47] <Eluvatar> Hm I'll alter it
[19:47] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, did you perceive Grosseschnauzer's post in question as intended to deceive?
[19:48] <Kiwi> Not relevant
[19:48] * Quits: COE (~COE@[bgcolor=black][IP removed][/bgcolor]) (Ping timeout: 194 seconds)
[19:48] <Eluvatar> I think it's perhaps the single most relevant question I could ask
[19:48] <Eluvatar> (Answer anyway, court will decide)
[19:48] <Juris> (hmmm. I'm still here.)
[19:48] <Kiwi> You can just submit below that Juris
[19:49] <Eluvatar> Kiwi: the rules only obligate you and I to submit -- impartial witnesses are good in case there might be disagreement
[19:49] <Kiwi> Mmmhmm I doubt we'll disagree but yeah true
[19:50] <Kingborough> I did perceive it as so. The reason I filed a lawsuit was because as I saw it, it was nothing more than a wild attempt to discredit me because I had a justified reason for restricting Grosse.
[19:50] <Juris> (exactly why I am still here Please continue, I was merely informing you of my rapt attention.)
[19:50] <Eluvatar> Kingborough, do you mean to say that you wanted to restrict Grosse, and his behavior provided a justification?
[19:51] <Kiwi> Uhh vague
[19:51] <Eluvatar> I think it's pointed, actually (court will decide whether to exclude)
[19:52] <Kiwi> You can answer Kingborough
[19:53] <Kingborough> No, I had no wish to restrict Grosse for the sake of it. However when the root admin started running around the assembly acting as if the rules didn't apply to him, then I would've been amiss to let him continue to behave that way. It would've implied that somehow he was above the government because he happened to be an admin
[19:55] <Kingborough> Which is exactly what you don't want - citizens who because they hold positions make it their job to defy the laws, rules or decisions of the government.
[19:57] <Eluvatar> No further questions.
[19:58] <Eluvatar> Kiwi: do you have any need to reexamine?
[19:58] <Kiwi> I just have one question to reexamine on if that's okay.
[19:58] <Kiwi> Kingborough: Did the hostile actions from Grosse ever get to the point where you may consider assisting in changing forum because of his actions as root admin?
[19:58] * Eluvatar stares bleary-eyed at Kiwi
[19:59] <Kiwi> Sorry Elu >.<
[19:59] <Eluvatar> Objection, grammar?
[19:59] <Eluvatar> Seriously I'm not sure I understood that
[19:59] <Eluvatar> maybe it's just 'cause it's 2AM here
[19:59] <Eluvatar> Your tenses are messing me up, man
[20:00] <Kiwi> Yeahhh I'm tired too. Haven't slept properly in days. TL;DR - did the hostile behaviour get to the extent that you would have aided in a forum change, facilitated by a coup?
[20:02] <Eluvatar> no objection
[20:03] <Kingborough> There was no discussion of a coup to move forums. However it was later discussed casually between myself, Mcmasterdonia, Flemingovia and other citizens and government members that a motion in the assembly to change forums was perhaps required, primarily due to Grosse's misbehaviour regarding the purple spam and threatening to unilaterally de-admin Flem.
[20:03] <Kiwi> Great. Thanks. That's all I need.
[20:04] * Eluvatar thinks
[20:06] <Eluvatar> I don't feel a need to re-cross
[20:06] <Kiwi> Okie dokie - thanks Kingborough
[20:06] <Eluvatar> Kingborough: thank you!
[20:06] <Eluvatar> I will submit to Romanoffia when I'm good and rested!!
[20:06] <Kiwi> And thank you Eluvatar for joining me in my insomnia

IP removed by Elu

Chasmanthe Depositing with edits for sustained objections:

[8:57:33 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe, You say that you never saw the complete set of logs that JAL posted, is http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8121864&t=6991367 the complete logs posted?
[9:00:32 PM] Eluvatar: (Kiwi, do you object to the question?)
[9:00:42 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: No, I did see the the logs in JAL's posts in the thread on 28th October. No, the link you've given here is not equal to that, but your link includes the whole of the partial copy that I had.
[9:01:03 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: I don't object
[9:01:07 PM] Eluvatar: I'm sorry, I misspoke, I meant that you did not see the complete logs after their removal. My bad.
[9:01:38 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Is that a question?
[9:01:58 PM] Eluvatar: No it's a clarification of the previous question.
[9:02:08 PM] Eluvatar: Your answer answers the intended question.
[9:02:43 PM] Eluvatar: How much of the logs posted do you believe are missing from Defense Evidentiary Submission 3?
[9:02:59 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I don't know.
[9:03:12 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Chas: Just remember I have to say whether I object before you can answer. (No objection)
[9:04:07 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I believe 10%-50% of the length of the partial copy.
[9:04:36 PM] Eluvatar: What did you mean when you said that "a coup attempt eventually was perpetrated in TNP" ?
[9:05:11 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: no objection
[9:05:39 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: although if you're going to point to the former statement you might want to quote it
[9:05:53 PM] Eluvatar: Didn't I just quote it?
[9:07:40 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Erm... Sorry what I meant was put it more in context because the former statement might not be admitted into evidence.
[9:07:47 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: But meh I guess you're right. Sorry Chas you can answer.
[9:09:27 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I meant that Tim intended to reform the executive upon assuming the delegacy, in a manner not sanctioned by the constitution and the bill of rights. This may be the same coup version or different to what Tim admitted to on the NS forums.
[9:11:12 PM] Eluvatar: Could you expand more on what you mean by reforming the executive in a manner not sanctioned by the constitution and the bill of rights?
[9:11:52 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: no objection
[9:12:46 PM] (Prosecution objection sustained)
[9:13:07 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe, what did you mean when you said that "Tim did privately announce a coup on becoming interim delegate on November 6."?
[9:13:29 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: No objection
[9:17:01 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I simply meant that on the day he took up the office of interim delegate, he said he would now carry out his reforms, or words to that effect.
[9:18:11 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: In which case - for the record I ask that his former comment be stricken. It's not up to Chas to make that inference.
[9:18:43 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: (Obviously Roman will do that Elu)
[9:20:25 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe, when you said that you and others "held the opinion that there was real intention on Tim's part to stage a coup," was the executive reform away from a transparent Executive Council system what you meant, or did you mean something else by coup in that context?
[9:21:52 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Does Kiwi object?
[9:23:00 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: eek sorry
[9:23:21 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: no objection
[9:23:47 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: although the relevance is pretty damn sketchy at this point
[9:25:04 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: The answer's no. We thought at the time, 28th October, Tim was planning since August to purge. In November, Tim did privately estimate how many nations he would be able to purge from TNP, which was if I recall correctly, more than most purges but less than Moldavi in TP.
[9:25:43 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe, what reason do you have to believe Tim privately estimated how many nations he would be able to purge from TNP?
[9:26:30 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: no objection
[9:28:42 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: To clarify, I don't believe Tim had the influence required to get a high number, he was around 200spdr, but it could have been a long term aim. To answer the question directly, a high number is needed for notoriety. Tim is already an accomplished player, a noteworthy purge enhances his record in a way that a minor one would not.
[9:29:40 PM] Eluvatar: I'm sorry, I meant not why Tim estimated but why you believe the event occurred.
[9:29:54 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Sorry, what event?
[9:30:40 PM] Eluvatar: The event of Tim privately estimating how many nations he could purge.
[9:31:03 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Also going to object to that answer based on the fact it's an opinion too.
[9:31:04 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Spontaneous discussion really.
[9:33:46 PM] Eluvatar: Kiwi, I disagree with the objection, I'm trying to ascertain the facts behind a statement which appears to be a statement of fact. If there is evidence for it, I think we have a right to see it.
[9:34:03 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe, I'm asking specifically, who said what in your presence that led you to believe Tim had, in November, estimated how many nations he would be able to purge?
[9:34:37 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: no objection
[9:38:43 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Tim was said the record number of career-ejections, which he either said was held by JAL or Moldavi, and that record he could not realistically surpass.
[9:39:24 PM] Eluvatar: Ah, I see. Thank you.
[9:40:34 PM] Eluvatar: (1 moment)
[9:42:17 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe, could you characterize the missing parts of the logs JAL posted of conversations between JAL and Tim in any way?
[9:43:00 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Unfortunately the only phrase I recall was JAL and Tim toasting "to the burning of TNP".
[9:43:31 PM] Eluvatar: Thank you.
[9:43:45 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: no objection
[9:46:21 PM] Eluvatar: No further questions, we can proceed to cross.
[9:49:32 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: In your experience, have you noticed other players joke about purges and how many nations they might eject?
[9:53:28 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I have heard others joke about purges, but consideration of the number of ejections is much less frequent, and I don't recall any example of the latter where it was purely a joke.
[9:54:38 PM] Eluvatar: (no objection)
[9:54:50 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Did you perceive King to be a threat to the region?
[9:55:03 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: yes
[9:56:03 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: temporarily
[9:56:29 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Have to wait for Elu to object or not
[9:56:33 PM] Eluvatar: (no objection)
[9:56:54 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: On what basis did you perceive him to be a threat?
[9:59:12 PM] Eluvatar: I would object if this implied an opinion answer.
[9:59:58 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Yeah it's debatable - Roman can sort it out. Answer away Chas.
[10:00:38 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: In October King was considering to turn raider. King crossed the floor between political parties upon election to speaker. I suspected King was being manipulated.
[10:03:06 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Do you recall King and Tim being friendly, conversing or any behaviour that suggested they were collaborating on... anything.
[10:03:10 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: *anything?
[10:03:11 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I am sorry for regarding him that way as he suffered a hard time due to the unnecessary pressure.
[10:03:28 PM] Eluvatar: no objection
[10:04:20 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I don't recall.
[10:05:36 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: When Grosse's vote was invalidated - did your concerns escalate?
[10:05:47 PM] Eluvatar: no objection
[10:06:30 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I don't recall if they did at that point or not.
[10:06:41 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I think so.
[10:08:08 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Refreshing your memory - Grosse's vote in the vote in question whether invalidated or not would have made no material difference in the outcome. But this conduct INCREASED your concerns?
[10:08:40 PM] Eluvatar: Objection, leading
[10:09:14 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Arguably. Answer anyway Chas.
[10:10:51 PM] Eluvatar: (NB: I will have to leave my current location in 15 minutes, my access will then become spotty at best)
[10:12:02 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: I don't recall.
[10:16:43 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: Probably yes.
[10:21:37 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: sorry got a bit preoccupied
[10:21:44 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: We should be done by then.
[10:22:50 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Actually that's all I can really ask that's relevant.
[10:23:00 PM] Eluvatar: I don't see a need to reexamine.
[10:23:04 PM] [bgcolor=black][Kiwi][/bgcolor]: Thanks Chas - hope we didn't muck you around too much.


Chasmanthe's Affidavit:

[7:08:27 PM] * Eluvatar invited [bgcolor=black][Hileville's skype name][/bgcolor]
[7:08:30 PM] Eluvatar: OK.
[7:08:54 PM] Eluvatar: According to the rules, Chas, you have to first swear an oath "of complete honesty"
[7:09:03 PM] Eluvatar: I am not permitted to question you.
[7:09:05 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: why?
[7:09:25 PM] Eluvatar: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/##cr_5
[7:10:13 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: how can I answer if no questions are being asked?
[7:10:47 PM] Eluvatar: Well, you are basically desired to tell your story of what happened, as you feel relates to TNP v Grosseschnauzer.
[7:12:11 PM] Eluvatar: I suppose I can remind you that TNP v Grosseschnauzer is caused by a complaint that Grosse had committed "Fraud" in this statement:
> 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.
[7:12:38 PM] Eluvatar: (November 1, 2013)
[7:12:52 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: ah, I wish I'd reread the rules as I assumed I would be questioned
[7:13:22 PM] Eluvatar: I would have preferred a deposition, but Kiwi was called in IRL
[7:13:31 PM] Eluvatar: and the Court has chosen a strict deadline for evidence.
[7:14:27 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: what would you have asked if it had been a disposition?
[7:15:19 PM] Eluvatar: I don't think I'm allowed to say, Chas
[7:16:01 PM] Eluvatar: But I can probably remind you that in the past I discussed your familiarity with various conversations at the time regarding Tim and coups.
[7:19:28 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe?
[7:19:32 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: yes
[7:23:33 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: how many words should an affadavit be?
[7:24:00 PM] Eluvatar: There are no requirements or limitations.
[7:24:34 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: what would be a sensible length?
[7:25:15 PM] Eluvatar: 3 paragraphs?
[7:42:45 PM] Eluvatar: Chasmanthe?
[7:43:19 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: yes
[7:43:40 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: it's hard not to make it wordy
[7:43:50 PM] Eluvatar: that's fine
[7:56:45 PM] * Eluvatar gives a little whistle
[8:00:21 PM] [bgcolor=black][Chasmanthe][/bgcolor]: JAL posted a thread around 28th October. It was middle of the night my time but I was online chatting to another member of the NPA. My attention was drawn to the thread as it seemed alarming. We discussed it and held the opinion that there was a real intention on Tim's part to stage a coup. His conversations had taken place around August 13 2012, just after he had been in trouble with Osiris, and before he became vice delegate in TNP, which is what the conversation says he would do.

The thread in question is the same one that came up in the case. There were 3 posts containing irc logs between Tim and JAL. They were edited out shortly thereafter, so nobody else could have read them. This was particularly suspicious. I was informed by the admins there was no way to show what they said, no screenshot was taken. I discussed with Tim about the content of the logs but he was extremely reluctant to address my concerns, and was adamant that he should never face any charges for conspiracy. He came to the conclusion I had no evidence of the content that JAL edited out, but the member who originally pointed me to the thread had copied some of the text before it was removed. They gave me a copy of it, but it's still only a partial copy of the three pages that was originally posted. I wasn't sure if Tim was still going go go through with a coup, had since abandoned that idea completely, or was part of a wider and changeable plot.

Tim has since admitted on the NS forums that he did plan a coup in TNP. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=262057&p=16601439&hilit=coup#p16601439 http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=261895&start=25 moreover, Tim did privately announce a coup on becoming interim delegate on November 6. The relevance of all this to the Grosseschnauzer case is that private discussions did occur, a coup attempt eventually was perpetrated in TNP, and though Kingborough may not have been offered anything by Tim, it was a plausible suggestion, it had a basis in reality of the gameplay at the time.
[8:03:15 PM] Eluvatar: Bah I'm not allowed to ask to cross-examine you, but I'll beg for the chance for a deposition.
[8:04:00 PM] Eluvatar: I will be sending this to Romanoffia, and for this to be an Affidavit you also as Affiant need to. I'm starting from when Hileville entered the room, up until this statement. I'm changing Hileville's displayed name from his real name to Hileville, and changing your skype name to Chasmanthe in the log I submit.

Flemingovia's Affidavit:

<flemingovia>: I have many stories. Which one do you most want to hear?
<Kiwi>: Haha I can't really tell you what to say. I guess what you recall happened, if you thought someone was likely to coup or not or if Tim was a threat
<Kiwi>: Or King for that matter
<flemingovia>: very well. In the run up to the statement by Grosse that ended up with him being on trial, I was aware of general concerns about Tim's intentions towards the region. There was a general concern from members of the Oligarchy that Tim was not "one of us", and might attempt to bring about violent change in the region, if he got the chance. As it turns out,
<flemingovia>: those fears were unfounded.
<flemingovia>: I cannot remember if I saw any logs BEFORE the statement by Grosse, or AFTER. Sorry - it was a long time ago.
<flemingovia>: But I am sure that at some point I was shown some irc logs in private chat to back up the fears.
<flemingovia>: I was not aware that Grosse was privy to any of the evidence against Tim at all.
<flemingovia>: Therefore I cannot say whether he had any evidence to back up his wild accusations against TIm, for which he was on trial.
<flemingovia>: There was a lot of whispering about TIm going on at the time, so I would not be surprised if some of it had reached Grosse's ears.
<flemingovia>: Whispering campaigns tend to be very pervasive in TNP.
<flemingovia>: I am sorry if my recollections are a little vague. I do not keep logs, and (as Tyler has reminded us) the events in question are now a year old.
<flemingovia>: Do you have any questions for me?
<Kiwi>: The rules prevent me from asking any unfortunately. Hopefully we can do a proper deposition at some point but it's better to have some sort of statement from you if Roman won't extend discovery.
<Kiwi>: But that looks fine though flem, thanks.
<flemingovia>: Oh yes, you asked about Kind DUrk. the answer is, I ALWAYS regard Durk as a threat, and likely to coup given half a chance.
<Kiwi>: As Elu pointed out - it's more about Tim / King plotting to coup as opposed to JAL.
<Kiwi>: But yeah that's great Flem, definitely gives us something to work with.

McMasterdonia Affidavit:

[22:16] <mcmasterdonia> At the time of the incident between Grosseschnauzer and Kingborough a lot of people in the region did think that Tim was going to coup - or that he had plans to coup. Around the time that Eluvatar was recalled from office there was a lot of political machinations going on, and Durkadurkiranistan posted a heap of logs to the Regional Assembly of a conversation
[22:16] <mcmasterdonia> between himself and Tim where they were discussing couping and purging the region
[22:16] <mcmasterdonia> I took a section of those logs and sent them to Grosseschnauzer via PM on the regional forum
[22:17] <mcmasterdonia> It was some time after that, and before the thread was widely seen that Durk edited out those logs from his posts and he said that they were fake
[22:17] <mcmasterdonia> The coup obviously did not actually occur and Tim did not make any attempts to take the Delegacy by force
[22:18] <mcmasterdonia> The political divides in the region made people suspicious of one another, though I do find it unlikely that there was any discussion between Tim and Kingborough about a coup
[22:19] <mcmasterdonia> That is all.
[22:20] <Kiwi> Excellent. My two witnesses send a copy of that to Roman
[22:21] <Olvern> Sent

Judicial note:

I've verified witness copies, etc., of affidavits, just for the record.

Evidential Submissions

Eluvatar seems to have covered most of the evidence the prosecution wishes to admit.
I will also note that Flemingovia's Affidavit, McMasterdonia's Affidavit and Chas's Affidavit / testimony are also put into evidence.

Evidential Motions

Pursuant to Article 2: Section 5 of the Court Rules Eluvatar and I must post any motions relating to evidence prior to the conclusion of discovery. As a result I have a variety of motions that I wish to submit to the Court.

Article 2: Section 5:

Following the conclusion of Discovery (when all evidence has been submitted and accepted or rejected by the Court, and all Evidentiary motions have been handled), there will be a period of at least 72 hours for arguments on the evidence and the law.

Click to expand...

Firstly I submit to the Court that any evidence pertaining to the potential coup of the region by Tim is irrelevant and should be removed. Even if it can be established that Tim, JAL or King were in reality planning to coup the region, there is no evidence that Grosse was aware of this. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the actions in question (i.e. invalidating a vote in the RA) would have any impact on a coup attempt, particularly where the vote itself has no consequence on the legislation in question. JAL or Tim planning or considering a coup of the region has no "tendency to prove or disprove that the alleged offending occurred", the later quote being a more accurate definition of relevance. Even if the alleged coup or considered coup was factually correct, this has no impact on the allegations made against Kingborough by Grosse. This evidence is thus irrelevant and should be stricken from the proceedings.

Secondly, I submit to the Court that deposition evidence given by JAL be removed. The reasons for this are twofold. Primarily this evidence is not relevant at all to the situation at hand. The defence has already conceded that the offence in question does not pertain to JAL attempting to coup the region or attempting to do so with Tim. Kingborough was accused by Grosse of aiding in a coup perpetrated by Tim, not JAL. As well as this, currently our evidential rules although terrible and difficult to understand are lacking in one fundamental area of coverage. I submit to the Court today that this Court should not accept unreliable evidence from a witness in a situation where its probative value is far overshadowed by its illegitimate prejudice to the proceedings.

Thirdly, I ask that Defense Evidentiary Submission 1 be removed on the basis that it is not relevant. Whether JAL and Tim talked about a coup is irrelevant. Furthermore, the tone of all parties involved suggests that this thread was never meant to be taken seriously and to use it this way takes it entirely out of context.

Fourthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 2 is hearsay. Period. It cannot in good conscience be admitted into evidence. Eluvatar had the opportunity to visit this conversation in the deposition and if he failed to do so, that is the defence's problem. Such evidence could only be remedied by witness testimony.

Fifthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 3 is also irrelevant. These types of conversations occur all the time in #tnp and other chat-like areas utilised by TNP citizens. Even if the latter point is disregarded, JAL and Tim discussing a coup proves nothing. There is nothing in the allegation which alleges that JAL and Tim work together to take over the region. Also as has previously been mentioned, whether Tim ultimately considered couping the region is irrelevant. Tim couping the region is half the allegation from Grosse and it would be disingenuous to allow this evidence to stand.

Sixthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 4 & 5 are statements made during an entirely different period of time. These suffer from the same defect as the other "Tim coups" evidence but given the humourous tone of the thread and the different context given the time and place, this evidence is also irrelevant.

Looking at the log of my evidence, can I clarify a mistake I made? When I said " Oh yes, you asked about Kind DUrk. the answer is, I ALWAYS regard Durk as a threat, and likely to coup given half a chance." I thought that Kiwi had brought up Durk when he said, "<Kiwi>: Or King for that matter"

on re-reading It is now obvious to me that he was referring to Kingborough, not King Durk the Awesome.

I apologise for the misunderstanding.

I ask the court for an extension of Discovery to give the defense at least 24 hours to respond to the many motions made by the prosecution.

A deposition of mcmasterdonia would also be desirable, of course.

Granted. 24 hour extension.

Romanoffia has not logged on in nearly 48 hours. As we are in a rather crucial junction in the trial, I am removing him as Moderating Justice to ensure that the remainder of the trial proceeds on schedule. For the remainder of the proceedings, I will moderate this trial.

The extension of Discovery has expired, and no response by the defense to the prosecution's motions will be permitted.

Mr. Attorney General, regarding your evidentiary motions:

Kiwi:

Firstly I submit to the Court that any evidence pertaining to the potential coup of the region by Tim is irrelevant and should be removed. Even if it can be established that Tim, JAL or King were in reality planning to coup the region, there is no evidence that Grosse was aware of this. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the actions in question (i.e. invalidating a vote in the RA) would have any impact on a coup attempt, particularly where the vote itself has no consequence on the legislation in question. JAL or Tim planning or considering a coup of the region has no "tendency to prove or disprove that the alleged offending occurred", the later quote being a more accurate definition of relevance. Even if the alleged coup or considered coup was factually correct, this has no impact on the allegations made against Kingborough by Grosse. This evidence is thus irrelevant and should be stricken from the proceedings.

Click to expand...

If this evidence is irrelevant, as you say, then the defense's argument will not benefit from its inclusion in the record, and yours will not suffer from it. I am willing to give defense counsel the benefit of the doubt on this, and see how he includes it in his argument, and let the members of the Court decide what bearing it shall have on their decision afterward. Motion denied.

Kiwi:

Secondly, I submit to the Court that deposition evidence given by JAL be removed. The reasons for this are twofold. Primarily this evidence is not relevant at all to the situation at hand. The defence has already conceded that the offence in question does not pertain to JAL attempting to coup the region or attempting to do so with Tim. Kingborough was accused by Grosse of aiding in a coup perpetrated by Tim, not JAL. As well as this, currently our evidential rules although terrible and difficult to understand are lacking in one fundamental area of coverage. I submit to the Court today that this Court should not accept unreliable evidence from a witness in a situation where its probative value is far overshadowed by its illegitimate prejudice to the proceedings.

Click to expand...

Denied. I reject your irrelevance assertion for the same reason as the previous motion. Furthermore, JAL's testimony authenticated pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the defense.

Kiwi:

Thirdly, I ask that Defense Evidentiary Submission 1 be removed on the basis that it is not relevant. Whether JAL and Tim talked about a coup is irrelevant. Furthermore, the tone of all parties involved suggests that this thread was never meant to be taken seriously and to use it this way takes it entirely out of context.

Click to expand...

Denied, for the same reason as the first motion.

Kiwi:

Fourthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 2 is hearsay. Period. It cannot in good conscience be admitted into evidence. Eluvatar had the opportunity to visit this conversation in the deposition and if he failed to do so, that is the defence's problem. Such evidence could only be remedied by witness testimony.

Click to expand...

Actually, this evidence was authenticated by JAL's testimony:

[Dec 6 2013, 10:10 PM] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, is http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8118505&t=6991367 an accurate transcription of a conversation we had, at the time described?
[Dec 6 2013, 10:11 PM] <omgitsjackwtf> correct, it is
[Dec 6 2013, 10:12 PM] <Kiwi> no objection (lol wrong order but oh well)

Click to expand...

Motion denied.

Kiwi:

Fifthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 3 is also irrelevant. These types of conversations occur all the time in #tnp and other chat-like areas utilised by TNP citizens. Even if the latter point is disregarded, JAL and Tim discussing a coup proves nothing. There is nothing in the allegation which alleges that JAL and Tim work together to take over the region. Also as has previously been mentioned, whether Tim ultimately considered couping the region is irrelevant. Tim couping the region is half the allegation from Grosse and it would be disingenuous to allow this evidence to stand.

Click to expand...

Your irrelevance assertion is rejected for the same reason as those above. Your claim that such conversations occur all the time is not a reason to exclude the evidence from the record, merely a possible reason that the members of the court might choose to disregard it when making their decisions on the case. It might more properly appear in your arguments on the evidence. Motion denied.

Kiwi:

Sixthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 4 & 5 are statements made during an entirely different period of time. These suffer from the same defect as the other "Tim coups" evidence but given the humourous tone of the thread and the different context given the time and place, this evidence is also irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Again, you assertion regarding the tone of the evidence is not a reason to exclude it from the record. Even if I were to accept it as given that the posts were humorous, it would not follow that such evidence is inadmissible, merely that it is humorous. In addition, the relevance of documentary evidence is not a fucntion of the time and place that documentary evidence was recorded. Motion denied.

Both parties have the next three days to submit their arguments on the evidence and the law. Please submit your full argument in one post. Arguments must be submitted by (time=1387413660) in your time zone. A verdict will be posted by (time=1387759260).

I'm still working on this I'm afraid. I'll do everything I can to get it done before the deadline but I had my graduation today and we're coming up to Christmas. So there's only so much I can fit into three days.

Considering the huge delays already in this case and the lengths Eluvatar and I have gone to try and stick to the Court's timetable, I doubt a day extra will do any harm. As a result, can I please request an extra 24 hours?

I think if the history of this case has taught us anything, it's that 24 hours is rarely enough. Take 36. I imagine the defense is in much the same position you are in.

The new end of the argumentation phase is now (time=1387543260) in your time zone.

As a justice sitting in judgment on this case, I OBJECT.

I object on the grounds that you removed me as sitting justice because I took too much time and extended too many extensions and you go ahead and do the same.

And I will object to a removal of this objection from the official record.

Your objection is noted, however, you misunderstand the reason you were removed. It was not for simply granting extensions. See my remarks elsewhere for elaboration.

Romanoffia is hereby reinstated as Moderating Justice.

We are still in the Arguments phase of the trial, and the timeline I have laid out is still in effect, until or unless Romanoffia sees fit to alter it.

My apologies for the irregularity of the past few days. I hope my actions have not caused any great disruption in the proceedings.

Many thanks. We shall now proceed.

Summary of Events

As previously mentioned in the indictment, it is alleged that on November 1st 2012, Grosseschnauzer defrauded Kingborough in saying:

Grosseschnauzer:

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 evidence reflects an ongoing tension between Grosseschnauzer and Kingborough as Grosse was unhappy with Kingborough's decisions as speaker. Before the fraudulent statements were posted by Grosse, he was increasingly in a difficult position where it was unclear whether he would remain as the forum's Root Administrator. The catalyst of this series of events was where Kingborough invalidated Grosse's vote where he had not stated his vote in plain text. Grosse proceeded to make the aforementioned fraudulent claims against Kingborough which he was aware 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.

There has been no evidence put forward that Grosse knew of a plot between Tim or Kingborough or even involving Tim in isolation. The evidence reflects that it is not uncommon for a TNP citizen to joke about taking over the region by force or a "coup". In fact, Tim's testimony reflects that even our elected Delegate has been known to do this. The evidence put forward by Tim and JAL is contradictory in nature as Tim alleges that he never intended to coup the region but JAL believes otherwise. However, it is clear by the testimony on both sides that no substantive details or planning truly took place.

Most importantly, neither side mention or were aware of Kingborough being involved in such a plot. Nor in the linked discussions did either party talk about interfering with the voting process of the regional assembly, particularly where the change of a single vote would have made no material difference in the outcome of the vote in question. A point that Tim himself agreed on. In fact, the evidence tentatively suggests that neither JAL nor Tim have had any major interaction or conversations with kingborough at all. So such a plot is almost impossibly likely to have arisen. A point also conceded by the current Delegate.

If the alleged conspirators of this plot were unaware of Kingborough potentially giving aid, it stands to reason that Grosse wouldn't of had information that they did not. If such information had been in possession of Grosse at the time, he has not presented it at trial and thus for all intensive purposes, it does not exist.

The Law

The relevant law is as follows:

Section 1.3: Fraud:

9. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Click to expand...

The prosecution submits that the offence is thus divided into three parts:

• Intentional deception and
• that the deception be by falsehood or omission and
• it was made for some benefit or to damage another individual

1. Intentional Deception

I have previously in my rebuttal to the motion to dismiss, presented by the defence, discussed this element in great detail. I will replicate elements of this previous discussion in this particular brief on the necessary requirement of "intentional deception".

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.

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.

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.

Conclusively, the prosecution is of the opinion that this entire case rests on whether the Court believes that such intention exists (either directly through the evidence submitted or whether an inference of intention can be drawn from the conduct displayed by Grosse) and thus there are several options:

• The requisite intention does not exist
• The requisite intention exists in the form of direct intention i.e. that Grosse intended to deceive in making his statements relating to Kingborough
• The requisite intention exists in the form of oblique intention i.e. that Grosse made the statements relating to Kingborough and he knew that this falsehood and deception occurring was a natural or probable consequence of this act
• The Mens Rea element of Recklessness should be inferred into the definition of the offence given the gameplay context i.e. Grosse acted so recklessly in the statements made that his conduct ought to be seen as meeting the current definition of fraud (see wikipedia article on recklessness here
• Intention exists but the Court finds that a defence exists at common law

2. Deception by Falsehood or Omission

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, testimony has shown that none of the above has occurred. As a result, all of the above are falsehoods for the purpose of the definition of fraud.

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.

3. Made for Some Benefit or to Damage Another Individual

It seems clear to make out that if Grosse didn't intend to damage Kingborough's reputation, he would have stated his concerns in private, rather than in the very public forum that he did. The conduct demonstrated by Kingborough i.e. invalidating Grosse's vote had no consequence as Grosse's vote would have made no material difference in the vote in question. What's more, the policy demonstrated by Kingborough was within his legislated power and was a rule applied fairly to all.

As a result, such conduct can only be construed as being used to politically damage Kingborough and benefit Grosse. Otherwise, there was no other reason to make the statements in question.

Conclusion

Summarily the evidence presented, with all due respect to the current moderating justice, should never have been permitted by this Court. In fact, the prosecution does not dispute that factions within TNP may have had concerns about Tim becoming a rogue Delegate. Such a feeling among the community has no bearing on the proceedings at hand. Evidence should not be permitted where it needlessly prolongs proceedings which the Court has permitted here. The fact remains that Grosse cannot substantiate his claim nor has he tried to do so. He has not attempted to do so but rather his defence counsel has called a number of overly dramatic witnesses to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that Tim was going to coup. Tough times in the region however are no excuse for defrauding innocent parties who act within their mandated authority of an elected position. Obviously the moderating justice has ruled previously on this point but each justice as a decision maker has the power to place whatever weight on evidence that he or she chooses.

Finally your honour, I submit to the Court that Grosse was upset with Kingborough as he wasn't getting his way on how he displayed his vote. This was further aggravated by disharmony on the forum which the evidence has suggested could have lead to a new forum being created so that Grosse would not be Root Administrator. He felt threatened and humiliated; his response was to lash at the speaker and make unfounded accusations to damage the standing of a respected former citizen of the region. I ask the Court today to make an example of Grosse and show the rest of The North Pacific that free speech is not without caveats and responsibilities. If one has no basis whatsoever to make a claim, they should not be able to do so.

As a brief aside, I would like to ask that when the Court reviews the current trial rules that it makes several changes to the Court's procedure. Firstly depositions should NOT have to take place during discovery. They should be concluded before discovery ends but such a tight time frame in the prosecutions view is otherwise unacceptable. Secondly, the prosecution is of the view that such a minimal window for the development of arguments on the evidence at hand is unacceptable. The 108 hour window finally allowed is much more acceptable.

Hope there weren't too many mistakes in this. Didn't really have a chance to relook over it.

The defense requests an extension of arguments, until 12 hours from now, if possible.

In consideration of the extension granted by COE for arguments, and the fact that it is necessary for the Defense to respond specifically to the Prosecution, an extension of 12 hours from this time (this time being 11:45 PM, GMT) is granted from the time of this post (for arguments).

Hence, if I did my math correctly, Arguments must be submitted by Dec 19 2013, 5:41 PM in your time zone. A verdict will be posted by Dec 23 2013, 5:41 AM.

Firstly, my client objects to the appointment of Blue Wolf II as Temporary Hearing Officer for this case. My client and Blue Wolf II have for the past two years been inimical to one another, and Blue Wolf II has on a great number of occasions referred to my client as "The Dog," "Mr Barky," and "Mutley." My client, and TNP, cannot be assured of a fair trial before a neutral and impartial court with Blue Wolf II on the judicial panel. Any position he takes will have the appearance of partiality, which will ill serve justice.

I ask that the Court reconsider its appointment of Blue Wolf II as Temporary Hearing Officer in this trial.

As I am unable to complete the defense arguments at this time, I will attempt to do so three hours from now. If I am unable to wake, however, please accept a request to extent arguments by six further hours.

As I move to finish my arguments, I note that the clock is reaching that 6 hour mark. (18 hours from Romanoffia's post). If I might ask for another fifteen minutes, I would be very grateful to the court.

Argument of the Defense

This is a case about freedom of speech. It is alleged that this statement by Grosseschnauzer toward Kingborough was "an intentional deception", and therefore criminal:

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...

This statement can of course be divided into a logical structure:

1. A statement of belief that Kingborough's discounting of Grosseschnauzer's vote could serve to aid a coup d'etat of the region.
2. An indication of intent to continue to challenge restrictions on speech in vote topics.
3. A question as to what Tim has promised Kingborough for aid (1).
4. A description of the recall vote as a clearly planned maneuver.
5. An indication of intent to oppose the maneuver (4).

The prosecution has seen fit to describe (1), (3), and (4) as intentional deceptions. If they were intentional deceptions, then Grosseschnauzer must have not believed what he was saying. No evidence of this has been provided whatsoever.

Before the defense proceeds to the facts, the defense recalls the Bill of Rights which declares that:

In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence.

Click to expand...

The burden to prove with "reasonably certain evidence" is on the prosecution.

Secondly, my client faces a charge of fraud, not defamation. There is no defamation statute in TNP. To accuse my client of defrauding Kingborough is to accuse him of attempting to deceive Kingborough. The prosecution has not however argued such a case, instead they have argued that my client attempted to harm Kingborough through his statement.

Belief of Aid

In the first contested utterance, Grosseschnauzer says "I blieve you are aiding a coup d'etat by your actions," or in context "I believe Kingborough is aiding a coup d'etat by discounting and striking my vote." For this to be an honest and undeceptive statement, Grosseschnauzer must have believed that Kingborough's discounting and striking of Grosseschnauzer's vote had the effect of helping a coup come to pass. As established in the mcmasterdonia Affidavit in reference to defense submissions one and ]two, Grosseschnauzer did have reason to believe that a plot to coup was afoot, as others believed. It is clear also that Grosseschnauzer believed that reducing the opposition to the recall by discounting (and hiding) his vote would advance the cause of such a plot.

This first element cannot have been fraudulent.

Questioning Kingborough

In the second contested utterance, Grosseschnauzer says "I wonder what Tim has promised you to aid in his coup against the elected Delegate."

First of all, this statement can quite easily be understood rhetorically -- to question how much entity A is giving entity B for an action is a common rhetorical approach to draw attention to the benefit entity A derives from that action. Under this straightforward interpretation, one need not even wonder whether Grosseschnauzer believed Kingborough was in an explicit quid pro quo with Tim.

Even if one ignores common usage and assumes Grosseschnauzer meant literally to demand of Kingborough what specific promises he must clearly have been made, there is no reason to be sure Grosseschnauzer did not believe such a quid pro quo possible or even likely. The logic of the statement bases the rhetorical question on the belief that Kingborough's actions assisted a coup plot. The structure of the statement clearly bases this on Grosseschnauzer's belief that Kingborough's actions were unusual and of help to Tim. Grosseschnauzer did not claim to have any evidence he wasn't putting forward which led him to believe this, nor did he present any false evidence.

The third element was not fraudulent.

Alleging a Plan

In the third contested utterance, Grosseschnauzer says "It's clear by who is voting and what way that this is a pre-planned manuever," accusing persons unnamed of having planned to recall the Delegate, based on who voted how.

If I may refer to mcmasterdonia's affidavit, mcmasterdonia said "Around the time that Eluvatar was recalled from office there was a lot of political machinations going on," and "The political divides in the region made people suspicious of one another." The rest of our evidence and testimony can all support these statements of mcmasterdonia's.

In an atmosphere of general suspicion and worry, Grosseschnauzer looked at the way people were voting on the recall and surmised coordination. The vast majority of those voting in favor were well known to have at least equal loyalties outside the region and hardly any of those voting against were, so any number of groups appearing to work together could support this surmise. Indeed it seems highly likely that there was canvassing at the very least, and likely canvassing ahead of the vote, which would imply exactly what Grosseschnauzer said.

Again, Grosseschnauzer did not claim to have any evidence he wasn't putting forward which led him to believe this: he justified the statement in the post itself as "clear by who is voting and what way". Whether this justification is weak or not is left to the reader to decide, so there is not the remotest possibility of deceit. If I may belabor the point, if I say "I believe the blackness of space does not exist because the sky is blue," this absurd statement is not deceptive (given that I disbelieve in space ) as it provides the reason for the belief and does not claim any incorrect facts. Obviously, the statement is incorrect as any physicist will tell you -- scattering of solar radiation by dust particles doesn't mean that there actually is a pervasive blue light throughout the universe. It is not, however, a lie, unlike a statement that "I believe the blackness of space does not exist because I've been up there and it's all blue."

The fourth element was quite obviously not fraudulent.

Rebuttal to the Prosecution
The prosecution has seen fit to argue at length and seek to obscure many crucial points of fact by ignoring or outright contradicting them.

Kiwi:

Summary of Events

As previously mentioned in the indictment, it is alleged that on November 1st 2012, Grosseschnauzer defrauded Kingborough in saying:

Grosseschnauzer:

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 evidence reflects an ongoing tension between Grosseschnauzer and Kingborough as Grosse was unhappy with Kingborough's decisions as speaker. Before the fraudulent statements were posted by Grosse, he was increasingly in a difficult position where it was unclear whether he would remain as the forum's Root Administrator. The catalyst of this series of events was where Kingborough invalidated Grosse's vote where he had not stated his vote in plain text. Grosse proceeded to make the aforementioned fraudulent claims against Kingborough which he was aware 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.

Click to expand...

The prosecution suggests a link between discussions of a need to change the administration structure of the official forum and Grossescnauzer's conflict with Kingborough, perhaps to suggest that Grosseschnauzer sought to discredit Kingborough to protect his status. If intended, this suggestion would be a smear, inappropriate for this context and with no support whatsoever.

Kiwi:

There has been no evidence put forward that Grosse knew of a plot between Tim or Kingborough or even involving Tim in isolation. The evidence reflects that it is not uncommon for a TNP citizen to joke about taking over the region by force or a "coup". In fact, Tim's testimony reflects that even our elected Delegate has been known to do this. The evidence put forward by Tim and JAL is contradictory in nature as Tim alleges that he never intended to coup the region but JAL believes otherwise. However, it is clear by the testimony on both sides that no substantive details or planning truly took place.

Click to expand...

The prosecution's statement is incorrect. mcmasterdonia's affidavit establishes that defense evidentiary submission 3 had been provided to Grosseshnauzer. The evidence in question, as discussed by mcmasterdonia and Chasmanthe in the evidence submissions, did lead to a real concern that Tim intended to expel as many nations as he could or otherwise 'go rogue'. In addition, while in Tim's deposition he said he never intended to coup, Chasmanthe pointed out defense evidentiary submissions 4 and 5 in which Tim quite baldly says he intended to coup TNP, made long after and separately from the discussions with JAL regarding a coup plan. As Chasmanthe also pointed out, in the discussions with JAL Tim planned to become Vice Delegate, which he in fact became.

There's no reason whatsoever to believe Grosseschnauzer did not believe Tim intended to coup the region. There is every reason to believe Grosseschnauzer did. Indeed, it is quite plausible even now that Tim had such intentions, but denies them now to avoid criminal prosecution.

Kiwi:

Most importantly, neither side mention or were aware of Kingborough being involved in such a plot. Nor in the linked discussions did either party talk about interfering with the voting process of the regional assembly, particularly where the change of a single vote would have made no material difference in the outcome of the vote in question. A point that Tim himself agreed on. In fact, the evidence tentatively suggests that neither JAL nor Tim have had any major interaction or conversations with kingborough at all. So such a plot is almost impossibly likely to have arisen. A point also conceded by the current Delegate.

Click to expand...

As previously noted, in Grosseschnauzer's statement the question of Kingborough, whether you agree it was rhetorical or not, was clearly motivated by Grosseschnauzer's perception that Kingborough's action advanced Tim's goals. It must be understood that Kingborough, like the vast majority of those who supported the recall, was very much a dual citizen.

Kiwi:

If the alleged conspirators of this plot were unaware of Kingborough potentially giving aid, it stands to reason that Grosse wouldn't of had information that they did not. If such information had been in possession of Grosse at the time, he has not presented it at trial and thus for all intensive purposes, it does not exist.

Click to expand...

It must again be made clear that the law prohibits intentional deception, not being mistaken. I am sure that Kingborough was not a party to any conspiracy to coup TNP. I'm also sure, however, that in the above described circumstances, were my vote against a measure which I felt would advance a coup discounted, I would be at least a little bit suspicious of the presiding officer.

Kiwi:

The Law

The relevant law is as follows:

Section 1.3: Fraud:

9. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Click to expand...

The prosecution submits that the offence is thus divided into three parts:

• Intentional deception and
• that the deception be by falsehood or omission and
• it was made for some benefit or to damage another individual

Click to expand...

This analysis of the statute is accurate. The defense is alarmed however that the prosecution clearly understands the fraud statute but nevertheless persists in the facially incorrect formulation that "Grosseschnauzer defrauded Kingborough."

Kiwi:

1. Intentional Deception

I have previously in my rebuttal to the motion to dismiss, presented by the defence, discussed this element in great detail. I will replicate elements of this previous discussion in this particular brief on the necessary requirement of "intentional deception".

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.

Click to expand...

The prosecution hopes to flash the fancy concept of mens rea in front of the Court and distract from the potentially vast expansion of "intention" in this argument. While at first the prosecution concedes that in a so-called "natural consequence" for a consequence to be intended they must forsee the consequence, the prosecution then presents as logically following that "recklessness" is equivalent to intention. Were one not paying close attention, one could imagine that whether a statement is true or not might not even matter if the speaker was not fully certain of its veracity. Applying this logic to our trial is even worse, as it would imply that to make a statement of belief one must be absolutely certain and able to prove this certainty. One wonders what happens to the bill of right's requirement that "In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence." A broad enough definition of recklessness to include such an utterance would do away with this principle entirely.

Kiwi:

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.

Click to expand...

The prosecution attempts an interesting sleight-of-hand here as well. As discussed in the defense's argument, the "It's clear" statement alleges only that there is a plan to pass the recall motion, and clearly bases this allegation on "who is voting and what way". That no coup occurred is not even proof that there was not actually a plan, much less proof that Grosseschnauzer did not believe there was a plan to recall and/or to coup.

Kiwi:

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.

Click to expand...

Despite jokes to that effect in other media, largely organized by prosecution's witness flemingovia, the Defense has at no point alleged that no statement of belief could possibly be an intentional deception. The motion to dismiss which the Court unfortunately did not sustain stated that as the prosecution had not alleged that Grosseschnauzer did not believe what he was saying, the prosecution had not actually levelled a charge which could amount to Fraud.

Kiwi:

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.

Click to expand...

While for a statement of belief must actually have been held to be truthful, the bill of rights is clear that the burden of proof does not lie with the defense. Nevertheless, to face the prosecution's accusation that Grosseschnauzer's statement was false because Tim did not intend to coup, the defense has provided voluminous evidence to show why Grosseschnauzer likely did believe this.

Kiwi:

Conclusively, the prosecution is of the opinion that this entire case rests on whether the Court believes that such intention exists (either directly through the evidence submitted or whether an inference of intention can be drawn from the conduct displayed by Grosse) and thus there are several options:

• The requisite intention does not exist
• The requisite intention exists in the form of direct intention i.e. that Grosse intended to deceive in making his statements relating to Kingborough
• The requisite intention exists in the form of oblique intention i.e. that Grosse made the statements relating to Kingborough and he knew that this falsehood and deception occurring was a natural or probable consequence of this act
• The Mens Rea element of Recklessness should be inferred into the definition of the offence given the gameplay context i.e. Grosse acted so recklessly in the statements made that his conduct ought to be seen as meeting the current definition of fraud (see wikipedia article on recklessness here
• Intention exists but the Court finds that a defence exists at common law

Click to expand...

Here, suddenly, the prosecution switches from discussing the first element to the third element of the statement, without clear transition. I will not hazard to infer why this juxtaposition is made, lest I myself be accused of fraud.

Even if one dismisses the obvious interpretation of that third element as a rhetorical question, one must still read it as based on the rest of the statement. Given that Grosseschnauzer believed Tim intended a coup, and that the recall would advance that intent, and that Kingborough's action in discounting and striking Grosseschnauzer's vote would advance Tim's intent, one could infer a connection. There is no false evidence or reasoning here.

Kiwi:

2. Deception by Falsehood or Omission

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, testimony has shown that none of the above has occurred. As a result, all of the above are falsehoods for the purpose of the definition of fraud.

Click to expand...

I thank the prosecutor for agreeing that the former Attorney General's claim was not a claim of Fraud.

However, I think it insults our intelligence to say that "I believe you are aiding a coup d'etat by your actions," necessarily means a takeover must be successful for the statement to be true. It's obvious, particularly from temporal context, that an attempt at coup d'etat is the direct object. One might as well claim that as Tim was not actually purging the region at the time Grosseschnauzer said this, the statement was false. However, a comprehensive understanding of coups includes the actions taken by the rogue in advance with intent to make the actual autocratic delegate behavior possible.

Obviously Grosseschnauzer believed Kingborough was violating his freedom to speak, and it was true that the Regional Assembly had not adopted any rule limiting speech on the voting floor. Yes, we know that the constitution gives the Speaker great discretion in administering the rules of the Assembly, and it is generally understood that engaging in debate in a voting topic would make the Speaker's job of counting the votes more difficult. It is common practice to disallow debate in a parliamentary body on the voting floor, but that generally has not been enforced in a draconian manner. It is also worth noting that the Speaker could easily have reduced the colorful and visible nature of Grosseschnauzer's attempt to vote without discounting it entirely. From an outside perspective the two were at loggerheads, both convinced of the rightness of their cause, and both unwilling to make any concession.

None of the testimony available has proved that there was no plan to coup. There has not even been conclusive proof that Kingborough was not involved in any coup, though assuredly the preponderance of the evidence is that Kingborough part of no such conspiracy. More importantly however there most definitely is not proof that Grosseschnauzer didn't believe Tim intended to coup, and there is no proof that Grosseschnauzer was trying to deceive the public (or, as the prosecution puts it, to deceive Kingborough).

Kiwi:

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)

Click to expand...

It was reasonable to believe Tim intended to coup. The other parts of the statement are all, by its structure, (weakly) supported by observations in the statement itself.

Kiwi:

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.

Click to expand...

This argument, that the vote would have made no difference, is nonsense. Each vote counts, and it is quite easy to suppose that Grosseschnauzer may have expected Kingborough's actions to have influenced the votes of others, either through intimidation or by hiding Grosseschnauzer's opinion.

Secondly, in point of fact, Tim was never in the Delegate seat, so the prosecution's statement is not true.

Kiwi:

3. Made for Some Benefit or to Damage Another Individual

It seems clear to make out that if Grosse didn't intend to damage Kingborough's reputation, he would have stated his concerns in private, rather than in the very public forum that he did. The conduct demonstrated by Kingborough i.e. invalidating Grosse's vote had no consequence as Grosse's vote would have made no material difference in the vote in question. What's more, the policy demonstrated by Kingborough was within his legislated power and was a rule applied fairly to all.

As a result, such conduct can only be construed as being used to politically damage Kingborough and benefit Grosse. Otherwise, there was no other reason to make the statements in question.

Click to expand...

This reasoning is absurd. One can more easily believe a number of different motivations for the statement: that Grosseschnauzer believed the policy to be illegitimate as applied and therefore the way the vote was administered was illegitimate, that concerns needed to be publicly raised about the possibility of an imminent coup so that the people could be better prepared to deal with it, et cetera. Given the state of conflict Kingborough and Grosseschnauzer were in, it does not seem plausible that one could have believed a private submission that Kingborough was acting, as Grosseschnauzer saw it, illegitimately, would help.

Kiwi:

Conclusion

Summarily the evidence presented, with all due respect to the current moderating justice, should never have been permitted by this Court. In fact, the prosecution does not dispute that factions within TNP may have had concerns about Tim becoming a rogue Delegate. Such a feeling among the community has no bearing on the proceedings at hand. Evidence should not be permitted where it needlessly prolongs proceedings which the Court has permitted here. The fact remains that Grosse cannot substantiate his claim nor has he tried to do so. He has not attempted to do so but rather his defence counsel has called a number of overly dramatic witnesses to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that Tim was going to coup. Tough times in the region however are no excuse for defrauding innocent parties who act within their mandated authority of an elected position. Obviously the moderating justice has ruled previously on this point but each justice as a decision maker has the power to place whatever weight on evidence that he or she chooses.

Finally your honour, I submit to the Court that Grosse was upset with Kingborough as he wasn't getting his way on how he displayed his vote. This was further aggravated by disharmony on the forum which the evidence has suggested could have lead to a new forum being created so that Grosse would not be Root Administrator. He felt threatened and humiliated; his response was to lash at the speaker and make unfounded accusations to damage the standing of a respected former citizen of the region. I ask the Court today to make an example of Grosse and show the rest of The North Pacific that free speech is not without caveats and responsibilities. If one has no basis whatsoever to make a claim, they should not be able to do so.

As a brief aside, I would like to ask that when the Court reviews the current trial rules that it makes several changes to the Court's procedure. Firstly depositions should NOT have to take place during discovery. They should be concluded before discovery ends but such a tight time frame in the prosecutions view is otherwise unacceptable. Secondly, the prosecution is of the view that such a minimal window for the development of arguments on the evidence at hand is unacceptable. The 108 hour window finally allowed is much more acceptable.

Hope there weren't too many mistakes in this. Didn't really have a chance to relook over it.

Click to expand...

It is remarkable to note that the prosecution's conclusion so thoroughly distances itself from the original charges. The original charges stated 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.

Click to expand...

The prosecution now claims that submissions to the effect that Tim may, in fact, have been attempting a coup should not have been permitted, and that the prosecution does not dispute that there were concerns about Tim going rogue. Somehow, however, the prosecution believes those concerns have no bearing on this trial.

Again the prosecution uses the formulation of "defrauding innocent parties" which presumably harks back to their formulation of "defrauding Kingborough." Again the defense must remind that this is a trial for fraud, not defamation. The defrauded are the deceived, not the described. No one was deceived.

And now the prosecution turns back to their inappropriate implication that Grosseschnauzer sought to discredit Kingborough to protect his status. Why this implication is made, with no evidence to back it, when Grosseschnauzer has questioned neither Hersfold's ultimate ownership of the root account nor Hersfold's ultimate decision to share access to it with flemingovia and myself as well is most strange.

Stranger still, the prosecution makes clear its intent to limit free speech. They say that claims without basis should be prohibited, eliding that all the claims made in Grosseschnauzer's statement did have basis, either given by the statement or as presented in evidence in this trial. The law against fraud is clear that only intentional deception, to a purpose, is prohibited. There is no requirement to prove the veracity of everything you say beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden of proof applies only to the prosecution.

Conclusion

To convict my client, the prosecution must prove an intent to deceive "by reasonably certain evidence." It has not done this.

We have established that Grosseschnauzer had every reason to fear an imminent coup, and that the other parts of his statement were all visibly linked and were not deceptive. The prosecution has not demonstrated anything which would prove the contrary.

The Court would like to extend its thanks to the Prosecution and Defense in this matter.

Court deliberations will officially begin at 22 December 2013 at 0001 GMT ( 22 December 2013 at 12:01 am, GMT) and a verdict will be rendered within the requisite 96 hours at 26 December 2013 at 0001 GMT (26 December 3013 at 12:01 am, GMT). For all intents and purposes, Christmas Day, GMT. Merry Christmas.

---

After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Grosseschauzer, the Court rules as follows:

Grosseschauzer is found Not Guilty on the charge of Fraud.

Reasoning:

To prove a charge of Fraud, reasonably certain evidence must indicate that the defendant perpetrated an intentional deception. While the prosecution did provide evidence that indicated that Grosseschauzer's statements were false, they were not successful in proving that Grosseschnauzer intentionally deceived anyone. Indeed, the defense provided some evidence that supported a claim that Grosseschnauzer believed his allegedly fraudulent comments to be true. In the face of a paucity of evidence regarding Grosseschnauzers intent behind his comments, the Court could not possibly render a Guilty verdict on the charge of Fraud.

Thank you for your swift deliberations, and for the verdict of course!

I believe he is innocent.

I'm disappointed that this decision doesn't go into more detail. It seems entirely inadequate that an individual can state "I believe" and shield themselves from any liability for fraudulent statements.

At any rate, I thank the Court for its swift deliberation on this matter.

The Defense concurs that the region would benefit from a more thorough explanation of the Court's verdict, particularly as that could provide better guidance for future cases.

Kiwi:

I'm disappointed that this decision doesn't go into more detail. It seems entirely inadequate that an individual can state "I believe" and shield themselves from any liability for fraudulent statements.

Click to expand...

There is a log of our decision. If you want, you can FOI request it.