- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I would like to request about a week's delay, until the 20th of February, due to external (RL) circumstances, please.
TNP v. Elu (Old)
- Thread starter Eluvatar
- Start date
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
This Court is back in session. Before I ask the defendant for his plea, it is my duty to inform this Court and the prosecution that I will be removing the charge of Sedition against the defendant due to the recent opinion as handed down by this Court.
Eluvatar, how do you plead? The defendant has 24 hours to respond.
Eluvatar, how do you plead? The defendant has 24 hours to respond.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
To whom it may concern: Gaspo and I will be representing me. (I am given to understand that Belschaft is no longer available).
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
Is it correct that I am not charged with Impersonation?
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I ask because the Justice has not listed Impersonation in their summary. It is unclear whether this was a clerical error or intentional, however.
Gaspo
TNPer
Motion to Dismiss Charge of Impersonation
(While the charge of Impersonation has not yet been added to the docket, in the event that this is merely an administrative oversight, the Defense will address this charge. If this ommission is intentional and permanent, please disregard this motion.)
The Impersonation statute was enacted April 18th, and the events in which Eluvatar stands accused of impersonating The North Pacific took place in March. While Eluvatar did not impersonate the government in any manner, he is also not interested in addressing charges whose very filing violates the Bill of Rights, Article 9.
The Impersonation statute was adopted in this vote which began at (time=1334120640) and concluded at (time=1334725980).
The concept of plausible pleading, as implied by the Court Rules Article 1.3, requires that an indictment allege sufficient facts that, if those facts were proven to be true, a reasonable finder of fact could find the accused party guilty. The burden rests with the Attorney General to allege such facts; for this charge, Punk D has failed to address this burden.
Plausible pleading is chosen by this court because it allows the Defendant to prepare an adequate defense, as he will have some notice of what basic theory of the case the Prosecution intends to use, and to dissuade prosecutors from filing malicious or baseless charges simply to overburden a defendant and compromise their defense. These issues appear to have risen in this case, despite these rules, however. As previously stated, Punk D has failed to allege any facts at all in support of this charge, let alone sufficient facts to support a finding of guilt, should said facts be proven true.
Accordingly, the Defense requests that this charge be dismissed with prejudice. The Defense notes that, as Discovery has not begun, it would not be proper for the Attorney General to submit evidence to support this charge; if he had any, he was obligated to include it in the Indictment. He failed to meet this burden, and now is not a permissible time for him to attempt to correct his mistakes.
(While the charge of Impersonation has not yet been added to the docket, in the event that this is merely an administrative oversight, the Defense will address this charge. If this ommission is intentional and permanent, please disregard this motion.)
The Impersonation statute was enacted April 18th, and the events in which Eluvatar stands accused of impersonating The North Pacific took place in March. While Eluvatar did not impersonate the government in any manner, he is also not interested in addressing charges whose very filing violates the Bill of Rights, Article 9.
Bill of Rights:
The Impersonation statute was adopted in this vote which began at (time=1334120640) and concluded at (time=1334725980).
The concept of plausible pleading, as implied by the Court Rules Article 1.3, requires that an indictment allege sufficient facts that, if those facts were proven to be true, a reasonable finder of fact could find the accused party guilty. The burden rests with the Attorney General to allege such facts; for this charge, Punk D has failed to address this burden.
Plausible pleading is chosen by this court because it allows the Defendant to prepare an adequate defense, as he will have some notice of what basic theory of the case the Prosecution intends to use, and to dissuade prosecutors from filing malicious or baseless charges simply to overburden a defendant and compromise their defense. These issues appear to have risen in this case, despite these rules, however. As previously stated, Punk D has failed to allege any facts at all in support of this charge, let alone sufficient facts to support a finding of guilt, should said facts be proven true.
Accordingly, the Defense requests that this charge be dismissed with prejudice. The Defense notes that, as Discovery has not begun, it would not be proper for the Attorney General to submit evidence to support this charge; if he had any, he was obligated to include it in the Indictment. He failed to meet this burden, and now is not a permissible time for him to attempt to correct his mistakes.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
Motion to Dismiss Charge of Election Fraud
No allegations have been made of acts which constitute Election Fraud in this indictment. While it is difficult to prove a negative, the Attorney General has failed to offer even a shred of evidence sufficient to support a cause of action for Election Fraud. For reference, the Election Fraud statute is copied below:
The Attorney General has submitted no evidence of deception, of willfulness, or of any communications or actions by Eluvatar which would meet any of the elemental requirements for this charge.
As such, the Defense requests that it be dismissed on foundational grounds, and that this dismissal be with prejudice.
No allegations have been made of acts which constitute Election Fraud in this indictment. While it is difficult to prove a negative, the Attorney General has failed to offer even a shred of evidence sufficient to support a cause of action for Election Fraud. For reference, the Election Fraud statute is copied below:
The Attorney General has submitted no evidence of deception, of willfulness, or of any communications or actions by Eluvatar which would meet any of the elemental requirements for this charge.
As such, the Defense requests that it be dismissed on foundational grounds, and that this dismissal be with prejudice.
Gaspo
TNPer
Motion to Dismiss Charge of Treason
The prosecution declares that it "shall demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate at the time which is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific." However, this speaks of a terrible miscomprehension of the statute. The first clause of the Treason statute defines two distinct notions as treason:
1. Taking up Arms.
2. Providing material support to a group or region.
Both notions are limited in that either the taking up of arms or the material support of a group must be for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific (or any of its treatied allies) as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The prosecution declares that it will demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group, falling under the second notion, and that it will show this support was "for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate" and declares that this “is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific.” While the prosecution has not explained what acts they will allege which would match their declaration, even were they to demonstrate acts which fit the broad contours they have drawn, they would not be demonstrating Eluvatar to be a traitor against The North Pacific. They do not declare that they will show Eluvatar to have an expressed purpose of undermining the constitutional governance of The North Pacific, presumably because they lack the ability to meet this factual burden. Instead, they declare they will show acts to undermine the sitting delegate, whose authority they claim to be tantamount.
It is quite clear that it is not. The North Pacific is not a kingdom. Opposition to a particular Delegate is not tantamount to seeking to undermine the constitutional government of TNP. Our Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech, grants rights to assemble, and grants rights to petition the government for redress. It explicitly protects the right of all TNP nations to ask for the removal of any official, including the Delegate. It even guarantees the organization and operation of the government on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
This Court has recently noted that the Sedition law was unconstitutional; the Treason law requires overt acts with an expressed purpose. The Attorney General has, yet again, completely failed in his duty to provide evidence to support his allegations. As such, the Prosecution requests that the court dismiss this baseless allegation with prejudice, along with the others for which the Attorney General has failed to provide even a shred of substantiation.
The prosecution declares that it "shall demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate at the time which is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific." However, this speaks of a terrible miscomprehension of the statute. The first clause of the Treason statute defines two distinct notions as treason:
1. Taking up Arms.
2. Providing material support to a group or region.
Both notions are limited in that either the taking up of arms or the material support of a group must be for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific (or any of its treatied allies) as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The prosecution declares that it will demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group, falling under the second notion, and that it will show this support was "for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate" and declares that this “is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific.” While the prosecution has not explained what acts they will allege which would match their declaration, even were they to demonstrate acts which fit the broad contours they have drawn, they would not be demonstrating Eluvatar to be a traitor against The North Pacific. They do not declare that they will show Eluvatar to have an expressed purpose of undermining the constitutional governance of The North Pacific, presumably because they lack the ability to meet this factual burden. Instead, they declare they will show acts to undermine the sitting delegate, whose authority they claim to be tantamount.
It is quite clear that it is not. The North Pacific is not a kingdom. Opposition to a particular Delegate is not tantamount to seeking to undermine the constitutional government of TNP. Our Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech, grants rights to assemble, and grants rights to petition the government for redress. It explicitly protects the right of all TNP nations to ask for the removal of any official, including the Delegate. It even guarantees the organization and operation of the government on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
This Court has recently noted that the Sedition law was unconstitutional; the Treason law requires overt acts with an expressed purpose. The Attorney General has, yet again, completely failed in his duty to provide evidence to support his allegations. As such, the Prosecution requests that the court dismiss this baseless allegation with prejudice, along with the others for which the Attorney General has failed to provide even a shred of substantiation.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I plea Not Guilty on the charge of Espionage.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I'm extraordinarily pleased to welcome r3naissanc3r to my defense team.
Blake Marks
TNPer
I will also be taking on the case on the defense. I believe that he is innocent and I will like to help prove that. Eluvatar please add me to your defense team. I am a religious man of flemigovia but this man is not guilty.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
The Defendant's plea, and choices of counsel have been noted. The omission of Impersonation was a clerical error, apologies to all concerned.
I'm going to allow the prosecution 32 hours to respond to the motions to dismiss. Convince me why I shouldn't dismiss, Counsellor, and bear in mind court rules and procedures when responding.
I'm going to allow the prosecution 32 hours to respond to the motions to dismiss. Convince me why I shouldn't dismiss, Counsellor, and bear in mind court rules and procedures when responding.
Your honor, at present I am having difficulty contacting the primary on this case. I'd like to request a recess until Monday so that I can ensure the prosecutor is fully aware of what is going on and prepared to address the case.
I hope that defense which requested a full week recess with no opposition from the prosecution will not be averse to our 3 day delay.
I hope that defense which requested a full week recess with no opposition from the prosecution will not be averse to our 3 day delay.
Your honor - I wished for 3 days and then to start the clock. Can you please advise why this request is being denied whereas the defense request was honored?
Unfortunately, my primary attorney appears unavailable at the moment and I do need to ensure he is available to respond to the motions presented. This is not theatrics, this is a request.
Unfortunately, my primary attorney appears unavailable at the moment and I do need to ensure he is available to respond to the motions presented. This is not theatrics, this is a request.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
The defence's request was due to external, RL issues which couldn't be avoided. Your request is because you can't keep track of your staff.
Counsellor, you can have the time extension I've given you, which is 57 hours by the way, or you can have your request denied outright. The prosecution has had this case before them for quite long enough to need more time allocated to help them prepare.
Counsellor, you can have the time extension I've given you, which is 57 hours by the way, or you can have your request denied outright. The prosecution has had this case before them for quite long enough to need more time allocated to help them prepare.
I would like to remind the court that the court was delayed ad nauseum on this. If the court does not wish for the region to present a competent case, that's up to you. I requested a 3 day recess, you have denied that request. This case has dragged on for nigh unto a year - not due to the fault of my office - and defense requested a 7 day stay after such time as I had previously asked the court when they would commence proceeding when 3 temporary justices had been appointed.
I am now requesting 3...repeat, 3 days of a recess and you are denying such request. I feel compelled to make note of this because it seem preposterous to me.
I am now requesting 3...repeat, 3 days of a recess and you are denying such request. I feel compelled to make note of this because it seem preposterous to me.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
The Court has been delayed ad nauseum on this, and now it's being delayed again. Counsellor, I've read your request for 3 days, and I'm not prepared to wait that long. Insulting my intelligence by repeating the request slowly will not garner you my favour.
If the prosecution doesn't have a competent case, that's hardly the fault of this Court. I'll give you the offer until Sunday at 6pm EST again, Counsellor. I am giving you a time extension, just not as long as you had wished. You can accept that time extension or not.
If the prosecution doesn't have a competent case, that's hardly the fault of this Court. I'll give you the offer until Sunday at 6pm EST again, Counsellor. I am giving you a time extension, just not as long as you had wished. You can accept that time extension or not.
Blake Marks
TNPer
Blake Marks will be in attendance on this date of sunday 6pm EST time. No evidence nor claims shall be made at this time. Your honor let it be known that any threats made by pm can be used on the victims of the threats side. No offensive action shall be made till the adjourn of this court.
Regarding the motion to dismiss the charge of impersonation
I reject defense counsel’s use of the concept “plausible pleading”. This is not a concept contained within the Legal Code, Constitution, nor the court’s adopted rules. Instead, this concept has come to the fore in recent real-life United States cases, notably Ashcroft vs. Iqbal. Thus, I ask the court to reject defense’s contention that the concept of plausible pleading as defined by the defense is a rule that this court is subject to. If the court finds that the concept of plausible pleading is a concept to which this court shall hold itself in this case and others, I ask the court to provide the prosecution with reference to such a concept within the constitution, legal code, or Court Rules. In short, this court has not required the concept of plausible pleading to my office and I would argue that the acceptance of this case is sufficient plausibility to allow my office to present our case against the defendant.
Defense has linked this concept to Court Adopted Rules Article 1.3 which states:
In honesty, I have resigned my position as attorney general in part because rules of this court are defined as we go along – often changing as the wind. I hope that the court rejects defense’s concept of plausible pleading as it is not a concept referenced or implied within any law or rule of The North Pacific. Further, his use in this instance is misplaced since Court Rules speak to declining an indictment. The court accepted the indictment and therefore dismissal of impersonation charges buttressed by this is invalid.
Regarding motion to dismiss charge of Election Fraud
Again, the court has accepted the indictment and defense’s motion to dismiss seems premature since the defendant just entered his plea. The prosecution shall contend that the defendant utilized his position as a member of the Security Council to pull together a group for the express purpose of ousting or planning to oust the legally elected sitting delegate under the guise of a ‘governmental entity’. This guise was such and the prosecution would like the opportunity to argue this point before the court. In the coming days we shall submit evidence to this court to support our claim.
Regarding the motion to dismiss the charge of treason
Your honor – this is probably the key issue before the court. The prosecution will argue that Eluvatar formed and led a group of individuals with the expressed intent to remove the sitting delegate. The prosecution shall supply this court with factual evidence supporting this claim and again believes that defense is acting prematurely. We kindly ask the court to allow the prosecution to present our evidence and reject this motion.
I’d also like to respond to defense’s postulation here:
This motion to dismiss should be rejected and instead the judicial process should be allowed to continue.
A question for the courts that remains unanswered
I do not believe the question I asked the courts at the time of this indictment has been answered. I asked which Court Rules would be utilized during this case. I ask the court to clearly define this for both parties.
Question regarding defendant’s guilty plea
The defendant – in response to the court’s request that he enter a plea – was:
I reject defense counsel’s use of the concept “plausible pleading”. This is not a concept contained within the Legal Code, Constitution, nor the court’s adopted rules. Instead, this concept has come to the fore in recent real-life United States cases, notably Ashcroft vs. Iqbal. Thus, I ask the court to reject defense’s contention that the concept of plausible pleading as defined by the defense is a rule that this court is subject to. If the court finds that the concept of plausible pleading is a concept to which this court shall hold itself in this case and others, I ask the court to provide the prosecution with reference to such a concept within the constitution, legal code, or Court Rules. In short, this court has not required the concept of plausible pleading to my office and I would argue that the acceptance of this case is sufficient plausibility to allow my office to present our case against the defendant.
Defense has linked this concept to Court Adopted Rules Article 1.3 which states:
Indeed, the court has the purview to decline an indictment as is it’s pregogative. The court did not decline this indictment and instead has accepted it. We are here because the court accepted the indictment against the defendant. Defense should not be able to say ex post facto that the court can again analyze the case referencing Article 1.3 since the article speaks specifically to an ‘indictment’; an indictment my office submitted and was accepted by this court.
In honesty, I have resigned my position as attorney general in part because rules of this court are defined as we go along – often changing as the wind. I hope that the court rejects defense’s concept of plausible pleading as it is not a concept referenced or implied within any law or rule of The North Pacific. Further, his use in this instance is misplaced since Court Rules speak to declining an indictment. The court accepted the indictment and therefore dismissal of impersonation charges buttressed by this is invalid.
Regarding motion to dismiss charge of Election Fraud
Again, the court has accepted the indictment and defense’s motion to dismiss seems premature since the defendant just entered his plea. The prosecution shall contend that the defendant utilized his position as a member of the Security Council to pull together a group for the express purpose of ousting or planning to oust the legally elected sitting delegate under the guise of a ‘governmental entity’. This guise was such and the prosecution would like the opportunity to argue this point before the court. In the coming days we shall submit evidence to this court to support our claim.
Regarding the motion to dismiss the charge of treason
Your honor – this is probably the key issue before the court. The prosecution will argue that Eluvatar formed and led a group of individuals with the expressed intent to remove the sitting delegate. The prosecution shall supply this court with factual evidence supporting this claim and again believes that defense is acting prematurely. We kindly ask the court to allow the prosecution to present our evidence and reject this motion.
I’d also like to respond to defense’s postulation here:
I would like to say that unless defense counsel is able to enter the mind of the prosecution, his statements are hearsay at best and wild speculation at worst. I humbly ask the court to allow the prosecution the opportunity to present it’s case. During pre-trial motions, the prosecution’s and defense only requirement is to submit a witness list. We shall. During the discovery phase, as defined by the Court Rules (Article 2.3), both parties submit evidence. We shall.
This motion to dismiss should be rejected and instead the judicial process should be allowed to continue.
A question for the courts that remains unanswered
I do not believe the question I asked the courts at the time of this indictment has been answered. I asked which Court Rules would be utilized during this case. I ask the court to clearly define this for both parties.
Question regarding defendant’s guilty plea
The defendant – in response to the court’s request that he enter a plea – was:
The defendant did not enter a plea to any of the other charges. The court rules clearly state:
Before these dismissal motions can be ruled upon can the court please state that it is accepting the defendant’s plea of Not Guilty on ALL charges facing the defendant given that he entered no plea for any of those charges?
I would also like this court to place a gag order on all parties involved defined thusly:
Your honor the reason for the gag order request is to ensure that no conversations, musings, or discussions take place outside the bounds of this courtroom and that a fair trial may be had by all.
I would also like to begin my witness list:
Blue Wolf- Blue Wolf will provide material testimony that supports the prosecution's case with respect to the charges, all charges, facing the defendant. Since exhibits are not required at this stage per the Adopted Court Rules, I shall offer those exhibits at the appropriate court appointed time.
- No attorney shall make comments regarding this case in any place except this courtroom. 'Place' shall be defined by any conversations at any location with anyone not associated with this case. This includes comments made on IRC channels, on this forum, or private instant messaging services, as examples. This list is not exhaustive. Witnesses recognized by this court for either the prosecution or defense are an exception to this rule.
- No member of this court shall engage in any conversation with either the defense or prosecution except when in the presence of both parties. The court shall disclose any prior conversations that have taken place with either prosecution or defense since this case has begun. If the court does not disclose any prior conversations that have taken place in the presence of just one party in this case, the court will provide reasoning for such non-disclosure.
- This gag order shall be in effect until such time as this case ends and should any member of either party be removed or willingly leave the proceedings in their current capacity, this gag order shall remain in effect until such time as this case reaches a conclusion.
- If any party in this case does not adhere to this gag order, it will be grounds for a mistrial.
Your honor the reason for the gag order request is to ensure that no conversations, musings, or discussions take place outside the bounds of this courtroom and that a fair trial may be had by all.
I would also like to begin my witness list:
Blue Wolf- Blue Wolf will provide material testimony that supports the prosecution's case with respect to the charges, all charges, facing the defendant. Since exhibits are not required at this stage per the Adopted Court Rules, I shall offer those exhibits at the appropriate court appointed time.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
Thank you, Counsellor. For your information, we'll be using the existing court rules. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd be employing an old or outdated ruleset.
This Court will be in recess for 36 hours to discuss the pre-trial motions to dismiss, as according to 2.2 of the Court Rules. A decision on the gag order will be made then also.
We stand adjourned until no later than 8am GMT Tuesday, February 26th.
This Court will be in recess for 36 hours to discuss the pre-trial motions to dismiss, as according to 2.2 of the Court Rules. A decision on the gag order will be made then also.
We stand adjourned until no later than 8am GMT Tuesday, February 26th.
Your honor - I do have other pre-trial motions. I believe you gave the prosecution until 6:57PM and my clock reads 2:43PM.
I do need this time. I also believed that the time requirement you gave was to respond to defense's motions. I have done so, but are you stating that the pre-trial period is over or that the court needs 3 days to rule on this matter.
You can save me 4 hours of work today. Thank you.
I do need this time. I also believed that the time requirement you gave was to respond to defense's motions. I have done so, but are you stating that the pre-trial period is over or that the court needs 3 days to rule on this matter.
You can save me 4 hours of work today. Thank you.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
I gave you a time extension, I assumed since you posted it meant you didn't need the rest of it. Obviously I was incorrect, my apologies.
Pre-trial period will be over once your allotted time extension is up, the timetable does say it ends today after all. From then until 8am GMT on Tuesday the 29th the Court will be in recess so the justices can look over the pre-trial motions, as is outlined in the court rules.
Pre-trial period will be over once your allotted time extension is up, the timetable does say it ends today after all. From then until 8am GMT on Tuesday the 29th the Court will be in recess so the justices can look over the pre-trial motions, as is outlined in the court rules.
Um...err...well at least I was within 57 minutes...In any event - here you go!
Disallow editing posts related to this case
Your honor, I would like you to motion that any witness accepted by this court and the defendant himself refrain from editing any comment related to this case during this trial.
There are pertinent pieces of evidence we shall be submitting and obviously, editing an item, makes it difficult to count on the reliability of a piece of evidence.
Motion to allow forum testimony
I am requesting the use of this forum thread to conduct testimony of the witnesses. Not all parties in this case have a ton of time for IRC and I do believe the witnesses below shall be useful in supporting the prosecution’s case.
Motion to accept prior court’s ruling
I am making a motion that the court define “the group” that Eluvatar created as a ‘non-governmental’
See here:[ http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8057264&t=6933681]
entity as defined by the prior court’s ruling. One of the main questions before this court is the authority with which this group was created. A prior court ruled that it was a ‘non-governmental’ entity and therefore any relevant information contained thereof was not subject to a freedom of information. I am asking the court to affirm this ruling. If the court is unable to affirm this ruling, my office shall make FOI requests to the current delegate seeking the information. If those requests are denied, we shall appeal to the court to open up the information. Either way, we seek this court’s ruling on the matter so that we know how to proceed. If the court rules counter to the previous court we will request an extension of pre-trial motions in order to react to this new ruling.
I’d like to direct the court’s attention to Flem’s post subsequent his ruling:
[http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8058341&t=6933681]
In this Flem observed Elu post in which he stated that he (Eluvatar) was unaware that his group was ‘extra-governmental’. We wish for this court to define the matter for both parties so that there is there is no confusion on this issue and we can respond accordingly.
Full Witness List
Blue Wolf – noted above
Hileville – he can corroborate the prosecution’s case having directly witnessed the crime(s) committed.
Flemingovia – he is an admin of the board and shall be needed to access evidence we shall submit and substantiate its content. Also – he was a ‘member’ of the group formed by Eluvatar. That he was a member is confirmed here [http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8056636&t=6933681]. It shall be entered into evidence but I’d not like to waste the court’s time with a frivolous defense objection.
Unibot – Eluvatar cited that BW was attempting to coup the region. A person related to the UDL mentioned this as well. We are looking for Unibot to provide us information, as an expert in intelligence, that shows he was or was not able to find information that showed Blue Wolf was going to coup the region.
Grosse – He can confirm that Elu’s group did not discuss the issues raised by Elu prior to their disclosure as he was a member of the Security Council at the time of the alleged actions. This link also will be entered into evidence during discovery [http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8056856&t=6933681]
Motion to Extend discovery
Given the number of witnesses and the seriousness of this case, I wish to make a motion to extend the discovery period to 2 weeks. I'd like to note that Grosse is semi-active and we may have little access to him. Yet, I believe he is critical to the case.
Request Admins to provide Attorney General Access to thread of the Group in question
I am making a final motion seeking that the court compel the admin team to allow the Prosecution access to the alleged group area created by Eluvatar. Eluvatar, obviously has access to this area, but the prosecution is requesting access from this court to that area. If the court rules that indeed this was a non-governmental area, then I must make this request to the admins. However, if this court rules that this was a governmental-area, I must request the court grant my office access to it. If the court affirms Flem’s prior ruling, I withdraw this request and shall seek access to this area via the forum admins.
...Apologies to the plethora of motions but I do believe they will help us all in this case going forward. Thank you!
Disallow editing posts related to this case
Your honor, I would like you to motion that any witness accepted by this court and the defendant himself refrain from editing any comment related to this case during this trial.
There are pertinent pieces of evidence we shall be submitting and obviously, editing an item, makes it difficult to count on the reliability of a piece of evidence.
Motion to allow forum testimony
I am requesting the use of this forum thread to conduct testimony of the witnesses. Not all parties in this case have a ton of time for IRC and I do believe the witnesses below shall be useful in supporting the prosecution’s case.
Motion to accept prior court’s ruling
I am making a motion that the court define “the group” that Eluvatar created as a ‘non-governmental’
See here:[ http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8057264&t=6933681]
entity as defined by the prior court’s ruling. One of the main questions before this court is the authority with which this group was created. A prior court ruled that it was a ‘non-governmental’ entity and therefore any relevant information contained thereof was not subject to a freedom of information. I am asking the court to affirm this ruling. If the court is unable to affirm this ruling, my office shall make FOI requests to the current delegate seeking the information. If those requests are denied, we shall appeal to the court to open up the information. Either way, we seek this court’s ruling on the matter so that we know how to proceed. If the court rules counter to the previous court we will request an extension of pre-trial motions in order to react to this new ruling.
I’d like to direct the court’s attention to Flem’s post subsequent his ruling:
[http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8058341&t=6933681]
In this Flem observed Elu post in which he stated that he (Eluvatar) was unaware that his group was ‘extra-governmental’. We wish for this court to define the matter for both parties so that there is there is no confusion on this issue and we can respond accordingly.
Full Witness List
Blue Wolf – noted above
Hileville – he can corroborate the prosecution’s case having directly witnessed the crime(s) committed.
Flemingovia – he is an admin of the board and shall be needed to access evidence we shall submit and substantiate its content. Also – he was a ‘member’ of the group formed by Eluvatar. That he was a member is confirmed here [http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8056636&t=6933681]. It shall be entered into evidence but I’d not like to waste the court’s time with a frivolous defense objection.
Unibot – Eluvatar cited that BW was attempting to coup the region. A person related to the UDL mentioned this as well. We are looking for Unibot to provide us information, as an expert in intelligence, that shows he was or was not able to find information that showed Blue Wolf was going to coup the region.
Grosse – He can confirm that Elu’s group did not discuss the issues raised by Elu prior to their disclosure as he was a member of the Security Council at the time of the alleged actions. This link also will be entered into evidence during discovery [http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8056856&t=6933681]
Motion to Extend discovery
Given the number of witnesses and the seriousness of this case, I wish to make a motion to extend the discovery period to 2 weeks. I'd like to note that Grosse is semi-active and we may have little access to him. Yet, I believe he is critical to the case.
Request Admins to provide Attorney General Access to thread of the Group in question
I am making a final motion seeking that the court compel the admin team to allow the Prosecution access to the alleged group area created by Eluvatar. Eluvatar, obviously has access to this area, but the prosecution is requesting access from this court to that area. If the court rules that indeed this was a non-governmental area, then I must make this request to the admins. However, if this court rules that this was a governmental-area, I must request the court grant my office access to it. If the court affirms Flem’s prior ruling, I withdraw this request and shall seek access to this area via the forum admins.
...Apologies to the plethora of motions but I do believe they will help us all in this case going forward. Thank you!
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
Thank you, Counsellor. We'll discuss these motions.
Having conferred with Hearing Officer Abbey, it's best that the Court adjourn for a longer period to allow us to discuss all these motions. (I have work, and Abbey has school in RL).
I'm going to adjourn the court until 6pm GMT Friday, March 1st to allow all the justices/hearing officers on this case discuss the motions. As I've said, myself and Abbey have limited time and Todd hasn't been on lately, I don't think.
We reserve the right to break this adjournment early should we finish.
We'll see you at 6pm Friday, folks.
Having conferred with Hearing Officer Abbey, it's best that the Court adjourn for a longer period to allow us to discuss all these motions. (I have work, and Abbey has school in RL).
I'm going to adjourn the court until 6pm GMT Friday, March 1st to allow all the justices/hearing officers on this case discuss the motions. As I've said, myself and Abbey have limited time and Todd hasn't been on lately, I don't think.
We reserve the right to break this adjournment early should we finish.
We'll see you at 6pm Friday, folks.
Gaspo
TNPer
The Defense will be filing extensive responses to the...unorthodox requests from the Prosecution, particularly his attempt to suppress our right to free speech.
Addressing, briefly, the question of the Prosecution's assertion that my client must enter a plea to all of these charges before motions to dismiss can be decided, I would note that the Defense does not wish to dignify these charges with a plea, and has filed these motions in the form of a special appearance - we are not formally answering the criminal complaint by filing a plea, but are objecting to the fact that the complaints even exist before dignifying them with a response.
Addressing, briefly, the question of the Prosecution's assertion that my client must enter a plea to all of these charges before motions to dismiss can be decided, I would note that the Defense does not wish to dignify these charges with a plea, and has filed these motions in the form of a special appearance - we are not formally answering the criminal complaint by filing a plea, but are objecting to the fact that the complaints even exist before dignifying them with a response.
Your honor – to ensure fairness, I would like to request the court to no allow defense to make additional arguments with respect to my response to defense’s multiple dismiss motions. I would like for this court to limit their scope to only the new items that I have introduced.
If the court does wish to allow defense to respond to my response, then I would like the ability to have the final word in order to ensure that there have been an equal number of responses to the question and that defense does not get to motion, have my office respond, and then provide a final argument. This does not seem to be ‘fair’.
If the court does allow defense to ‘reply’ to my response, then I would also like the ability to reply to defense’s responses to the motions/requests that I have made of this court prior to this court rendering a decision on those motions. Again, as an issue of fairness.
I’d also like to ask the court to restrict defense’s replies only to the relevant motions on the table since the pre-trial period has ended.
If the court does wish to allow defense to respond to my response, then I would like the ability to have the final word in order to ensure that there have been an equal number of responses to the question and that defense does not get to motion, have my office respond, and then provide a final argument. This does not seem to be ‘fair’.
If the court does allow defense to ‘reply’ to my response, then I would also like the ability to reply to defense’s responses to the motions/requests that I have made of this court prior to this court rendering a decision on those motions. Again, as an issue of fairness.
I’d also like to ask the court to restrict defense’s replies only to the relevant motions on the table since the pre-trial period has ended.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
Pre-trial is over and we've adjourned until Friday. My statement should be very clear.
I don't have the patience or inclination for this petty arguing or theatrics in my courtroom. If it continues I will dismiss this case. Just try me, Counsellors.
I don't have the patience or inclination for this petty arguing or theatrics in my courtroom. If it continues I will dismiss this case. Just try me, Counsellors.
Your honor - I can't speak for defense, but my request was not made for theatrics.
I am asking that the court limit the scope of defense's response. Based upon your comment regarding pre-trial I think I can assume as much.
I am also asking that if the court accepts comments from defense that are replies to my response to defense's motions, I would either a) like to be allowed to respond or b) be allowed to respond to defense's responses to my motions.
I am in no way trying to be 'theatrical', I am trying to ensure we are both afforded equal ability to reply. Honestly, that is all and I am not seeking to challenge the court's authority.
I am asking that the court limit the scope of defense's response. Based upon your comment regarding pre-trial I think I can assume as much.
I am also asking that if the court accepts comments from defense that are replies to my response to defense's motions, I would either a) like to be allowed to respond or b) be allowed to respond to defense's responses to my motions.
I am in no way trying to be 'theatrical', I am trying to ensure we are both afforded equal ability to reply. Honestly, that is all and I am not seeking to challenge the court's authority.
Gaspo
TNPer
Part of legal reasoning is containing, within your motions, counter-arguments to anticipated arguments. An endless stream of back and forth is what is out of line. You make your motions, then I respond, and then the Justice rules. This is not new.
I will be filing my complete responses within the next 24 hours, so that they are ready for the resumption of trial. If it is the Justice's intent that the Defense not be afforded an opportunity to respond to the Prosecution's various motions, I would appreciate a clear expression to that effect. In the interim, I appreciate the Court's zero-tolerance policy regarding suppressive motions and other such antics. This Court's professionalism is greatly appreciated.
I will be filing my complete responses within the next 24 hours, so that they are ready for the resumption of trial. If it is the Justice's intent that the Defense not be afforded an opportunity to respond to the Prosecution's various motions, I would appreciate a clear expression to that effect. In the interim, I appreciate the Court's zero-tolerance policy regarding suppressive motions and other such antics. This Court's professionalism is greatly appreciated.