The North Pacific v. Eluvatar

If the Counsellor wants to see my refusal to accept the previous ruling as binding, which is consistent with the ruling, as a rejection of that ruling, then he's welcome to do that, but he's wrong. I have not rejected that ruling, that ruling is still in place as it hasn't been overturned. What I am refusing to do is accept it as binding. Which is what the review says is proper.

I'm on the verge of dismissing this without prejudice based on prosecutorial incompetence. You have one last chance, Counsellor.
 
You're welcome, Counsellor.

Just a reminder that we're in Discovery. So go discover. It will last, as I've said already I think, until 18.30 GMT on Saturday 30th of March.
 
One different question your honor, will the court be willing to accept affadavits? I do see that the court will not accept forum testimony, and this is understood, and I am also aware that the court rules in use during this court case do not discuss affadavits. I am asking if the court is agreeable to allowing affadavits.
 
The court rules we are operating under say nothing about affidavits. Since the Counsellor detests the Court straying from the rules, I'm reluctant to permit them since they are not covered by the ruleset we're operating under. The Counsellor did request we stick to the rules.

That aside, what is the opinion of the Defence?
 
The Defense would note that, in TNP v. JAL, an Affidavit was submitted as evidence under these same court rules and never objected to by this same Prosecutor, so I wonder where his issues with it might originate in this particular case. In that case, I would note that the party submitting the Affidavit made it quite clear that the Affidavit was only taken, as I recall, because the individuals had been unavailable to complete a Deposition for the last week or so of Discovery, and so there was no alternative. And again, this particular Prosecutor did not at any point object.

Assuming that affidavits are used as last-chance option, and that the opportunity to cross-examine preserved by these court rules is protected as it was in that case which established precedent on this issue, then the Defense would have no issue with Affidavits being used, nor would we have problems with interrogatories being negotiated and used in lieu of in-thread testimony. I have strong faith in this Court's ability and dedication to protecting the constitutional rights of my client. If the Justice feels that a type of testimony is appropriate, provided we have no specific objections (i.e. undue delay, as was the case with in-thread testimony) we would likely have no objections, as is the case with the use of Affidavits.
 
Thank you Counsellor.

I'll allow affidavits, and ask that Counsellors look to the new court rules surrounding affidavits when utilising them. We are still operating under the old ruleset, but the new affidavit rules will apply if you are to use them.
 
Your honor, defense attorney is now the AG and is requesting delegate Blue Wolf appoint a special prosecutor to this case. That prosecutor could be me it could be someone else. Until we know who that person is, I would like to request a recess at this point in time.

In the event that Blue Wolf does not select me as a special prosecutor, I shall certainly recuse myself from any further involvement in this case and turn over all relevant material to the special prosecutor.
 
Makes sense.

I'm adjourning this trial until someone comes back in and asks me to reopen it.
 
Both sides have a week from this posting to sort things out so we can get on with this trial. No later.
 
<AG Hat> I will remind the interim delegate that he needs to appoint a special prosecutor - I haven't heard follow-up from him on it.</AG Hat>
 
The intern delegate is having a hard time finding someone who fits all of the following: 1) someone who wants to take the case 2) someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest 3) someone who doesn't have the attention span of a puppy with ADHD.
 
And the interim Delegate and the Attorney General will take this discussion out of my Courtroom and resolve it within the next week.
 
Since Jamie has been elected Delegate, he is no longer eligible to serve as THO.

So I have to find a new person now. You still have until Tuesday to find a prosecutor, mind.
 
<former AG hat>
I would like to make a note that BW asked if I wished to continue on this case. I declined, but stated should no one else be available I certainly would finish the case. This still stands as my position, but I hope that our new delegate is able to find a suitable replacement.
</former AG hat>
 
The Fiqh court stands ready to step in should the constitutional legal system be yet again proved wanting.

We are ready to deliver a simple, speedy (within 72 hours) and common-sense verdict in this case.
 
Punk, this is not the place to make this suggestion.

One would assume now that you're a Justice you'd learn the rules of the Court.
 
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
Click to expand...

I have standing here your honor. I am simply allowing the discretion of the new attorney general that he wished to have someone else appointed. If I wished to simply not abide by his discretion, I could fulfill the requirements as laid forth by the Legal Code.

Do you disagree?
 
Yes, because (a) you are no longer Attorney General and (b) the new Attorney General has already signalled he doesn't wish you to continue this case.

One more post from someone not involved and I'm throwing this out.
 
I gave everybody a week to find a prosecutor. I've been lenient about this. I've been very patient, but it's gotten ridiculous at this stage.

I'm dismissing this case without prejudice due to prosecution failing to, well, turn up basically. There is no prosecutor, this case cannot continue.

It is my opinion that the Defendant has not yet been brought into jeopardy. No discovery has taken place, and no evidence has been discussed or argued.
 
You're a bit late on the offer there Durk.

As it was dismissed without prejudice, one may still refile the charges. Those party to the case may still appeal the judgement to the full panel.

I'm locking this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top