The North Pacific v. Ravania

Abbey

Abbey

TNPer
This Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Ravania, as filed by Deputy Attorney General Belschaft, here.

The Office of The Attorney General
Of The North Pacific

arms.png


Request for Indictment​



Accused: Ravania
Complaining Party: The North Pacific
Prosecutors: Gaspo, Belschaft

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court issue an indictment charging Ravania with the crimes of Treason(LC-C1S1.1) and Espionage(LC-C1S1.2).

Relevant Sections of Law

Legal Code - Chapter 1 Section 1.1:
Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region 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.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Osiris and Equilism.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...

Legal Code - Chapter 1 Section 1.2:
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.
Click to expand...

Statement of Facts

It is hereby alleged by the Office of The Attorney General that on the 18th of March 2013 the accused, Ravania, illegally transmitted information he had accessed as a Private in The North Pacific Army (NPA) to his superiors and colleges in The United Defenders League (UDL). Ravania was, at that time, aside from being a Private in the NPA both a Citizen and Regional Assembly Member of The North Pacific (TNP) and a Lieutenant in the UDL.

The information in question consisted of a thread from a restricted NPA section of the TNP forums, in which Acting Delegate Blue Wolf II and former Delegate MCMasterdonia discussed a NPA deployment order issued by the former, and that MCMasterdonia was opposed to. Further, this operation - namely the support of the occupation of a region by the name of Warhammer 40000 - was one that Ravania and the UDL were opposed to and had recently attempted to liberate the region.

This incident was then discovered and reported to the NPA by Eluvatar, commander of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency (NPIA) and a fellow UDL Lieutenant, on the evening of the 19th of March 2013. Due to a sense of duty, at the same time Eluvatar informed the UDL Capitalis de Societate, henceforth referred to as Commanding Officer, Unibot of his actions.

Subsequent to this, and following informal communications via Internet Relay Chat (IRC), at 03:04 AM (GMT) on the 20th of March The UDL released an official statement, issued by UDL Commanding Officer Unibot, acknowledging both receipt of the information and that Ravania was the source. Further, at 10:12 PM (GMT) that same day a second official statement was released, this time issued by acting UDL Commanding Officer Earth, again confirming these details.

Shortly before the UDL issued their second official statement Ravania posted a personal statement acknowledging guilt, at 08:48 PM GMT on the 20th of March.

Following these incidents a number of investigations have been ongoing, of which the Office of The Attorney General has been a part. At this point in time, whilst the investigations are not concluded, we are confident that a sufficient evidentiary basis exists for us to seek indictment.

Supporting Evidence

Exhibit One: First UDL Official Statement (03:04 AM GMT 20/03/13)
Exhibit Two: Second UDL Official Statement (10:12 PM GMT 20/03/13)
Exhibit Three: Ravania's Statement (08:48 PM GMT 20/03/13)


Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the evidence above, and the significance of the crime, the Office of the Attorney General strongly urges the Court to accept this indictment, as this Office is confident in the strength of the case and the evidence in its possession.

Signed,
Belschaft, Deputy Attorney General
Click to expand...


Representing The North Pacific will be Gaspo, Attorney General, and Belschaft, Deputy Attorney General.
Representing the Defendant will be malashaan, Counsel for the Defence and Ravania.

Presiding over this case will be Abbey Anumia, Chief Justice and Moderating Justice, Sanctaria and punk d, Court Justices.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Treason and one count of Espionage. The Defendant has 48 hours to enter a plea, and if they do not enter a plea in that period, a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered. Additionally, the Defendant is asked to notify the Court as to who will be serving as their Attorney. If they do not do so then they will be listed as representing themselves, although this may be changed at any time. After a plea has been entered, the trial will progress to pre-trial motions.

Ravania, how do you plead?

Estimated timetable (subject to change, times in GMT)
30th March - 1st April: Plea
1st April - 3rd April: Pre-trial motions
4th April - 18th April: Discovery
11th May - 15th May: Arguments
15th May - 19th May: Recess for Judgement

Official Evidence
[Mar 18 2013, 05:51 PM] <Ravania> btw McM is questioning BW in NPA thread
[Mar 18 2013, 05:51 PM] * Tim-Opolis nods
[Mar 18 2013, 05:52 PM] <Solm> Btw: BW is smart. And his ultimate goal is to turn NPA raider.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:52 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Indeed.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Ravania> BW: I've already looked into it, and there is no violation of the NPA doctrine. Also, NPA is a neutral military, we support our friends and allies if they ask for assistance regardless of gameplay alignment.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Solm> And would not of made this move just for lulz, so don't think that we have some upper ground.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Solm> lol should we ask him to help against TBH?
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Heh
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Yus
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Ravania> MCM: Lastly, what made TBH come to us out of all their resources in the raiding world? We are hardly a mercenaries first choice. Or did you offer our services to them? My main concern is that this will set the precedent that we are simply a piling army, that moves whenever we are asked to, particularly, when said mission, has little relevance or benefit to The North Pacific.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Mahaj> yo Rav
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Ravania> MCM: When the region is still split on military grounds, my concern is that a raiding mission such as this which holds little relevance or benefit for The North Pacific could cast the Army in a bad light. I'm supportive of raiding and defending for fun, or when it benefits our interests. I'm not sure support missions of such kind, would either be fun, or beneficial.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Tim-Opolis> That's fantastic
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Mahaj> could we get screenshots?
[Mar 18 2013, 05:56 PM] <Mahaj> if you have chrome, there's an extension that screenshots the whole page, even stuff below the fold
[Mar 18 2013, 05:57 PM] <Solm> wut
[Mar 18 2013, 05:57 PM] <Solm> Gimme this extension
[Mar 18 2013, 05:57 PM] <Mahaj> at least i've heard there is
[Mar 18 2013, 05:58 PM] <Mahaj> hm i think its called screensh00ter
[Mar 18 2013, 05:59 PM] <Ravania> just making a pdf works too
[Mar 18 2013, 06:01 PM] <Mahaj> okay yeah its not below the fold
[Mar 18 2013, 06:01 PM] <Mahaj> dissapointing
[Mar 18 2013, 06:01 PM] <Mahaj> i'll talk to my friend see what he was talking about
[Mar 18 2013, 06:03 PM] <Ravania> --link removed-- <-- here you go
[Mar 18 2013, 06:04 PM] --> Earth joined the channel
[Mar 18 2013, 06:04 PM] --- ChanServ changed mode: +o Earth
[Mar 18 2013, 06:04 PM] <FriarTuck> *glomph*
[Mar 18 2013, 06:11 PM] <Ravania> Hm, I never knew pdf, kept the links provided...
[Mar 18 2013, 06:12 PM] <Tim-Opolis> It does
[Mar 18 2013, 06:12 PM] <Ravania> i can even reply from the pdf...
[Mar 18 2013, 06:14 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Yuup.

00:42:11: <Eluvatar> Mr Deputy Minister Sir
00:42:30: <Scandigrad> How may I be of service?
00:42:44: <Eluvatar> I must speak with you urgently about the UDL leak.
00:42:54: <Scandigrad> Very well.
00:43:18: <Eluvatar> The NPA soldier who reproduced private materials from the NPA forum in a secure UDL channel was Ravania
00:44:01: <Scandigrad> On what basis do you know this information?
00:45:41: <Eluvatar> I was present in the secure UDL channel because my duties in the UDL require it
00:45:52: <Eluvatar> Reviewing my logs I found that he shared info
00:46:01: <Scandigrad> May I request a copy of this?
00:46:48: <Scandigrad> And any additional pertinent information?
00:47:09: <Eluvatar> I will PM you a log shortly
00:47:17: <Eluvatar> What information do you desire?
00:48:37: <Scandigrad> Information linking Ravania to leaking information to the UDL willfully, and with full knowledge of his actions.
00:50:12: <Scandigrad> I would like to share this chat with the MoD, with your permission of course.
01:10:06: <Eluvatar> I'm sorry, the log will be slightly delayed
01:10:18: <Scandigrad> Very well.
01:10:29: <Eluvatar> My ethical obligation to report my contravention of UDL secrecy has turned into a lengthy discussion.
01:10:35: <Eluvatar> It appears I am discharged.
01:11:29: <Scandigrad> Well that's a problem.

[17:15] <@Gaspo> Alrihgt, Astarial is here to authenticate this log - she will independantly submit a copy to the Court, for verification purposes. Testifying today is Scandigrad, Deputy Minister of Defense for The North Pacific. His testimony is in regards to TNP v. Ravania, and will consist of the story of his involvement in events, and the authentication of a log being submitted as Prosecution
[17:15] <@Gaspo> Exhibit B.
[17:16] <@Gaspo> Scandigrad, do you swear that what you're about to share is the full truth, related to these matters, related to the best of your knowledge, and confined only to things you know, rather than any opinion or speculation?
[17:16] <Scandigrad> I do.
[17:17] <@Gaspo> Please begin.
[17:18] <Scandigrad> Hold on, I'm reviewing the log real quick.
[17:18] <Scandigrad> I was contacted by Eluvatar, who wished to speak to me regarding a leak within the NPA.
[17:19] <Scandigrad> At the time, the Minister was not available.
[17:20] <Scandigrad> My first priority was to determine the authenticity, particularly where this information came from, and whether it was first hand or second hand information.
[17:22] <Scandigrad> Once this criteria had been established, I also began probing for some information to build a case for a court martial. Unfortunately the member in question had left by that time, and we (the Minister and myself) decided it would only impede a general court investigation to conduct a court martial anyway.
[17:22] <Scandigrad> Finally, I do indeed authenticate that the log I have presented is accurate.
[17:23] <Scandigrad> Is there anything further I need to elaborate on, sir?
[17:24] * @Gaspo (~Gaspo@----) Quit (Ping timeout: 194 seconds)
[17:25] <Scandigrad> I'll assume that means no. This concludes my testimony.
[17:28] * Gaspo (~Gaspo@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[17:28] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Gaspo
[17:28] <@Gaspo> My apologies, folks. No need to start over - Scandi, Asta will provide me with the gap logs. Please continue.
[17:29] <@Gaspo> Asta has shown me the logs in question; there is no further scope needed for your statement at this time. Should a follow-up be necessary, I will contact you. Much obliged, sir.
[17:29] <@Gaspo> ---------------

Session Start: Tue Mar 19 06:16:02 2013
Session Ident: Unibot
[06:16] Session Ident: Unibot (EsperNet, mcmasterdonia|Away) (~Unibot@*snip*)
03[06:16] <Unibot> Hey Mcm
[06:16] <Unibot> Word is you're against this TNP raid in Warhammer
[06:17] <Unibot> Just as a note, a RA vote to override BW's call for the raid support probably would be way more sucessfully with you proposing the vote, instead of someone like Tim.
[06:17] <Unibot> Lack of political capital, UDL membership and all of that.
[06:18] <Unibot> He was talking about proposing the vote though.
Session Close: Tue Mar 19 10:21:21 2013

[09:38] <@Gaspo> MCM, you're here to give a statement regarding your involvement in the Ravania affair. Please consider yourself under oath - you are obligated to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, and to refrain from speculation or opinion. Do you have any questions before we begin?
[09:38] <mcmasterdonia> No
[09:39] <@Gaspo> Excellent. In an affidavit, I'm not allowed to ask any questions, so I will simply cede the floor to you as you relate, for the record, your involvement in the discovery and investigation of the Ravania affair.
[09:39] <mcmasterdonia> Ok
[09:40] <mcmasterdonia> So, after having an argument with the Acting Delegate at the time about what I considered to be The North Pacifics military interests, I went away from my computer for a while. When I returned, I had two queries on IRC, one from Tim and one from Unibot
[09:41] <mcmasterdonia> The one from Tim informed me that he was going to introduce an attempt to override the NPA's Deployment in support of the Black Hawks Raid
[09:42] <mcmasterdonia> The one from Unibot, basically said the same, however he mentioned that it would probably be better if I introduce the override to the Regional Assembly, noting that I apparently have more political capital than Tim does in the region.
[09:42] <mcmasterdonia> If I may find the log - one moment
[09:42] <@Gaspo> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8091362&t=7037527
[09:42] <@Gaspo> it is available here, as Prosecution Exhibit E
[09:43] <mcmasterdonia> Ah, yes that is the log
[09:43] <mcmasterdonia> The part that alerted me to the fact that the NPA forum was compromised, is where he said that word is I was against it
[09:44] <mcmasterdonia> It was clear to me that they were not proposing the deployment override simply because they had found out about it on Nationstates
[09:45] <mcmasterdonia> This led me to making a post in the High Command Centre of the North Pacific Army discussing the potential leak, as well as making a post in the Regional Assembly, NPA Deployment Override thread
[09:45] <mcmasterdonia> Specifically here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8088525&t=7033406
[09:46] <mcmasterdonia> "It also seems that some of the opposition and queries raised in the private NPA thread have made it to the top of UDL already. I'm not sure how this can be addressed without too many ramifications, but it annoys me greatly."
[09:46] <mcmasterdonia> During this time, I had a discussion with Eluvatar about the situation
[09:46] <mcmasterdonia> Which led him to conduct his own private investigations into it, which he subsequently informed the NPA High Command about his findings, which led to the discharge of Ravania from the North Pacific Army.
[09:47] <mcmasterdonia> Just rereading, to make sure that I have got everything.
[09:48] <mcmasterdonia> That's everything.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you for your statement. Should the Defense wish, you may be recalled for a deposition to answer questions - I trust you will be reasonably available should that need arise.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you for yoru time.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> *your
[09:48] <mcmasterdonia> I will be available.
[09:48] <mcmasterdonia> No problem at all Gaspo.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> <END>
[09:49] <@Gaspo> thansk buddy
[09:49] <@Gaspo> *thanks
[09:49] <mcmasterdonia> :)
[09:49] <@Gaspo> Asta, please PM a complete copy of this log to Abbey.
[09:49] <Astarial> o7
[09:49] <@Gaspo> Thanks.

<Malashaan>: Hey
<Kiwi>: Heya!
<Gaspo>: Mal, I only have a couple questions
<Gaspo>: so
<Gaspo>: I'll let you take the lead ont hsi, and I will cross-examine.
<Malashaan>: ok
<Malashaan>: Kiwi, you may consider yourself under oath to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, but not to offer opinion or speculation etc in your testimony. Any questions on that?
<Kiwi>: Nope. I understand.
<Malashaan>: At the time of the events at trial, as documented in Prosecution Exhibit A here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8090590&t=7037527, you were defense minister for TNP, correct?
<Kiwi>: I've been Minister of Defense since late November 2012 so yes, that's correct.
<Malashaan>: I'm just waiting for the prosecution to indicate whether they object to the question before proceeding
<Gaspo>: (no obj)
<Malashaan>: Were you involved in the decision for TNP to support the raid and occupation of Warhammer 40K?
<Gaspo>: No objection.
<Kiwi>: No. It was a unilateral decision made by Blue Wolf. I will note that I am not required to be. The delegate is the Commander in Chief and thus outranks me so he is well within his power to authorise a mission. That said - I may have approved the mission if asked as we had recently has successfully co-operated with the military group in question and it has been my aim to work broaden who we work with.
<Kiwi>: erm I'll just correct myself there - "I may have approved the mission if asked as we had recently successfully co-operated with the military group in question and it has been my aim to work to broaden who we work with."
<Malashaan>: That's fine, I am not questioning the legality of the mission
<Malashaan>: It is my understanding that the occupation was already underway with the support of members of the TNP at the time of the events shown in Prosecution Exhibit A, is this correct?
<Gaspo>: No obj.
<Kiwi>: I can say with reasonable certainty that the order has been issued prior to exhibit A, yes. Considering only a few nations actually ended up participating in the mission, it's possible no nations were in actual "occupation" at the time.
<Malashaan>: Are you in possession of, or are you aware of, any evidence that the conversation in Prosecution Exhibit A was used against TNP's army in Warhammer 40k?
<Gaspo>: no obj
<Kiwi>: That's a tough question. Basically the information gained by Rav could be used politically to the detriment of the army.
<Malashaan>: But you are not aware of any evidence that it was?
<Gaspo>: no obj
<Kiwi>: I have skimmed the trial thread briefly and McMasterdonia was contacted by more than one UDL member if I recall correctly. Considering how tenuous their relationship is... to me it would be enough that right after McM had stated his opinion, he was contacted by members of the UDL who dislike him and have used abusive language in respect of him on numerous occasions.
<Kiwi>: So the mere fact members of the UDL have contacted McM would be that evidence.
<Kiwi>: That may go too far towards speculation though.
<Malashaan>: I believe it is, but we can discuss that in the Courtroom in the next phase of trial
<Malashaan>: Last question from me, it is my understanding that McMasterdonia was also a member of TNP's government at the time of the events shown in Prosecution Exhibit A, is this correct?
<Kiwi>: I don't think so. At the time he wasn't.
<Gaspo>: (no obj)
<Kiwi>: While he was delegate I promoted him to Major General in the NPA which would take effect as soon as he was no longer delegate so he's a high ranking member of the NPA.
<Malashaan>: OK, I'll look into that further. I'm done, cross exam Gaspo?
<Gaspo>: No questions at this time. Reserve right to recall via interrogatories.
<Malashaan>: I believe we're done then - I'll post the log to the Court and request that the prosecution confirms authenticity thereafter
<Gaspo>: Works for me.
<Gaspo>: Thanks Kiwi.
<Malashaan>: Thanks Kiwi

Session Start: Wed Apr 10 17:05:06 2013
Session Ident: #conferenceroom
[17:05] * Attempting to rejoin channel #conferenceroom
[17:05] * Rejoined channel #conferenceroom
[17:05] * availo.esper.net sets mode: +nt
[17:05] * ChanServ sets mode: +ps
[17:36] * Ravania (webchat@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[17:36] * Malashaan (webchat@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[17:37] <@Gaspo> o/
[17:37] <Ravania> o
[17:37] <Malashaan> Good evening both
[17:38] <Malashaan> Are you both ready?
[17:38] <@Gaspo> Let's get to it, quickly as it were. Rav, you may consider yourself under oath, and obligated to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge. You are to testify only to facts, not speculation, and you may refuse to answer a question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate you, pursuant to TNP's bill of rights. Any questions?
[17:38] <@Gaspo> I
[17:38] <@Gaspo> I'm good to go anytime.
[17:39] <Ravania> okay
[17:39] * @Gaspo nods
[17:39] <@Gaspo> Your witness, Mal.
[17:41] <Malashaan> Ravania, you issued this statement on March 20 http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8088843&t=7033959 - do you believe everything therein to be accurate and truthful?
[17:42] <Ravania> I do
[17:42] <@Gaspo> No objection to that, btw.
[17:42] <@Gaspo> Continue.
[17:44] <Malashaan> In your own words, what was your intent in sharing the information?
[17:44] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[17:48] <Ravania> I felt supported by the replies to the order in the thread.
[17:49] <Malashaan> At the time the events occurred, the order to support the occupation of WH 40K had already been implemented, and was public knowledge, correct?
[17:49] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[17:49] <@Gaspo> (bit of leading, but i'll let that slide :P)
[17:50] <Ravania> Yes, an hour before the first TNP-flag was visible in the raid.
[17:56] <Malashaan> In response to the objection, did anyone in the UDL order that you used your position to gather information?
[17:56] <Ravania> No
[17:56] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[17:59] <Malashaan> You said in your original statement (linked earlier) that you were angry, please calrify, who were you angry with?
[18:00] <@Gaspo> no obj
[18:03] <Malashaan> Correction - Ravania previously stated he was angry elsewhere, not in the linked statement, so the question is modified to "did you feel angry, and if so, with whom?"
[18:04] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[18:11] <Ravania> Yes, the kind of anger you feel when you're disappointed by a decision. In this case the decision made by the Acting Delegate to support a raid.
[18:14] <Malashaan> Last question from me, the dissenting opinion you shared was McMasterdonia's, another member of the government at the time in question - is it fair to say your disappointment was with the decision of the Acting Delegate, rather than the Government of TNP as a whole?
[18:21] <Ravania> Yes, the order came directly from the Acting Delegate, I was disappointed with him, not the government of TNP as a whole.
13[18:23] <Malashaan> Thank you Ravania, Gaspo has gone quiet at this time. The Defence notes that he has not indicated whether the Prosecution objects to the previous question
13[18:24] <Malashaan> The Defence is ready for the Prosecution to cross examine - if Gaspo does not return shotly, the Defence proposes scheduling a second session to complete this deposition
[18:26] * Malashaan (webchat@----) Quit (Quit: Web client closed)
[18:27] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:27] <@Gaspo> Yo
[18:27] <@Gaspo> Phone rajng, no objection to last question. Ready for cross?
[18:27] * Malashaan| (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:28] <Malashaan|> What did i miss?
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:24:12] <Malashaan> The Defence is ready for the Prosecution to cross examine - if Gaspo does not return shotly, the Defence proposes scheduling a second session to complete this deposition
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:26:30] * Malashaan (webchat@----) Quit (Quit: Web client closed)
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:21] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:24] <@Gaspo> Yo
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:48] <@Gaspo> Phone rajng, no objection to last question. Ready for cross?
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:58] * Malashaan| (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:28:12] <Malashaan|> What did i miss?
[18:28] <Malashaan|> Yes, ready for cross
[18:30] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@---) Quit (Ping timeout: 194 seconds)
[18:30] <@Gaspo> Alright, first up, you stated previously that noone from the UDL ordered you to gather information. Isn't it true, as Prosecutino Exhibit A shows, that created a pdf in response to a specific request from UDL Lieutenant Mahaj?
[18:31] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:36] <Ravania> Most of the content was already copied and pasted on irc by me, it was just an easier way to share the info. If I recall correctly Mahaj suggested a screenshot not a pdf. And a suggestion is hardly an order.
[18:39] <@Gaspo> So again, since you didn't answer my question, did you create the PDF (which is functionally a series of images of the thread) in response to Mahaj's request?
[18:40] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:44] <Ravania> No, I just thought it was easier than copy-pasting the whole discussion between Blue Wolf and Mcmasterdonia onto irc.
[18:46] <@Gaspo> So when Mahaj asked for screenshots, and you said "just making a pdf works too", and then said "here you go" when sharing the link
[18:46] <@Gaspo> None of that was in response to Mahaj's request?
[18:48] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:49] <Ravania> His suggestions informed how I shared the information, but I had already decided and begun to do so.
[18:49] <@Gaspo> Alright, let's change tacks.
[18:50] <@Gaspo> You were aware that the subforum from which you retrieved the thread, was not a public subforum, correct?
[18:50] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:52] <Malashaan|> I may lose connection briefly, brb if i do
[18:52] <Ravania> Yes
[18:53] <@Gaspo> Did you believe you had the authority to disclose the information therein to non-NPA individuals?
[18:54] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:56] <Ravania> No
[18:58] <@Gaspo> I have no further questions at this time. Unless the Defense has an objection, I'd suggest we both reserve the right to recall this witness for additional questions through interrogatories, should the need arise as a result of future depositions and affidavits. Any problem with that, Mal?
[18:59] <Malashaan|> No problem although i believe Rav is supplementing his last answer
[19:00] <Ravania> I wasn't aware of the details of the law though.
[19:00] <@Gaspo> Does that conclude your response, Rav?
[19:01] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[19:01] <Ravania> yes
[19:01] <@Gaspo> Mal, for reference, this is all you missed:
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [18:59:22] <Malashaan|> No problem although i believe Rav is supplementing his last answer
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:00:26] <Ravania> I wasn't aware of the details of the law though.
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:00:51] <@Gaspo> Does that conclude your response, Rav?
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:01:00] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:01:11] <Ravania> yes
[19:01] <@Gaspo> If there's nothing further, I believe we can wrap this up, yeah?
[19:02] <Ravania> OOC 1 AM overhere, so please ;)
[19:02] <@Gaspo> I've nothign further, just want Mal to confirm and then you're done.
[19:03] <Malashaan> I believe we're done
[19:03] * Malashaan| (~Malashaan@----) Quit (Ping timeout: 190 seconds)
[19:05] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) Quit (Client Quit)
[19:05] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[19:06] <@Gaspo> We're done, I'll PM you a coyp of the log Mal.
[19:06] <@Gaspo> The complete one, sans drops.
[19:06] <@Gaspo> Thank you both for your time.
[19:06] <Malashaan> Thank you
[19:07] <Ravania> goodnight
[19:07] <Malashaan> Night
[19:08] * Ravania (webchat@----) has left #conferenceroom
[19:27] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has left #conferenceroom (Leaving)

Court Exhibit B: First UDL Official Statement (03:04 AM GMT 20/03/13)
Court Exhibit C: Second UDL Official Statement (10:12 PM GMT 20/03/13)
Court Exhibit D: Ravania's Statement (08:48 PM GMT 20/03/13)
 
Madam Justice, Ravania approached me yesterday and requested I serve as legal counsel. I am discussing the matter with him and we intend to enter a plea ASAP. I would greatly appreciate your understanding and patience while I advise him.
 
That is quite alright. As long as a plea is entered prior to the deadline tomorrow I have no issues - although I will expect Ravania to post his own plea, and confirm that he wishes for you to act as his counsel.
 
Your plea is accepted, Ravania, and your choice of counsel is noted.

There will now be a 72 hour period for pre-trial motions. This is the only period during the trial where motions to dismiss, based on arguments of law only, will be considered. Pre-trial motions will end at 9pm GMT on 3rd April 2013. Do bear in mind DST, Counsellors.

A reminder that Evidence should not be presented to the Court at this stage. We are doing this by the book and I will not tolerate any deviations from procedure, here. Another reminder of this Court ruling with regards to timings of responses.
 
The Prosecution requests that the Court extend Discovery to at least 10 days. The details of this case will require the Prosecution to work with a number of witnesses whose availability varies, and with a Defense counsel whose availability is unknown to the Prosecution. Given the need for availability of all parties to conduct depositions, as well as the need for at least two prosecution witnesses, other documentary evidence, and whatever other evidence the Defense may wish to submit, a five-day window will likely be insufficient to allow either party to adequately construct the foundation for their case. I thank the Court for considering this issue.
 
Counsel for the defense is still waiting for appropriate masking to view the Court archives. I cannot at present access the ruling referenced by Justice Anumia.
 
The Defence hereby informs the Court that the previous masking issues have been resolved and thanks them for their patience.
 
The defence hereby submits the following three motions for dismissal of charges for consideration by the Court, one relating to the espionage charge and two relating to the treason charge.

Motion 1

Treason is defined under chapter 1, section 1.1 of the Legal Code:
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region 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.
Click to expand...
Thus, for treason to have occurred, two elements must be present:

1) An individual must have taken arms or provided material support to a group or region.

2) The action of element 1 must have been taken with the purpose of overthrowing or undermining the government (or a treatied ally).

With regards to element 1, Ravania certainly did not take up arms, so that leaves "providing material support to a group or region." In order to "provide material support to a group or region" there must exist a group or region engaged in an operation for which support can be provided, and said support must be material. Lacking any specific definition of "material" in the Legal Code, the term presumably takes its standard meaning, namely that the noun it modifies is "relevant and significant." The indictment filed by the prosecution fails to demonstrate that the information shared by Ravania materially supported a group or region.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the UDL (or a subset thereof) can be considered a "group or region" under element 1 (which the defense does not concede), element 2 must also be present for an act of treason to have occurred. The statement of facts presented in the indictment identifies that the information shared by Ravania was that former Delegate and Minister of Foreign Affairs McMasterdonia disagreed with Acting Delegate Blue Wolf II regarding the NPA's deployment in support of the occupation of Warhammer 40000, and the discussion between the two regarding that disagreement.

The indictment fails to identify a reason why the UDL's knowledge of this disagreement between two members to the Government represents "providing material support ... for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific." In any government, it is likely that members of said government will disagree on issues, particularly ones of significant political importance, such as providing military assistance to another group or region. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to assume that for any given decision; at least one member of the current government will disagree. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that UDL's knowledge of McMasterdonia's dissent could provide material support in "overthrowing or undermining the lawful government," should such an attempt be made.

The defence further observes that the prosecution provides no indication that such an attempt was made, considered, or discussed. Thus, even if the information could be considered to have the potential to provide material support to such an attempt (which the defence does not concede), no such attempt exists. Consequently, Ravania's actions cannot be considered to have been taken "for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific."

In sum, for the reasons described above, the defence motions for the charge of treason to be dismissed on the grounds that the required elements for treason are not present in the actions identified in the indictment.

Motion 2

Espionage is defined under chapter 1, section 1.2 of the Legal Code:
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights recites, inter alia:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
This Court has previously found in its opinion dated March 26, 2013, issued in regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Constitutionality of the Intelligence Exception to the FOIA, that "no legal document or law may contradict the Constitution" and that "the Bill of Rights stands a part of that Constitution." The Court continued to conclude that "Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional" as it created an exemption to a Nation's right to transparency in government that was not supported by the Constitution. Thus, precedent mandates that insofar as any section of the legal code contradicts the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, that section of the legal code is invalid.

It is the defence's position that, based on the facts as presented by the prosecution in the indictment, any interpretation of the law that makes Ravania's actions Espionage would place Chapter 1, Section 1.2 of the legal code in conflict with section 2 of the Bill of Rights, thus invalidating said section of the legal code.

This Court has previously found in its opinion dated February 13, 2013, issued in regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Constitutionality of the Sedition Law, that "[t]he only provision that allows for infringement on the right to free speech is Section 11 of the Bill of rights when there is an emergency situation, governmental authorities may act in a reasonable manner with the permission of the Nations of the North Pacific." The Court continued to conclude that the sedition law was unconstitutional as it violated the Right to Free Speech. At the time of the events in question for the matter at trial, there was no emergency situation, and no governmental authority requested permission of the Nations of the North Pacific to address such an emergency situation. Therefore, the Right to Free Speech was in full force at that time.

There is no contention that at the time of the events in question, Ravania was a Citizen and Regional Assembly member of The North Pacific, and a Private in the North Pacific Army. Consequently, Ravania legally had access to the information that was shared. It was also public knowledge at the time of and prior to the events in question that Ravania was also an active member of the UDL, and no action was taken by the government to restrict Ravania's access to the information in question. Thus, being in legal possession of the information in question, Ravania had a Constitutionally protected right to discuss and share it with whomever he wished.

In sum, the defense submits that finding Ravania guilty of the charge of Espionage would put Chapter 1, Section 1.2 of the legal code in conflict with the Bill of Rights, thus invalidating said section. In view of this, the defense motions that the charge of Espionage be dismissed.

Motion 3

For the reasons described above in motion 2, the defense hereby submits that Ravania's actions fall under the Constitutional protection of Free Speech. If these actions were adjudged to be in violation of Chapter 1, Section 1.1 of the legal code, said section would be placed in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, and consequently invalidated.

In sum, the defense motions that the charge of Treason should be dismissed.
 
The Prosecution's responses are as follows:
Motion 1
Under the Court Rules, the indictment need not conclusively prove its case, but merely allege sufficient facts to support the cause of action. The UDL's opposition to TNP's action in The North Pacific, and the subsequent concealment of the leak by the defendant, undermined TNP's internal stability and security. The Prosecution will introduce evidence showing that the information leaked by Ravania was used by other UDL members in an attempt to influence the work of this region's legislature. Furthermore, had the Court found the alleged facts deficient, they would not have accepted the indictment, as the Court Rules require sufficient facts to be alleged prior to the acceptance of an Indictment. The Prosecution is required to provide sufficient information that the crime alleged may be supported by facts introduced in support of the allegations. Under the Defense's standard, it would be necessary for the Prosecution to provide conclusive evidence of every element of a crime at the time of charge, defeating the purpose of the Discovery process. Sufficiency of facts is the test, not completeness. Under the circumstances present here, we have an individual who published classified information to an organization opposing TNP in a military operation. This information was then used to attempt to manipulate TNP's government and undermine the authority of the Acting Delegate and his government. Under these circumstances, sufficient facts have been alleged to support the charge, and it must proceed to trial.

Motion 2
Free speech extends to the things which emanate from one's own mouth or hand. It does not extend to the words of others. Furthermore, access to information does not automatically grant a right to share said information. A Justice, for example, may have access to private court discussions of previous cases, but publication of those discussions would not be protected speech. The Defense also failed to discuss the entirety of the Legal Code's definition of Espionage. They conveniently omitted the following:
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.
The important bit here is the access requirement. It confines espionage to information that is not public knowledge - something from a classified military subforum, for example. I'm a government official, and I can't even access that area. It was provided to Mahaj, who is no longer a citizen, Tim, who is but I don't believe has access to that area, and to Unibot, who abandoned his citizenship more than a month ago. None of those individuals had access to this information. Nor did Solm, who is not even a TNP citizen, but was present when the information was shared. Again, though, free speech extends to what an individual themself says - it simply does not protect the publication of other's words, particularly when those words are shared in private. Under the Defense's model, the only thing which would constitute Espionage would be actually hacking the forums, because a person could publish anything to which they had access, anywhere, and be fully protected. Statues must be interpreted in a way which does not render them pointless - the Defense's interpretation fails to meet this requirement.

Motion 3
This appears to be a summary of the previous two, and asks that Espionage be declared legal and that therefore the Treason charge on which the Espionage action is based, must also be dismissed, because the Defendant's publication of classified documents constitutes "protected speech." The Prosecution finds these positions fundamentally flawed, for the reasons outlined above, and looks forward to this matter proceeding to trial.
 
The period for pre-trial motions is closed. I note that the prosecutions last post was outside of the actual period very slightly, but due to my own confusion thanks to DST, I'm letting it slide since it was only responses to motions.

The motion to dismiss the charge of Treason is denied. This is a substantive argument, rather than an argument on a point of law. The point of this Trial is for the Prosecution to prove that any actions by the Defendant do indeed fit that definition - the indictment merely has to show enough evidence to merit a trial taking place.

The motion to dismiss the charge of Espionage is also denied. The right to free speech is only provided for your own speech, not for the words of others. Those people have a constitutionally protected right to say those things - but you do not therefore have the right to distribute that speech, as it is not speech of your own.

I accept the motion to extend Discovery. I will be extending it to 2 weeks - 14 days - in order to leave sufficient time. I'd much rather give a little too much time, than not enough and get last minute requests to extend.

This means that Discovery will end at 6pm GMT (not BST) on the 18th April. All Evidence - including witness testimonies - must be submitted during this stage. Either Counsellor may object to evidence submitted by the other with clear reasons for their objection. All witness testimony must be taken in accordance to the Court Rules.
 
Thank you madam Justice, the defence submits the following witness list:

Ravania - as the defendant, testimony will be sought regarding the actions in question
Mahaj - as an eyewitness, testimony will be sought regarding the events in question and mindset of Ravania
Kiwi - as Minister of Defence, testimony will be sought regarding the security implications of the events in question
Blue Wolf II - As Acting Delegate, and key contributor to the leaked discussion, testimony will be sought regarding the security implications of the events in question
Unibot - As a key figure in the UDL, testimony will be sought regarding what orders Ravania had received prior to the events in question
 
Eluvatar will testify for the Prosecution regarding the disclosure of these events, and the authenticity of logs provided to the Prosecution.

Scandigrad will testify as to the timeline of events related to Eluvatar's disclosure, and to authenticate evidence.

This list may expand slightly over the next 24 hours as I confer with co-counsel - a few of the Defense's witnesses were on our to-do list as well, so I suspect that cross-examinations not limited to matters raised by direct examination will be sufficient for those purposes, unless the defense objects.
 
The defence requests that the prosecution identifies the witnesses that they would call independently of their presence on the defence's list.
 
The Prosecution intends to have Kiwi testify regarding the NPA's policies regarding classified materials, as well as on the security impact of this breach.

Blue Wolf will be called to testify regarding the UDL and Rav's response to this incident.

The Prosecution is also adding mcmasterdonia to the witness list - he will testify regarding the use to which the leaked information was put by the UDL.
 
The following is submitted as Prosecution Exhibit A, the log of the relevant UDL channel provided to the government by Eluvatar in his disclosure of the leak. It will be authenticated for trial through eyewitness testimony of Eluvatar.

Prosecution Exhibit A:
[Mar 18 2013, 05:51 PM] <Ravania> btw McM is questioning BW in NPA thread
[Mar 18 2013, 05:51 PM] * Tim-Opolis nods
[Mar 18 2013, 05:52 PM] <Solm> Btw: BW is smart. And his ultimate goal is to turn NPA raider.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:52 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Indeed.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Ravania> BW: I've already looked into it, and there is no violation of the NPA doctrine. Also, NPA is a neutral military, we support our friends and allies if they ask for assistance regardless of gameplay alignment.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Solm> And would not of made this move just for lulz, so don't think that we have some upper ground.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Solm> lol should we ask him to help against TBH?
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Heh
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Yus
[Mar 18 2013, 05:54 PM] <Ravania> MCM: Lastly, what made TBH come to us out of all their resources in the raiding world? We are hardly a mercenaries first choice. Or did you offer our services to them? My main concern is that this will set the precedent that we are simply a piling army, that moves whenever we are asked to, particularly, when said mission, has little relevance or benefit to The North Pacific.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Mahaj> yo Rav
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Ravania> MCM: When the region is still split on military grounds, my concern is that a raiding mission such as this which holds little relevance or benefit for The North Pacific could cast the Army in a bad light. I'm supportive of raiding and defending for fun, or when it benefits our interests. I'm not sure support missions of such kind, would either be fun, or beneficial.
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Tim-Opolis> That's fantastic
[Mar 18 2013, 05:55 PM] <Mahaj> could we get screenshots?
[Mar 18 2013, 05:56 PM] <Mahaj> if you have chrome, there's an extension that screenshots the whole page, even stuff below the fold
[Mar 18 2013, 05:57 PM] <Solm> wut
[Mar 18 2013, 05:57 PM] <Solm> Gimme this extension
[Mar 18 2013, 05:57 PM] <Mahaj> at least i've heard there is
[Mar 18 2013, 05:58 PM] <Mahaj> hm i think its called screensh00ter
[Mar 18 2013, 05:59 PM] <Ravania> just making a pdf works too
[Mar 18 2013, 06:01 PM] <Mahaj> okay yeah its not below the fold
[Mar 18 2013, 06:01 PM] <Mahaj> dissapointing
[Mar 18 2013, 06:01 PM] <Mahaj> i'll talk to my friend see what he was talking about
[Mar 18 2013, 06:03 PM] <Ravania> --link removed-- <-- here you go
[Mar 18 2013, 06:04 PM] --> Earth joined the channel
[Mar 18 2013, 06:04 PM] --- ChanServ changed mode: +o Earth
[Mar 18 2013, 06:04 PM] <FriarTuck> *glomph*
[Mar 18 2013, 06:11 PM] <Ravania> Hm, I never knew pdf, kept the links provided...
[Mar 18 2013, 06:12 PM] <Tim-Opolis> It does
[Mar 18 2013, 06:12 PM] <Ravania> i can even reply from the pdf...
[Mar 18 2013, 06:14 PM] <Tim-Opolis> Yuup.
Click to expand...
 
As the precise subject matter of the leak remains classified, the link to it provided by Ravania has been removed at my request, by Abbey. The link was not working for me at any previous point in this investigation, so I was unaware that it might still be visible to anyone. Should it be required, and pending approval from the NPA, I will publish the copy of the leaked documents which I retain, to opposing counsel.
 
A reminder to both sides in this case that all evidence must be gathered prior to the close of Discovery - you need to arrange your depositions or otherwise.
 
Thank you Madam Justice, the Defence and Prosecution have been communicating to schedule deporisitions, the first of which is scheduled for tomorrow evening.
 
The Prosecution submits the following log as Prosecution Exhibit B, to be authenticated through Affidavit by Scandigrad. This log contains Eluvatar's disclosure to Scandigrad, regarding the leak to the UDL.

Prosecution Exhibit B:
00:42:11: <Eluvatar> Mr Deputy Minister Sir
00:42:30: <Scandigrad> How may I be of service?
00:42:44: <Eluvatar> I must speak with you urgently about the UDL leak.
00:42:54: <Scandigrad> Very well.
00:43:18: <Eluvatar> The NPA soldier who reproduced private materials from the NPA forum in a secure UDL channel was Ravania
00:44:01: <Scandigrad> On what basis do you know this information?
00:45:41: <Eluvatar> I was present in the secure UDL channel because my duties in the UDL require it
00:45:52: <Eluvatar> Reviewing my logs I found that he shared info
00:46:01: <Scandigrad> May I request a copy of this?
00:46:48: <Scandigrad> And any additional pertinent information?
00:47:09: <Eluvatar> I will PM you a log shortly
00:47:17: <Eluvatar> What information do you desire?
00:48:37: <Scandigrad> Information linking Ravania to leaking information to the UDL willfully, and with full knowledge of his actions.
00:50:12: <Scandigrad> I would like to share this chat with the MoD, with your permission of course.
01:10:06: <Eluvatar> I'm sorry, the log will be slightly delayed
01:10:18: <Scandigrad> Very well.
01:10:29: <Eluvatar> My ethical obligation to report my contravention of UDL secrecy has turned into a lengthy discussion.
01:10:35: <Eluvatar> It appears I am discharged.
01:11:29: <Scandigrad> Well that's a problem.
Click to expand...
 
It is of note that the above log is in GMT - the other logs which will be submitted are all in GMT -5 - Eastern Time, US. Should the Court wish, I can provide a time-shifted copy for ease of review.

Scandigrad's deposition authenticating the above log, which dates from March 19, 2013, has been recorded and will shortly be submitted to the Court, as per the Rules.
 
As promised, the Affidavit of Ravania, submitted as Defense Exhibit C, to authenticate the timeline and facts established by Defense Exhibit B.

[17:15] <@Gaspo> Alrihgt, Astarial is here to authenticate this log - she will independantly submit a copy to the Court, for verification purposes. Testifying today is Scandigrad, Deputy Minister of Defense for The North Pacific. His testimony is in regards to TNP v. Ravania, and will consist of the story of his involvement in events, and the authentication of a log being submitted as Prosecution
[17:15] <@Gaspo> Exhibit B.
[17:16] <@Gaspo> Scandigrad, do you swear that what you're about to share is the full truth, related to these matters, related to the best of your knowledge, and confined only to things you know, rather than any opinion or speculation?
[17:16] <Scandigrad> I do.
[17:17] <@Gaspo> Please begin.
[17:18] <Scandigrad> Hold on, I'm reviewing the log real quick.
[17:18] <Scandigrad> I was contacted by Eluvatar, who wished to speak to me regarding a leak within the NPA.
[17:19] <Scandigrad> At the time, the Minister was not available.
[17:20] <Scandigrad> My first priority was to determine the authenticity, particularly where this information came from, and whether it was first hand or second hand information.
[17:22] <Scandigrad> Once this criteria had been established, I also began probing for some information to build a case for a court martial. Unfortunately the member in question had left by that time, and we (the Minister and myself) decided it would only impede a general court investigation to conduct a court martial anyway.
[17:22] <Scandigrad> Finally, I do indeed authenticate that the log I have presented is accurate.
[17:23] <Scandigrad> Is there anything further I need to elaborate on, sir?
[17:24] * @Gaspo (~Gaspo@----) Quit (Ping timeout: 194 seconds)
[17:25] <Scandigrad> I'll assume that means no. This concludes my testimony.
[17:28] * Gaspo (~Gaspo@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[17:28] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Gaspo
[17:28] <@Gaspo> My apologies, folks. No need to start over - Scandi, Asta will provide me with the gap logs. Please continue.
[17:29] <@Gaspo> Asta has shown me the logs in question; there is no further scope needed for your statement at this time. Should a follow-up be necessary, I will contact you. Much obliged, sir.
[17:29] <@Gaspo> ---------------
Click to expand...
 
Below is Defense Exhibit A, the testimony of Ravania, taken in a deposition witnessed and managed by myself on behalf of the Defence and Gaspo on behalf of the Prosecution.

Defence Exhibit A:
Session Start: Wed Apr 10 17:05:06 2013
Session Ident: #conferenceroom
[17:05] * Attempting to rejoin channel #conferenceroom
[17:05] * Rejoined channel #conferenceroom
[17:05] * availo.esper.net sets mode: +nt
[17:05] * ChanServ sets mode: +ps
[17:36] * Ravania (webchat@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[17:36] * Malashaan (webchat@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[17:37] <@Gaspo> o/
[17:37] <Ravania> o
[17:37] <Malashaan> Good evening both
[17:38] <Malashaan> Are you both ready?
[17:38] <@Gaspo> Let's get to it, quickly as it were. Rav, you may consider yourself under oath, and obligated to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge. You are to testify only to facts, not speculation, and you may refuse to answer a question on the grounds that the answer may incriminate you, pursuant to TNP's bill of rights. Any questions?
[17:38] <@Gaspo> I
[17:38] <@Gaspo> I'm good to go anytime.
[17:39] <Ravania> okay
[17:39] * @Gaspo nods
[17:39] <@Gaspo> Your witness, Mal.
[17:41] <Malashaan> Ravania, you issued this statement on March 20 http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8088843&t=7033959 - do you believe everything therein to be accurate and truthful?
[17:42] <Ravania> I do
[17:42] <@Gaspo> No objection to that, btw.
[17:42] <@Gaspo> Continue.
[17:44] <Malashaan> In your own words, what was your intent in sharing the information?
[17:44] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[17:48] <Ravania> I felt supported by the replies to the order in the thread.
[17:49] <Malashaan> At the time the events occurred, the order to support the occupation of WH 40K had already been implemented, and was public knowledge, correct?
[17:49] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[17:49] <@Gaspo> (bit of leading, but i'll let that slide :P)
[17:50] <Ravania> Yes, an hour before the first TNP-flag was visible in the raid.
[17:52] <Malashaan> Do you believe that anyone in the UDL ordered you, or otherwise requested, that you used your position in TNP to gather information?
[17:53] <@Gaspo> Objection, calls for speculation.
[17:54] <@Gaspo> (Answer anyways, Rav - the Justices will edit out sustained objections later)
[17:55] <Ravania> No, I have never been ordered to gather information from TNP.
[17:56] <Malashaan> In response to the objection, did anyone in the UDL order that you used your position to gather information?
[17:56] <Ravania> No
[17:56] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[17:59] <Malashaan> You said in your original statement (linked earlier) that you were angry, please calrify, who were you angry with?
[18:00] <@Gaspo> no obj
[18:03] <Malashaan> Correction - Ravania previously stated he was angry elsewhere, not in the linked statement, so the question is modified to "did you feel angry, and if so, with whom?"
[18:04] <@Gaspo> No obj.
[18:11] <Ravania> Yes, the kind of anger you feel when you're disappointed by a decision. In this case the decision made by the Acting Delegate to support a raid.
[18:14] <Malashaan> Last question from me, the dissenting opinion you shared was McMasterdonia's, another member of the government at the time in question - is it fair to say your disappointment was with the decision of the Acting Delegate, rather than the Government of TNP as a whole?
[18:21] <Ravania> Yes, the order came directly from the Acting Delegate, I was disappointed with him, not the government of TNP as a whole.
13[18:23] <Malashaan> Thank you Ravania, Gaspo has gone quiet at this time. The Defence notes that he has not indicated whether the Prosecution objects to the previous question
13[18:24] <Malashaan> The Defence is ready for the Prosecution to cross examine - if Gaspo does not return shotly, the Defence proposes scheduling a second session to complete this deposition
[18:26] * Malashaan (webchat@----) Quit (Quit: Web client closed)
[18:27] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:27] <@Gaspo> Yo
[18:27] <@Gaspo> Phone rajng, no objection to last question. Ready for cross?
[18:27] * Malashaan| (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:28] <Malashaan|> What did i miss?
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:24:12] <Malashaan> The Defence is ready for the Prosecution to cross examine - if Gaspo does not return shotly, the Defence proposes scheduling a second session to complete this deposition
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:26:30] * Malashaan (webchat@----) Quit (Quit: Web client closed)
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:21] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:24] <@Gaspo> Yo
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:48] <@Gaspo> Phone rajng, no objection to last question. Ready for cross?
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:27:58] * Malashaan| (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[18:28] <@Gaspo> [18:28:12] <Malashaan|> What did i miss?
[18:28] <Malashaan|> Yes, ready for cross
[18:30] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@---) Quit (Ping timeout: 194 seconds)
[18:30] <@Gaspo> Alright, first up, you stated previously that noone from the UDL ordered you to gather information. Isn't it true, as Prosecutino Exhibit A shows, that created a pdf in response to a specific request from UDL Lieutenant Mahaj?
[18:31] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:36] <Ravania> Most of the content was already copied and pasted on irc by me, it was just an easier way to share the info. If I recall correctly Mahaj suggested a screenshot not a pdf. And a suggestion is hardly an order.
[18:39] <@Gaspo> So again, since you didn't answer my question, did you create the PDF (which is functionally a series of images of the thread) in response to Mahaj's request?
[18:40] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:44] <Ravania> No, I just thought it was easier than copy-pasting the whole discussion between Blue Wolf and Mcmasterdonia onto irc.
[18:46] <@Gaspo> So when Mahaj asked for screenshots, and you said "just making a pdf works too", and then said "here you go" when sharing the link
[18:46] <@Gaspo> None of that was in response to Mahaj's request?
[18:48] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:49] <Ravania> His suggestions informed how I shared the information, but I had already decided and begun to do so.
[18:49] <@Gaspo> Alright, let's change tacks.
[18:50] <@Gaspo> You were aware that the subforum from which you retrieved the thread, was not a public subforum, correct?
[18:50] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:52] <Malashaan|> I may lose connection briefly, brb if i do
[18:52] <Ravania> Yes
[18:53] <@Gaspo> Did you believe you had the authority to disclose the information therein to non-NPA individuals?
[18:54] <Malashaan|> No objection
[18:56] <Ravania> No
[18:58] <@Gaspo> I have no further questions at this time. Unless the Defense has an objection, I'd suggest we both reserve the right to recall this witness for additional questions through interrogatories, should the need arise as a result of future depositions and affidavits. Any problem with that, Mal?
[18:59] <Malashaan|> No problem although i believe Rav is supplementing his last answer
[19:00] <Ravania> I wasn't aware of the details of the law though.
[19:00] <@Gaspo> Does that conclude your response, Rav?
[19:01] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[19:01] <Ravania> yes
[19:01] <@Gaspo> Mal, for reference, this is all you missed:
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [18:59:22] <Malashaan|> No problem although i believe Rav is supplementing his last answer
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:00:26] <Ravania> I wasn't aware of the details of the law though.
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:00:51] <@Gaspo> Does that conclude your response, Rav?
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:01:00] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[19:01] <@Gaspo> [19:01:11] <Ravania> yes
[19:01] <@Gaspo> If there's nothing further, I believe we can wrap this up, yeah?
[19:02] <Ravania> OOC 1 AM overhere, so please ;)
[19:02] <@Gaspo> I've nothign further, just want Mal to confirm and then you're done.
[19:03] <Malashaan> I believe we're done
[19:03] * Malashaan| (~Malashaan@----) Quit (Ping timeout: 190 seconds)
[19:05] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) Quit (Client Quit)
[19:05] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has joined #conferenceroom
[19:06] <@Gaspo> We're done, I'll PM you a coyp of the log Mal.
[19:06] <@Gaspo> The complete one, sans drops.
[19:06] <@Gaspo> Thank you both for your time.
[19:06] <Malashaan> Thank you
[19:07] <Ravania> goodnight
[19:07] <Malashaan> Night
[19:08] * Ravania (webchat@----) has left #conferenceroom
[19:27] * Malashaan (~Malashaan@----) has left #conferenceroom (Leaving)
Click to expand...
 
All above submissions are noted (that doesn't mean -accepted- - I still need to review them).

I have removed quoted IP addresses as a precaution, although I have kept the uneditied copies.
 
The following is submitted as Prosecution Exhibit D, the deposition of Eluvatar. There were no objections to questions at any point in this deposition, so Mal and I agreed to simply submit it as evidence, rather than go through the whole rigamarole of Your Honor looking at a document that is unobjectionable, verifying that, etc.

[22:51] <Malashaan> Your witness counsel
[22:52] * Eluvatar sets mode: +s
[22:52] <Gaspo> Elu, you may consier yourself under oath to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, but not to offer opinion or speculation etc in your testimony. Any questions on that?
[22:52] <@Eluvatar> (I set mode +s to reduce the likelihood of unwanted guests)
[22:53] <Gaspo> (*nods*)
[22:53] <@Eluvatar> Under what circumstances is it permissible for me to decline to answer?
[22:53] <Malashaan> I believe you always have that right, Gaspo is more familiar with TNP law than me though
[22:54] <Gaspo> You may decline to answer when your answer may incriminate yourself, though neither this office nor the Delegate, as I u nderstand it, has any desire to prosecute you regardless, as pertains to this matter, as your cooperation has been most crucial to the mere discovery of this matter.
[22:55] <Gaspo> The scope of your testimony will be confined to authenticating an exhibit submitted as evidence, however, and corroborating the chain of events as related by other witnesses. This will not be a prying, aggressive deposition, at least from my side P
[22:55] <Gaspo> * :P
[22:55] <@Eluvatar> Thank you.
[22:56] <Gaspo> Any further questions, or are we ready to proceed?
[22:56] <@Eluvatar> I'm ready.
[22:56] <Gaspo> Very well.
[22:57] <Gaspo> Are you familiar with prosecution exhibit A, submitted here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8090590&t=7037527
[22:57] <Gaspo> ?
[22:57] <Malashaan> no objection
[22:58] <@Eluvatar> I believe so. Under cursory examination it appears to be precisely the record I submitted to the Ministry of Defense a few weeks ago.
[22:59] <@Eluvatar> With the exception that the (time=) codes have been replaced with timezone-specific timestamps.
[23:01] <Gaspo> Do you have any doubts as to the accuracy or authenticity of Exhibit A, as compared to your records (other than the timestamp changes and the removal of the link to the google doc)?
[23:02] <@Eluvatar> Please allow me a moment to check my records.
[23:02] <Gaspo> Not a problem.
[23:02] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:04] <@Eluvatar> The colors I generated for to distinguish the speakers appear to be gone as well.
[23:05] <Gaspo> Is the content itself accurate?
[23:05] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:08] <@Eluvatar> Some smileys appear to have been redacted
[23:09] <Gaspo> Those will have been lost in my copy-paste >_<
[23:09] <Gaspo> Anyways, moving on.
[23:10] <Gaspo> From what channel is this log excerpt sourced?
[23:10] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:13] <@Eluvatar> And one last difference: the link to the pdf has been redacted.
[23:15] * Gaspo nods.
[23:15] <@Eluvatar> I would appreciate not having to answer that question literally, by naming the channel: Assuming I have such discretion unless told otherwise, I will tell you that the channel is a command channel for the UDL used for officer discussions of a sensitive nature such as operational planning.
[23:16] <Malashaan> I have no objection to that answer, Gaspo?
[23:16] <Gaspo> That answer is sufficiently specific.
[23:17] <Gaspo> What events brought that log to your attention?
[23:17] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:18] <@Eluvatar> What do you mean by attention? Do you mean what caused me to read it, what caused me to think about it further, or what caused me to file a report containing it?
[23:18] <Gaspo> The first - apologies if that wasn't clear.
[23:19] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:20] <@Eluvatar> I was named in a discussion slightly before that discussion, I believe. To the best of my knowledge, that caused me to read that log in one of my regular log ons to IRC.
[23:21] <Gaspo> What caused you to think about that log further?
[23:22] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:23] <@Eluvatar> Comments by mcmasterdonia, I think, that Uni and/or Tim had approached him in a way that implied they were aware of his statements in question.
[23:23] <@Eluvatar> I believe that rang a bell for me and caused me to think about it as I went to sleep.
[23:24] <Gaspo> Last couple questions - to whom did you submit your report?
[23:24] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:25] <@Eluvatar> Deputy Minister Scandigrad.
[23:25] <@Eluvatar> I also shared it with the NPA High Command.
[23:25] <@Eluvatar> Later.
[23:26] <Gaspo> No further questions. Mal, your witness.
[23:28] <Malashaan> To your knowledge, was there any discussion of the leaked information prior to the log the prosecution has presented?
[23:28] <Gaspo> No objection.
[23:31] <@Eluvatar> I'm sorry I at first misinterpreted your question so, to be safe, I'm going to ask for confirmation that I understand it correctly now.
[23:33] <Malashaan> Sorry, I wasn't 100% clear. Are you aware of any discussion of the leaked information amongst UDL members prior to the conversation shown in prosecution exhibit A?
[23:33] <@Eluvatar> You are asking whether UDL officers and/or members discussed the information Ravania revealed with one another in a manner which contravened NPA information regulations prior to the log?
[23:33] <Malashaan> In any manner in fact
[23:34] <@Eluvatar> I do not recall whether permissible conversations took place off the top of my head.
[23:34] <@Eluvatar> Are you asking me to check my records?
[23:36] <Malashaan> If you could, that would be great, but if it will take forever, I can do without it, if the prosecution agrees
[23:37] <Gaspo> I agree.
[23:38] <@Eluvatar> To the best of my knowledge it was not discussed prior to the log in prosecution exhibit A.
[23:38] <Gaspo> Works for me.
[23:38] <Malashaan> me too
[23:38] <Malashaan> I'm done
[23:39] <Gaspo> Fair enough. I have no reason for re-direct at this time - reserve right to recall via interrogatories as necessary, for both parties. Fine w/ you, Mal?
[23:40] <Malashaan> Yep
[23:40] <Malashaan> Thank you Eluvatar
[23:41] <Gaspo> Thanks Elu.
[23:41] <Gaspo> Mal, given that there wer ezero objections at any point in this
[23:41] <Gaspo> I'm just gonna post it in the thread.
[23:42] <Gaspo> If you'll post after I do, sometimet omorrow, verifying that the copy I post is accurate, we should be all set.
[23:42] <Malashaan> Sounds good
 
The following is submitted as Prosecution Exhibit E - a log of Unibot utilizing the classified NPA information to attempt to compel the introduction of RA legislation. This log was received by Mcmasterdonia, and will be authenticated through his forthcoming affidavit. The only editing which has taken place is the removal of Unibot's IP address.

Session Start: Tue Mar 19 06:16:02 2013
Session Ident: Unibot
[06:16] Session Ident: Unibot (EsperNet, mcmasterdonia|Away) (~Unibot@*snip*)
03[06:16] <Unibot> Hey Mcm
[06:16] <Unibot> Word is you're against this TNP raid in Warhammer
[06:17] <Unibot> Just as a note, a RA vote to override BW's call for the raid support probably would be way more sucessfully with you proposing the vote, instead of someone like Tim.
[06:17] <Unibot> Lack of political capital, UDL membership and all of that.
[06:18] <Unibot> He was talking about proposing the vote though.
Session Close: Tue Mar 19 10:21:21 2013
 
The following is Prosecution Exhibit F, the affidavit of Mcmasterdonia, recorded this morning. A copy of the log has been provided to Chief Justice Abbey by Astarial, the witness, to verify the authenticity of the record.

[09:38] <@Gaspo> MCM, you're here to give a statement regarding your involvement in the Ravania affair. Please consider yourself under oath - you are obligated to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, and to refrain from speculation or opinion. Do you have any questions before we begin?
[09:38] <mcmasterdonia> No
[09:39] <@Gaspo> Excellent. In an affidavit, I'm not allowed to ask any questions, so I will simply cede the floor to you as you relate, for the record, your involvement in the discovery and investigation of the Ravania affair.
[09:39] <mcmasterdonia> Ok
[09:40] <mcmasterdonia> So, after having an argument with the Acting Delegate at the time about what I considered to be The North Pacifics military interests, I went away from my computer for a while. When I returned, I had two queries on IRC, one from Tim and one from Unibot
[09:41] <mcmasterdonia> The one from Tim informed me that he was going to introduce an attempt to override the NPA's Deployment in support of the Black Hawks Raid
[09:42] <mcmasterdonia> The one from Unibot, basically said the same, however he mentioned that it would probably be better if I introduce the override to the Regional Assembly, noting that I apparently have more political capital than Tim does in the region.
[09:42] <mcmasterdonia> If I may find the log - one moment
[09:42] <@Gaspo> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8091362&t=7037527
[09:42] <@Gaspo> it is available here, as Prosecution Exhibit E
[09:43] <mcmasterdonia> Ah, yes that is the log
[09:43] <mcmasterdonia> The part that alerted me to the fact that the NPA forum was compromised, is where he said that word is I was against it
[09:44] <mcmasterdonia> It was clear to me that they were not proposing the deployment override simply because they had found out about it on Nationstates
[09:45] <mcmasterdonia> This led me to making a post in the High Command Centre of the North Pacific Army discussing the potential leak, as well as making a post in the Regional Assembly, NPA Deployment Override thread
[09:45] <mcmasterdonia> Specifically here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8088525&t=7033406
[09:46] <mcmasterdonia> "It also seems that some of the opposition and queries raised in the private NPA thread have made it to the top of UDL already. I'm not sure how this can be addressed without too many ramifications, but it annoys me greatly."
[09:46] <mcmasterdonia> During this time, I had a discussion with Eluvatar about the situation
[09:46] <mcmasterdonia> Which led him to conduct his own private investigations into it, which he subsequently informed the NPA High Command about his findings, which led to the discharge of Ravania from the North Pacific Army.
[09:47] <mcmasterdonia> Just rereading, to make sure that I have got everything.
[09:48] <mcmasterdonia> That's everything.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you for your statement. Should the Defense wish, you may be recalled for a deposition to answer questions - I trust you will be reasonably available should that need arise.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you for yoru time.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> *your
[09:48] <mcmasterdonia> I will be available.
[09:48] <mcmasterdonia> No problem at all Gaspo.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> Thank you.
[09:48] <@Gaspo> <END>
[09:49] <@Gaspo> thansk buddy
[09:49] <@Gaspo> *thanks
[09:49] <mcmasterdonia> :)
[09:49] <@Gaspo> Asta, please PM a complete copy of this log to Abbey.
[09:49] <Astarial> o7
[09:49] <@Gaspo> Thanks.

On a semi-related note, both sides have experienced difficulty in nailing down witnesses with erratic and conflicting schedules - should the Discovery deadline impact the Defense's ability to execute any cross-examinations it deems necessary, the Prosecution will lodge no objection to a limited-use extension of discovery, should such a move prove necessary to ensure the integrity and completeness of this proceeding.
 
Gaspo:
The following is submitted as Prosecution Exhibit D, the deposition of Eluvatar. There were no objections to questions at any point in this deposition, so Mal and I agreed to simply submit it as evidence, rather than go through the whole rigamarole of Your Honor looking at a document that is unobjectionable, verifying that, etc.

[22:51] <Malashaan> Your witness counsel
[22:52] * Eluvatar sets mode: +s
[22:52] <Gaspo> Elu, you may consier yourself under oath to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, but not to offer opinion or speculation etc in your testimony. Any questions on that?
[22:52] <@Eluvatar> (I set mode +s to reduce the likelihood of unwanted guests)
[22:53] <Gaspo> (*nods*)
[22:53] <@Eluvatar> Under what circumstances is it permissible for me to decline to answer?
[22:53] <Malashaan> I believe you always have that right, Gaspo is more familiar with TNP law than me though
[22:54] <Gaspo> You may decline to answer when your answer may incriminate yourself, though neither this office nor the Delegate, as I u nderstand it, has any desire to prosecute you regardless, as pertains to this matter, as your cooperation has been most crucial to the mere discovery of this matter.
[22:55] <Gaspo> The scope of your testimony will be confined to authenticating an exhibit submitted as evidence, however, and corroborating the chain of events as related by other witnesses. This will not be a prying, aggressive deposition, at least from my side P
[22:55] <Gaspo> * :P
[22:55] <@Eluvatar> Thank you.
[22:56] <Gaspo> Any further questions, or are we ready to proceed?
[22:56] <@Eluvatar> I'm ready.
[22:56] <Gaspo> Very well.
[22:57] <Gaspo> Are you familiar with prosecution exhibit A, submitted here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8090590&t=7037527
[22:57] <Gaspo> ?
[22:57] <Malashaan> no objection
[22:58] <@Eluvatar> I believe so. Under cursory examination it appears to be precisely the record I submitted to the Ministry of Defense a few weeks ago.
[22:59] <@Eluvatar> With the exception that the (time=) codes have been replaced with timezone-specific timestamps.
[23:01] <Gaspo> Do you have any doubts as to the accuracy or authenticity of Exhibit A, as compared to your records (other than the timestamp changes and the removal of the link to the google doc)?
[23:02] <@Eluvatar> Please allow me a moment to check my records.
[23:02] <Gaspo> Not a problem.
[23:02] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:04] <@Eluvatar> The colors I generated for to distinguish the speakers appear to be gone as well.
[23:05] <Gaspo> Is the content itself accurate?
[23:05] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:08] <@Eluvatar> Some smileys appear to have been redacted
[23:09] <Gaspo> Those will have been lost in my copy-paste >_<
[23:09] <Gaspo> Anyways, moving on.
[23:10] <Gaspo> From what channel is this log excerpt sourced?
[23:10] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:13] <@Eluvatar> And one last difference: the link to the pdf has been redacted.
[23:15] * Gaspo nods.
[23:15] <@Eluvatar> I would appreciate not having to answer that question literally, by naming the channel: Assuming I have such discretion unless told otherwise, I will tell you that the channel is a command channel for the UDL used for officer discussions of a sensitive nature such as operational planning.
[23:16] <Malashaan> I have no objection to that answer, Gaspo?
[23:16] <Gaspo> That answer is sufficiently specific.
[23:17] <Gaspo> What events brought that log to your attention?
[23:17] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:18] <@Eluvatar> What do you mean by attention? Do you mean what caused me to read it, what caused me to think about it further, or what caused me to file a report containing it?
[23:18] <Gaspo> The first - apologies if that wasn't clear.
[23:19] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:20] <@Eluvatar> I was named in a discussion slightly before that discussion, I believe. To the best of my knowledge, that caused me to read that log in one of my regular log ons to IRC.
[23:21] <Gaspo> What caused you to think about that log further?
[23:22] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:23] <@Eluvatar> Comments by mcmasterdonia, I think, that Uni and/or Tim had approached him in a way that implied they were aware of his statements in question.
[23:23] <@Eluvatar> I believe that rang a bell for me and caused me to think about it as I went to sleep.
[23:24] <Gaspo> Last couple questions - to whom did you submit your report?
[23:24] <Malashaan> No objection
[23:25] <@Eluvatar> Deputy Minister Scandigrad.
[23:25] <@Eluvatar> I also shared it with the NPA High Command.
[23:25] <@Eluvatar> Later.
[23:26] <Gaspo> No further questions. Mal, your witness.
[23:28] <Malashaan> To your knowledge, was there any discussion of the leaked information prior to the log the prosecution has presented?
[23:28] <Gaspo> No objection.
[23:31] <@Eluvatar> I'm sorry I at first misinterpreted your question so, to be safe, I'm going to ask for confirmation that I understand it correctly now.
[23:33] <Malashaan> Sorry, I wasn't 100% clear. Are you aware of any discussion of the leaked information amongst UDL members prior to the conversation shown in prosecution exhibit A?
[23:33] <@Eluvatar> You are asking whether UDL officers and/or members discussed the information Ravania revealed with one another in a manner which contravened NPA information regulations prior to the log?
[23:33] <Malashaan> In any manner in fact
[23:34] <@Eluvatar> I do not recall whether permissible conversations took place off the top of my head.
[23:34] <@Eluvatar> Are you asking me to check my records?
[23:36] <Malashaan> If you could, that would be great, but if it will take forever, I can do without it, if the prosecution agrees
[23:37] <Gaspo> I agree.
[23:38] <@Eluvatar> To the best of my knowledge it was not discussed prior to the log in prosecution exhibit A.
[23:38] <Gaspo> Works for me.
[23:38] <Malashaan> me too
[23:38] <Malashaan> I'm done
[23:39] <Gaspo> Fair enough. I have no reason for re-direct at this time - reserve right to recall via interrogatories as necessary, for both parties. Fine w/ you, Mal?
[23:40] <Malashaan> Yep
[23:40] <Malashaan> Thank you Eluvatar
[23:41] <Gaspo> Thanks Elu.
[23:41] <Gaspo> Mal, given that there wer ezero objections at any point in this
[23:41] <Gaspo> I'm just gonna post it in the thread.
[23:42] <Gaspo> If you'll post after I do, sometimet omorrow, verifying that the copy I post is accurate, we should be all set.
[23:42] <Malashaan> Sounds good
Click to expand...
I confirm this is accurate and as witnessed.
 
The following is submitted as Defence Exhibit B, the deposition of Kiwi. There were no objections to questions at any point in this deposition, so we agreed to simply submit it as evidence, as with Eluvator's deposition.

<Malashaan>: Hey
<Kiwi>: Heya!
<Gaspo>: Mal, I only have a couple questions
<Gaspo>: so
<Gaspo>: I'll let you take the lead ont hsi, and I will cross-examine.
<Malashaan>: ok
<Malashaan>: Kiwi, you may consider yourself under oath to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, but not to offer opinion or speculation etc in your testimony. Any questions on that?
<Kiwi>: Nope. I understand.
<Malashaan>: At the time of the events at trial, as documented in Prosecution Exhibit A here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8090590&t=7037527, you were defense minister for TNP, correct?
<Kiwi>: I've been Minister of Defense since late November 2012 so yes, that's correct.
<Malashaan>: I'm just waiting for the prosecution to indicate whether they object to the question before proceeding
<Gaspo>: (no obj)
<Malashaan>: Were you involved in the decision for TNP to support the raid and occupation of Warhammer 40K?
<Gaspo>: No objection.
<Kiwi>: No. It was a unilateral decision made by Blue Wolf. I will note that I am not required to be. The delegate is the Commander in Chief and thus outranks me so he is well within his power to authorise a mission. That said - I may have approved the mission if asked as we had recently has successfully co-operated with the military group in question and it has been my aim to work broaden who we work with.
<Kiwi>: erm I'll just correct myself there - "I may have approved the mission if asked as we had recently successfully co-operated with the military group in question and it has been my aim to work to broaden who we work with."
<Malashaan>: That's fine, I am not questioning the legality of the mission
<Malashaan>: It is my understanding that the occupation was already underway with the support of members of the TNP at the time of the events shown in Prosecution Exhibit A, is this correct?
<Gaspo>: No obj.
<Kiwi>: I can say with reasonable certainty that the order has been issued prior to exhibit A, yes. Considering only a few nations actually ended up participating in the mission, it's possible no nations were in actual "occupation" at the time.
<Malashaan>: Are you in possession of, or are you aware of, any evidence that the conversation in Prosecution Exhibit A was used against TNP's army in Warhammer 40k?
<Gaspo>: no obj
<Kiwi>: That's a tough question. Basically the information gained by Rav could be used politically to the detriment of the army.
<Malashaan>: But you are not aware of any evidence that it was?
<Gaspo>: no obj
<Kiwi>: I have skimmed the trial thread briefly and McMasterdonia was contacted by more than one UDL member if I recall correctly. Considering how tenuous their relationship is... to me it would be enough that right after McM had stated his opinion, he was contacted by members of the UDL who dislike him and have used abusive language in respect of him on numerous occasions.
<Kiwi>: So the mere fact members of the UDL have contacted McM would be that evidence.
<Kiwi>: That may go too far towards speculation though.
<Malashaan>: I believe it is, but we can discuss that in the Courtroom in the next phase of trial
<Malashaan>: Last question from me, it is my understanding that McMasterdonia was also a member of TNP's government at the time of the events shown in Prosecution Exhibit A, is this correct?
<Kiwi>: I don't think so. At the time he wasn't.
<Gaspo>: (no obj)
<Kiwi>: While he was delegate I promoted him to Major General in the NPA which would take effect as soon as he was no longer delegate so he's a high ranking member of the NPA.
<Malashaan>: OK, I'll look into that further. I'm done, cross exam Gaspo?
<Gaspo>: No questions at this time. Reserve right to recall via interrogatories.
<Malashaan>: I believe we're done then - I'll post the log to the Court and request that the prosecution confirms authenticity thereafter
<Gaspo>: Works for me.
<Gaspo>: Thanks Kiwi.
<Malashaan>: Thanks Kiwi
 
Malashaan:
The following is submitted as Defence Exhibit B, the deposition of Kiwi. There were no objections to questions at any point in this deposition, so we agreed to simply submit it as evidence, as with Eluvator's deposition.

<Malashaan>: Hey
<Kiwi>: Heya!
<Gaspo>: Mal, I only have a couple questions
<Gaspo>: so
<Gaspo>: I'll let you take the lead ont hsi, and I will cross-examine.
<Malashaan>: ok
<Malashaan>: Kiwi, you may consider yourself under oath to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, but not to offer opinion or speculation etc in your testimony. Any questions on that?
<Kiwi>: Nope. I understand.
<Malashaan>: At the time of the events at trial, as documented in Prosecution Exhibit A here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8090590&t=7037527, you were defense minister for TNP, correct?
<Kiwi>: I've been Minister of Defense since late November 2012 so yes, that's correct.
<Malashaan>: I'm just waiting for the prosecution to indicate whether they object to the question before proceeding
<Gaspo>: (no obj)
<Malashaan>: Were you involved in the decision for TNP to support the raid and occupation of Warhammer 40K?
<Gaspo>: No objection.
<Kiwi>: No. It was a unilateral decision made by Blue Wolf. I will note that I am not required to be. The delegate is the Commander in Chief and thus outranks me so he is well within his power to authorise a mission. That said - I may have approved the mission if asked as we had recently has successfully co-operated with the military group in question and it has been my aim to work broaden who we work with.
<Kiwi>: erm I'll just correct myself there - "I may have approved the mission if asked as we had recently successfully co-operated with the military group in question and it has been my aim to work to broaden who we work with."
<Malashaan>: That's fine, I am not questioning the legality of the mission
<Malashaan>: It is my understanding that the occupation was already underway with the support of members of the TNP at the time of the events shown in Prosecution Exhibit A, is this correct?
<Gaspo>: No obj.
<Kiwi>: I can say with reasonable certainty that the order has been issued prior to exhibit A, yes. Considering only a few nations actually ended up participating in the mission, it's possible no nations were in actual "occupation" at the time.
<Malashaan>: Are you in possession of, or are you aware of, any evidence that the conversation in Prosecution Exhibit A was used against TNP's army in Warhammer 40k?
<Gaspo>: no obj
<Kiwi>: That's a tough question. Basically the information gained by Rav could be used politically to the detriment of the army.
<Malashaan>: But you are not aware of any evidence that it was?
<Gaspo>: no obj
<Kiwi>: I have skimmed the trial thread briefly and McMasterdonia was contacted by more than one UDL member if I recall correctly. Considering how tenuous their relationship is... to me it would be enough that right after McM had stated his opinion, he was contacted by members of the UDL who dislike him and have used abusive language in respect of him on numerous occasions.
<Kiwi>: So the mere fact members of the UDL have contacted McM would be that evidence.
<Kiwi>: That may go too far towards speculation though.
<Malashaan>: I believe it is, but we can discuss that in the Courtroom in the next phase of trial
<Malashaan>: Last question from me, it is my understanding that McMasterdonia was also a member of TNP's government at the time of the events shown in Prosecution Exhibit A, is this correct?
<Kiwi>: I don't think so. At the time he wasn't.
<Gaspo>: (no obj)
<Kiwi>: While he was delegate I promoted him to Major General in the NPA which would take effect as soon as he was no longer delegate so he's a high ranking member of the NPA.
<Malashaan>: OK, I'll look into that further. I'm done, cross exam Gaspo?
<Gaspo>: No questions at this time. Reserve right to recall via interrogatories.
<Malashaan>: I believe we're done then - I'll post the log to the Court and request that the prosecution confirms authenticity thereafter
<Gaspo>: Works for me.
<Gaspo>: Thanks Kiwi.
<Malashaan>: Thanks Kiwi
Click to expand...
I hereby verify that this is authentic and a wholly accurate account of the deposition.
 
Right. Discovery is timetabled to end in 2 hours time. However, I'm going to be going on a LoA. So, I'm going to extend discovery by 5 days - there is still the odd end not tied up, the odd witness missing and it makes little sense to say "you can't submit things" when I'm not going to be here to rule on them anyway.

If there is any objection from this from either side, the Court should be considered adjourned until 6pm GMT on the 23rd April. If there is no objection, that is the time at which Discovery shall end.
 
Now the Court is back in session, the Defence formally submits it is happy with the evidence on record and is ready to proceed.
 
I'm fine with the evidence as submitted - I spoke with Abbey yesterday and she's planning to formally close discovery soon, as I understand it.

Regarding moving forward, I must request a recess in this trial, unfortunately. The Administration team has seen fit to enforce an administration policy which blocks private chatlogs from being posted on these forums, regardless of purpose, without the consent of both parties. Prosecution Exhibit E was not authorized by Unibot, but instead only by mcmasterdonia, who was the recipient of the messages.

Unfortunately, while all necessary legal standards are met, the forum administration team feels otherwise, and I'm sure they'll edit out that log before long. As that evidence is otherwise admissible and forms a substantial element of my case, and has not been objected to by opposing counsel, its exclusion from the trial would have no basis in law, but instead be based on a moderation policy which serves to shield individuals from being held accountable for their words and deeds. If administration is willing to forego this requirement in the case of an individual whose consent cannot be obtained, as he has left the game, I am glad to go forward; otherwise, I must request a recess until the Administrative team determines whether this policy will remain in effect. I can go forward without that evidence, but my ability to prosecute this case will be substantially impaired by this extrajudicial action.
 
In the interests of justice, the defence is willing to proceed with the trial with exhibit E being admissible either publicly, or in private chambers under a privacy order, as the Court sees fit.
 
If the Court can reconcile such a system with the Bill of Rights' absolute requirement for a public trial, I have no objection.
 
If it please the court,

a discussion is now underway between the moderation team concerning the right to privacy on the forum. I do not intend to let this discussion drag on too long, and hope to have a decision from the admins as soon as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top