Romanoffia has not logged on in nearly 48 hours. As we are in a rather crucial junction in the trial, I am removing him as Moderating Justice to ensure that the remainder of the trial proceeds on schedule. For the remainder of the proceedings, I will moderate this trial.
The extension of Discovery has expired, and no response by the defense to the prosecution's motions will be permitted.
Mr. Attorney General, regarding your evidentiary motions:
Kiwi:
Firstly I submit to the Court that any evidence pertaining to the potential coup of the region by Tim is irrelevant and should be removed. Even if it can be established that Tim, JAL or King were in reality planning to coup the region, there is no evidence that Grosse was aware of this. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the actions in question (i.e. invalidating a vote in the RA) would have any impact on a coup attempt, particularly where the vote itself has no consequence on the legislation in question. JAL or Tim planning or considering a coup of the region has no "tendency to prove or disprove that the alleged offending occurred", the later quote being a more accurate definition of relevance. Even if the alleged coup or considered coup was factually correct, this has no impact on the allegations made against Kingborough by Grosse. This evidence is thus irrelevant and should be stricken from the proceedings.
If this evidence is irrelevant, as you say, then the defense's argument will not benefit from its inclusion in the record, and yours will not suffer from it. I am willing to give defense counsel the benefit of the doubt on this, and see how he includes it in his argument, and let the members of the Court decide what bearing it shall have on their decision afterward. Motion denied.
Kiwi:
Secondly, I submit to the Court that deposition evidence given by JAL be removed. The reasons for this are twofold. Primarily this evidence is not relevant at all to the situation at hand. The defence has already conceded that the offence in question does not pertain to JAL attempting to coup the region or attempting to do so with Tim. Kingborough was accused by Grosse of aiding in a coup perpetrated by Tim, not JAL. As well as this, currently our evidential rules although terrible and difficult to understand are lacking in one fundamental area of coverage. I submit to the Court today that this Court should not accept unreliable evidence from a witness in a situation where its probative value is far overshadowed by its illegitimate prejudice to the proceedings.
Denied. I reject your irrelevance assertion for the same reason as the previous motion. Furthermore, JAL's testimony authenticated pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the defense.
Kiwi:
Thirdly, I ask that Defense Evidentiary Submission 1 be removed on the basis that it is not relevant. Whether JAL and Tim talked about a coup is irrelevant. Furthermore, the tone of all parties involved suggests that this thread was never meant to be taken seriously and to use it this way takes it entirely out of context.
Denied, for the same reason as the first motion.
Kiwi:
Fourthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 2 is hearsay. Period. It cannot in good conscience be admitted into evidence. Eluvatar had the opportunity to visit this conversation in the deposition and if he failed to do so, that is the defence's problem. Such evidence could only be remedied by witness testimony.
Actually, this evidence was authenticated by JAL's testimony:
[Dec 6 2013, 10:10 PM] <Eluvatar> omgitsjackwtf, is
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8118505&t=6991367 an accurate transcription of a conversation we had, at the time described?
[Dec 6 2013, 10:11 PM] <omgitsjackwtf> correct, it is
[Dec 6 2013, 10:12 PM] <Kiwi> no objection (lol wrong order but oh well)
Motion denied.
Kiwi:
Fifthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 3 is also irrelevant. These types of conversations occur all the time in #tnp and other chat-like areas utilised by TNP citizens. Even if the latter point is disregarded, JAL and Tim discussing a coup proves nothing. There is nothing in the allegation which alleges that JAL and Tim work together to take over the region. Also as has previously been mentioned, whether Tim ultimately considered couping the region is irrelevant. Tim couping the region is half the allegation from Grosse and it would be disingenuous to allow this evidence to stand.
Your irrelevance assertion is rejected for the same reason as those above. Your claim that such conversations occur all the time is not a reason to exclude the evidence from the record, merely a possible reason that the members of the court might choose to disregard it when making their decisions on the case. It might more properly appear in your arguments on the evidence. Motion denied.
Kiwi:
Sixthly, Defense Evidentiary Submission 4 & 5 are statements made during an entirely different period of time. These suffer from the same defect as the other "Tim coups" evidence but given the humourous tone of the thread and the different context given the time and place, this evidence is also irrelevant.
Again, you assertion regarding the tone of the evidence is not a reason to exclude it from the record. Even if I were to accept it as given that the posts were humorous, it would not follow that such evidence is inadmissible, merely that it is humorous. In addition, the relevance of documentary evidence is not a fucntion of the time and place that documentary evidence was recorded. Motion denied.
Both parties have the next three days to submit their arguments on the evidence and the law. Please submit your full argument in one post. Arguments must be submitted by (time=1387413660) in your time zone. A verdict will be posted by (time=1387759260).
and 
