The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch

Ator People

Ator People

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


Indictment:
Criminal Complaint

Defendant: Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
Plaintiff: TNP

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit several criminal acts:

Criminal Acts: The Defendant solicited Venico Brightaxe's assistance in overthrowing the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly.


Relevant Laws

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.

Section 1.7: Conspiracy
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Section 1.8: Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.


Summary of events

On the evening of Februrary 17th and morning of the 18th, Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, using the puppet Mysterious Me, contacted Venico Brightaxe to gauge his interest in supporting a coup of The North Pacific. After explaining his plan in broad terms, outlining his endorsement count, he suggested a move to instant communication. During the Skype chat, Haafingar and Hjaalmarch confirmed his identity and discussed his exact endorsement count and requested influence estimates for ejecting the delegate. Venico then submitted the evidence to the proper authorities in TNP who requested an indictment to allow the banning of the nation in question.

Supporting Evidence

1(Original Telegrams): http://imgur.com/a/l5CER#0

2(Transcription of Skype Chat): http://pastebin.com/yqqkjDRd

3(Oath of Office of the RA, including a pledge to "responsible action as a member of her society": http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8126123&t=6923980

4(shows his birthyear as 1987, thus supporting that live:efernand87 is in fact the defendant): http://i.imgur.com/Cpjl87b.png

5(shows the founding date of H&H as January 1st, 2014, or 1 month and 18 days prior to the contact with Venico, thus linking to this statement: "This entire ideas was concieved two months ago when I made that WA nation,"): http://i.imgur.com/c0SYYnU.png


Conclusion and Recommendation

The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.


Signed,
Treize Dreizehn
Deputy Attorney General, The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Representing The North Pacific will be Chasmanthe, Attorney General, and Treize Dreizehn, Deputy Attorney General.

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be Ator People.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Treason, one count of Conspiracy, and one count of Gross Misconduct.

The Defendant will have 48 hours from the opening of the thread to enter a plea. If at that time no plea has been entered, a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for the Defendant.

Additionally, the Defendant is requested to notify the Court as to who will be serving as their Attorney. If they do not do so then the Defendant will be listed as representing themselves until further notice.

Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, how do you plead?




Estimated Schedule (subject to change):

April 8th to April 9th: Plea
April 9th to April 12th: Pre-Trial
April 13th to April 18th: Discovery
April 19th to April 23rd: Arguments
April 24th to April 28th: Deliberation

This post may be updated as necessary during the course of the trial.

Major Updates:
  • Updated April 6th with schedule adjustments
  • Updated April 9th with schedule adjustments
 
The Defendant has been notified of the opening of this trial thread via forum PM and by telegram to the nation of haafingar_and_hjaalmarch.

As Moderating Justice of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch I must notify you that a trial thread, in which you are the named Defendant, has been opened here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7174682/1/.

As the Defendent, you will have 48 hours from the opening of the thread to enter a plea. If at that time no plea has been entered, a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for you.

Additionally, you are requested to notify the Court as to who will be serving as your Attorney. If you do not do so then you will be listed as representing yourself until further notice.

Please keep all communication with the Court in the relevant trial thread.

- Ator People
Moderating Justice
Click to expand...
 
I've received this message from Haafingar and Hjaalmarch via telegram in response to my notification of his trial thread:

X0gFJ9T.png


The Court will take a brief recess to determine how to proceed.
 
Since the Defendant has not entered a formal plea, the Court will appoint a defense attorney for them. Willing counsel are invited to contact the Court, and an announcement will be made within the next two days.
 
Mall has offered to represent the Haafingar and Hjaalmarch in this case, and so as Moderating Justice I hereby appoint Mall as attorney for the Defendant in the matter of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch.

I will give the Defense 24 hours to get their notes together, and then the trial will begin this week.

I have notified the Defendant of this appointment via Telegram and PM:

Haafingar and Hjaalmarch,

Since you have not entered a formal plea in the matter of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court has appointed a defense attorney for you.

Mall (http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/profile/3126518/ | http://www.nationstates.net/nation=mall) has been appointed as your defense attorney. Your attorney will have 24 hours to get their notes together and then the case will proceed.

Ator People
Moderating Justice, The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
Click to expand...
 
I thank the Court for it's patience, after these 24 hours expire the Defense will indeed be prepared to commence the trial.
 
I accept the plea of Not Guilty entered by the Defense.

The 72 hours for pre-trial motions will now begin. I'll remind both counsel that this is the only time in which motions to dismiss charges, based on arguments of law, will be considered.

Pre-trial motions are scheduled to end on April 12th.
 
The Defense requests that all charges be dismissed with prejudice.

The indictment states as follows:

Criminal Acts: The Defendant solicited Venico Brightaxe's assistance in overthrowing the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
However as a point of law this itself is not an act of Treason. The Court of The North Pacific has ruled that
To prove treason, therefore, would require evidence that action was taken in game – such as troop movements, etc. Though the discussions seen in the evidence provided by the prosecution proved that Blue Wolf II discussed carrying out what would potentially be treasonous activity there was no evidence that this activity itself ever occurred. Without any evidence or proof that “material” actions were taken in game, I did not feel there were any grounds for a conviction for treason.
Click to expand...

Since there is no evidence submitted by the Prosecution that any "material" actions were taken in game in any manner different than the actions of the prior defendant Blue Wolf II (namely simply having a moderate but legal endocount in the region), this charge must be dismissed.

Regarding the charge of conspiracy:
Section 1.7: Conspiracy
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
Click to expand...
The Court has ruled previously that
The Bill of Rights establishes that each Nation has the right to free speech and that that right cannot be infringed upon. The Bill of Rights also establishes that in the event of an actual emergency, governmental authorities with the consent of the Nations of the North Pacific may act in any reasonable manner consistent with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for the ability to infringe on Free Speech in any of its provisions.
Click to expand...
As such on the point of law that the Conspiracy charge violates my client's right to free speech as defined by the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and later by this very Court, I ask that the Court dismiss this charge.

Finally let us examine the final charge:
Section 1.8: Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...
It becomes obvious that once the first two charges are dismissed it becomes impossible to maintain that Gross Misconduct occurred regarding my Client. I ask that this charge be dismissed.
 
The prosecution will now respond to the motions of the defense:

Since there is no evidence submitted by the Prosecution that any "material" actions were taken in game in any manner different than the actions of the prior defendant Blue Wolf II (namely simply having a moderate but legal endocount in the region), this charge must be dismissed.
Click to expand...

The simple action of having a moderate but legal amount of endorsements is not, in itself material. However, when those endorsements are gained with the explicit intent of overthrowing the legally elected delegate, and those intentions are made clear, then the threshold of "material" actions have been met. Under normal circumstances it would be impossible to determine the intent of a defendant in this matter, but these are of course not normal circumstances. We know his intent, by the evidence presented. Therefore his actions are not legal under the code. Even with an endorsement count under the general limit.

...on the point of law that the Conspiracy charge violates my client's right to free speech as defined by the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and later by this very Court, I ask that the Court dismiss this charge.
Click to expand...

The law says "conspiracy". I think the defense is getting hung up on not the actual interpretation of the law, but rather the idea of "talking about a crime". An actual reading includes both attempting or helping to commit a crime, along with the(as the defense outlined) the planning of a crime.

I would argue that the actual gathering of endorsements as part of an effort to overthrow the government of the North Pacific is, as I said earlier, still a crime, and the attempts to organize it as part of a larger effort fall well within the bounds of conspiracy.

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and no one is attempting to dispute that. The speech itself is protected, the actions that accompanied them, are not.

It becomes obvious that once the first two charges are dismissed it becomes impossible to maintain that Gross Misconduct occurred regarding my Client. I ask that this charge be dismissed.
Click to expand...

The RA oath of office includes a pledge to "responsible action as a member of her (TNP's) society". Without any regard for the question of the defendants innocence or guilt in relation to the other two charges, the actions taken by the defendant were not the responsible actions of a member of this community. The defendant has clearly violated his oath, and the charge of Gross Misconduct should stand.

The defense has failed to present a compelling case for any of these charges to be dropped. The prosecution thanks the court for its time.
 
The Defense would like to note that the Prosecution's attempted refutations of the justifications behind the motions to dismiss are based upon suppositions of the Defendant's guilt rather than any substantial legal basis such as references to prior Court decisions or the Constibillocode.
 
The prosecution would like to note that the inability to edit posts is a frustrating feature...

However, there is no presumption of guilt here. The Defense's job is to question our evidence or justify motions to dismiss. The justifications the defense has presented do not, in fact, represent the charges as presented by the prosecution.

These charges have already been accepted and a motion to dismiss must be compelling if we are to skip the thorough examination of the evidence the trial will entail. The defense has quoted other related but not relevant cases and rulings in an attempt to justify their motion. I have pointed out how they do not apply to this case. I do not, in fact have to rejustify the charges.

The simple fact of the matter is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This case has ample evidence to support the charges, and so far that evidence has not actually been addressed by the defense.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
The prosecution would like to note that the inability to edit posts is a frustrating feature...

However, there is no presumption of guilt here. The Defense's job is to question our evidence or justify motions to dismiss. The justifications the defense has presented do not, in fact, represent the charges as presented by the prosecution.

These charges have already been accepted and a motion to dismiss must be compelling if we are to skip the thorough examination of the evidence the trial will entail. The defense has quoted other related but not relevant cases and rulings in an attempt to justify their motion. I have pointed out how they do not apply to this case. I do not, in fact have to rejustify the charges.

The simple fact of the matter is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This case has ample evidence to support the charges, and so far that evidence has not actually been addressed by the defense.
Click to expand...
Insofar as the evidence does not support the prosecution of the charges which have been put forward (which the Defense has backed with precedent from TNP's own legal history), the evidence has indeed been addressed. I leave these motions to the Court to decide, pending any legally relevant objections from the Prosecution.
 
Mall:
Insofar as the evidence does not support the prosecution of the charges which have been put forward (which the Defense has backed with precedent from TNP's own legal history), the evidence has indeed been addressed. I leave these motions to the Court to decide, pending any legally relevant objections from the Prosecution.
Click to expand...
The defense has quoted precedent from TNP's own legal history that is mostly unrelated to the charges in question. So no, I'd say it hasn't be addressed. I however also await the decision of the courts in this matter.
 
Ator People:
The Court will consider the Defense's motion to dismiss.
Click to expand...
The Defense thanks the Court for its consideration and is ready to go into greater detail upon any point should the Court request it.
 
The Court has considered the Defense's motion to dismiss the charges.

The consideration of this motion is based only on matters of law, not on any evidence of whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges before them.

The complaint by The North Pacific accused the Defendant of the following:

Criminal Complaint:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant solicited Venico Brightaxe's assistance in overthrowing the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

The Defendant has been charged with the following criminal acts: one count of Treason, one count of Conspiracy, and one count of Gross Misconduct.

The Defense has motioned that the charge of treason be dismissed because the criminal acts listed, namely the solicitation of "assistance in overthrowing the the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly" are not, as a matter of law, treason. I concur, and so I hereby dismiss the charge of treason against the defendant, without prejudice.

The Defense has further motioned that the charge of conspiracy be dismissed because it violates the Defendant's right to speech. I disagree, and so deny this motion.

Finally, the Defense has motioned that the charge of gross misconduct be dismissed because it is impossible to maintain such a charge if the first two are dismissed. Because I will not dismiss the charge of conspiracy, I will also not dismiss the charge of gross misconduct.

Therefore, the charge of treason is dropped. The charges of conspiracy and gross misconduct remain. The trial will proceed as scheduled. The discovery period begins today and will be concluded on April 18th. I would like to remind counsel to familiarize themselves with the Court's current general evidentiary rules.
 
I thank the Court for its ruling and the Defense is confident that the given timeframe for Discovery will be sufficient.
 
The Prosecution hereby submits the following witness list:
Venico - The informant who originally brought this issue to TNP's attention.

The Prosecution hereby submits the following evidence as prosecution exhibits A-E.

Prosecution Exhibit A - Screenshots of conversation between Venico and Haafingar and Hjaalmarch.

HNLAEHB.png

kW5nepr.png

ZzOELOL.png

XM0soL7.png

Qmlzvvf.png

Prosecution Exhibit B - Skype Chat between Venico and Haafingar and Hjaalmarch.

[3:43:27 AM] *** Venico has shared contact details with live:efernand87. ***
[3:43:34 AM] Venico: Hello
[3:44:16 AM] live:efernand87: Send me a video call without the actual video. I do not have a webcam
[3:44:38 AM] Venico: We can just talk here if you don't mind, I'm currently in another call. :)
[3:44:49 AM] live:efernand87: That is fine
[3:45:01 AM] live:efernand87: Ok, this is my nation. "Haafingar and Hjaalmarch"
[3:45:05 AM] live:efernand87: Endoresment count 321
[3:45:16 AM] live:efernand87: 141 short of the Delegate
[3:45:23 AM] live:efernand87: 142 to surpass him by one endorsement
[3:45:42 AM] Venico: Venico nods
[3:45:55 AM] Venico: I'm taking a look at influence now
[3:46:12 AM] live:efernand87: 143
[3:46:12 AM] Venico: Because if you can't hold the delegacy there isn't a point eh?
[3:46:18 AM] live:efernand87: This is true
[3:46:29 AM] Venico: Also I enjoy the skyrim references =P
[3:46:35 AM] live:efernand87: Thank you
[3:47:09 AM] Venico: as it stands you can't eject McM nor do I see that changing
[3:47:21 AM] Venico: Do you plan on running for Vice Delegate anytime soon?
[3:47:29 AM] live:efernand87: That election is 6 months off
[3:47:31 AM] live:efernand87: I would not win
[3:47:50 AM] live:efernand87: What about targeting the nations endorsing McM
[3:47:51 AM] Venico: Yeah, have you held any positions on the forunms?
[3:47:58 AM] live:efernand87: Regional Assembley
[3:47:59 AM] Venico: and that works...for a bit
[3:48:54 AM] live:efernand87: What is your judgement. What can be done to make it happen?
[3:50:48 AM] live:efernand87: How much influence would I need to actually eject McM?
[3:51:12 AM] Venico: About 280 or in that range
[3:51:23 AM] live:efernand87: A significant amount

Prosecution Exhibit C - Haafingar and Hjaalmarch's oath of Office for the Regional Assembly:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8126123&t=6923980

Prosecution Exhibit D -Supporting that live:efernand87 is in fact the defendant born in 1987:

http://i.imgur.com/Cpjl87b.png

Prosecution Exhibit E - Shows the founding date of H&H as January 1st, 2014, or 1 month and 18 days prior to the contact with Venico, thus linking to this statement from Exhibit A: "This entire ideas was conceived two months ago when I made that WA nation,"):

http://i.imgur.com/c0SYYnU.png

Both the defense and witness have been contacted to schedule a deposition. That will be added when it becomes available.
 
The Defense will also be calling Venico as a witness, along with The Dourian Embassy.

The Defense submits the following pieces of evidence to the Court:

Defense Exhibit A: Proof that pictures of telegrams from puppets are meaningless unless it can be demonstrated that the supposed puppet master has acknowledged ownership of the puppet.
8VTrr8a.png

Defense Exhibit B: Proof that Skype logs which lack any type of identification information are meaningless as evidence in Court.
[11:03:06 PM] Mall: Pssssst. Asta. I'm Francos Spain. I'm too lazy to set my skype date of birth to match whatever his was on whatever forums he was once on, but totes magotes trust me.

Defense Exhibit C: Proof that discussing couping TNP is not conspiracy since no law in TNP may restrict freedom of speech.
Sections 2 and 11 of the Bill of Rights:
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. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific: In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on the Constitutionality of the Sedition Law:
The Bill of Rights establishes that each Nation has the right to free speech and that that right cannot be infringed upon. The Bill of Rights also establishes that in the event of an actual emergency, governmental authorities with the consent of the Nations of the North Pacific may act in any reasonable manner consistent with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for the ability to infringe on Free Speech in any of its provisions.
Click to expand...

Defense Exhibit D: A short list of the number of people born in 1987, indicating that birth year is not proof of identity.

Exhibit D
 
The Prosecution hereby submits the following evidence as prosecution exhibit F

Prosecution Exhibit F - Message from Haafingar and Hjaalmarch to Ator People admitting guilt.

X0gFJ9T.png
 
The Defense objects to the submission of Exhibit F, the prosecution's description of what the intent of the Defendant's meaning was is purely speculative and in no way grounded in what was stated. We request that the Court remove Exhibit F from their considerations or at the very least request that the prosecution present an accurate depiction of what is being portrayed.
 
Both the defense and prosecution have deposed Venico and the log of that deposition is here I certify to the best of my knowledge that it is honest and accurate:

[13:06] <Treize_Dreizehn> Start logging here:
[13:06] <Treize_Dreizehn> Venico, 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?
[13:06] <Venico> So help me Overseer
[13:06] <Venico> I do
[13:07] <Treize_Dreizehn> Excellent. So, can you walk us through the events of Feb 17th and 18th which led to this current court case?
[13:08] <Venico> Well I was contacted by an anonymous nation whose name escapes now, about a potential coup of TNP. I told my friend Koth and he told me that he also got one.
[13:09] <Venico> So I decided to delve further and see how much of an actual threat this person was
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> For the record, you're referring to this exchange:
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> http://imgur.com/a/l5CER#0
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> Correct?
[13:10] <Venico> That is the exchange ys
[13:10] <Venico> yes
[13:10] <Treize_Dreizehn> So after you decided to delve further, what did you discover?
[13:11] <Venico> I eventually got him to give me his skype name where the conversation continued, I assured him that I needed to know his identity in order to know how viable a coup was.
[13:12] <Venico> That is when he told me he was Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
[13:12] <Venico> After that I carefully logged everything and steered the conversation in a more easy going conversation so I could compile everything.
[13:13] <Treize_Dreizehn> The prosecution would like to indicate Exhibit B. http://pastebin.com/yqqkjDRd
[13:13] <Treize_Dreizehn> Is that the conversation to which you are referring?
[13:13] <Venico> Yes it is
[13:14] <Venico> Well that is the shortened version.
[13:14] <Treize_Dreizehn> And during this conversation, did Haafingar and Hjaalmarch indicate his desire to overthrow the legitimate government of TNP?
[13:14] <Venico> He indicated that over the telegram. Hell, that was how he started the conversation.
[13:15] <Mall> Objection
[13:15] <Mall> The Prosecution is speculating that the nation which was contacting Venico was indeed the Defendant.
[13:16] <Treize_Dreizehn> And during this conversation, did the person you were conversing with indicate his desire to overthrow the legitimate government of TNP?
[13:17] <Venico> Yes they did
[13:17] <Venico> That's how they started the conversation
[13:17] <Treize_Dreizehn> Have you, before or after this incident had any contact with Haafingar and Hjaalmarch?
[13:18] <Venico> No I have not. Although he logged into skype after these charges were filed once and I almost shit myself. Didn't contact him though.
[13:19] <Treize_Dreizehn> Thank you. I have no further questions at this time.
[13:19] <Mall> Objection to the statement made by the witness, can he clarify as to whether the account belonged to the Defendant or to the anonymous nation claiming to be the Defendant?
[13:20] <Venico> The account I'm referring to is efernand87 who claimed to be the defendant
[13:20] <Venico> and identified themselves as such
[13:21] <Treize_Dreizehn> Your witness.
[13:21] <Mall> Is the witness prepared for cross?
[13:21] * Venico lights a cigarette
[13:21] <Venico> Sure shootin'
[13:22] <Mall> Can you start by explaining who you are to the Court? A little background on your involvement in TNP first and then your roles elsewhere?
[13:22] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, irrelevant.
[13:23] <Venico> I'm Venico the Night Father, Co-founder/leader of the Brotherhood of Malice, founder and Warrior Pharaoh of the Osiris Fraternal Order, and general Priest of Raider Unity
[13:24] <Mall> And what is your connection to The North Pacific?
[13:24] <Venico> I currently am an ambassador from the Brotherhood of Malice to The North Pacific
[13:24] <Venico> And am a former Regional Assembly member
[13:26] <Mall> Thank you. Can you please indicate to the Court any evidence that you have that the nation which contacted you is indeed Haafingar and Hjaalmarch? IP addresses or any exchanges with the Defendant's main nation would be considered acceptable.
[13:26] <Venico> He contacted me with his Skype account. I don't know if that is considered acceptable or not.
[13:27] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:27] <Mall> Counterobjection, that's the entire point.
[13:28] <Mall> So what you're saying is that you have no evidence beyond an anonymous puppet's statement that the Defendant is indeed who you were talking to, per your statements earlier?
[13:29] <Venico> The evidence I have is presented is in the logs I provided the court. I can't personally speculate about who was sitting behind the computer at the time.
[13:30] <Mall> Allow me to rephrase that. Do you have any evidence beyond the word of an anonymous puppet's statement that the Defendant is indeed who you were talking t, per your statements earlier?
[13:30] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, the witness has already answered that question.
[13:30] <Venico> They showed a knowledge of TNP's court system and then when asked about this incident by the courst asked to be convicted.
[13:30] <Mall> Counterobjection, no he didn't, he merely indicated the means through which current evidence has already been provided.
[13:31] <Venico> Not court system, endorsement count.
[13:31] <Mall> Is the endorsement count of TNP available for public viewing?
[13:31] <Venico> I don't know
[13:31] <Mall> Is it not the case that anyone with a stable internet connection could look at nations in TNP and see how many endorsements they have presuming they have a basic understanding of how the game works?
[13:32] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, argumentitive.
[13:32] <Venico> That's not what I was referring to. H&H demonstrated a knowledge that McM would allow certain RA members over the endorsement limit based on certain rules that I don't remember.
[13:33] <Venico> But yes any sensible person can check their endorsement count.
[13:33] <Mall> So just to clarify you are indicating that the anonymous nation claiming to be the Defendant had a rudimentary knowledge of TNP's rules regarding endorsement counts?
[13:34] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation, regarding the term "rudimentary"
[13:34] <Venico> I don't know how rudimentary this knowledge is. So, I don't know.
[13:35] <Mall> Thank you. The Defense is done with Cross examination and prepared to depose the Witness.
[13:35] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to redirect.
[13:36] <Mall> Your witness.
[13:36] <Treize_Dreizehn> Venico, given all the facts in evidence how certain are you of the identity of the player who contacted you on Feb 17th and 18th?
[13:37] <Mall> Objection
[13:37] <Mall> Obvious opinion and speculation
[13:37] <Venico> I am reasonably certain.
[13:38] <Treize_Dreizehn> And that player's identity was what?
[13:38] <Venico> Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
[13:39] <Treize_Dreizehn> Have you seen the contact made between Haafingar and Hjaalmarch and Ator People, when the defendant was contacted about this trial?
[13:39] <Venico> Yes have
[13:39] <Venico> Yes I have*
[13:40] <Treize_Dreizehn> What did that contact consist of?
[13:40] <Mall> Objection this is irrelevant to the Witness' testimony
[13:40] <Venico> H&H dismissed the court and asked to be convicted
[13:41] <Treize_Dreizehn> Counter-Objection, it was mentionted by the witness during the Defence's cross. It is relevant.
[13:41] <Treize_Dreizehn> Do you recall his exact words?
[13:42] <Venico> No but I'm sure if you showed me it I would be able to
[13:42] <Treize_Dreizehn> Is this the comment you're referring to? https://i.imgur.com/X0gFJ9T.png
[13:42] <Venico> Yes it is.
[13:43] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to specifcy the witness is referring to Prosecution Exhibit F.
[13:43] <Venico> specify*
[13:43] <Mall> Objection the Witness is speculating as to what the Prosecution meant by specifcy
[13:44] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to specify the witness is referring to Prosecution Exhibit F.
[13:44] <Treize_Dreizehn> I have no further questions.
[13:44] * Venico chuckles lightly
[13:44] <Mall> Is the Witness prepared?
[13:44] <Venico> ...for? O.o
[13:45] <Mall> To be questioned.
[13:45] <Venico> I thought that was already happening...
[13:45] <Venico> but sure
[13:46] <Mall> Is the Prosecution ready for the Defense to question the witness?
[13:46] <Treize_Dreizehn> I have no objections to that.
[13:47] <Mall> Could the witness please explain to the court what a "puppet nation" is?
[13:47] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection. Irrelevant to testimony.
[13:48] <Venico> It's when a person uses a nation besides the one they're most commonly known for. Like if I sent a telegram from Gabe1785. Or if Sythia posted as Haafingar and Hjaalmarch.
[13:48] <Mall> Counterobjection the existence of puppet nations and what they are is central to the Witness' testimony.
[13:49] <Mall> Does NationStates provide any means of determining whether two puppets are controlled by the same player on the site itself?
[13:50] <Venico> For normal players? No. But an admin or a game moderator (I believe) can see if two nations are connected via an IP or an email address.
[13:51] <Mall> To the best of your knowledge are you an admin or game moderator, or has one of those categories told you that the anonymous nation is the Defendant?
[13:51] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:51] * Venico chuckles
[13:52] <Venico> No I'm not a mod or an admin. Nor has one told me anything regarding H&H
[13:52] <Mall> Counterobjection, if the witness is unable to answer this question without speculation then the witness is incompetent and possibly insane.
[13:52] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, badgering the witness with a counterobjection.
[13:53] <Mall> Counterobjection I was badgering the prosecution, not the witness.
[13:54] <Mall> Moving on then. Venico if a puppet contacted you claiming to be me would you believe it?
[13:55] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:55] <Treize_Dreizehn> and calls for opinion.
[13:55] <Venico> No, but that's only because I know you'd contact me via normal means.
[13:55] <Mall> Fair enough. I have nothing else for the Witness at this time. Your witness for cross.
[13:56] <Treize_Dreizehn> Thank you.
[13:57] <Treize_Dreizehn> When the defendant messaged Ator People as referenced in Exhibit F, did that reinforce your belief in the identity of the original sender of the messages, as referenced in Exhibits A and B?
[13:57] <Mall> Objection, irrelevant.
[13:57] <Venico> Yes it did.
[13:57] <Treize_Dreizehn> CounterObjection: You just asked about his opinion, if they allow that, they'll allow this.
[13:58] <Treize_Dreizehn> No further questions.
[13:58] <Treize_Dreizehn> Mall?
[13:58] <Mall> Counter-Counter-objection: speculation as to the Court's intentions and decisions.
[13:59] <Mall> Venico in the message to Ator People did the Defendant at any point state that the anonymous nation was their puppet explicitly?
[13:59] <Treize_Dreizehn> Counter-Counter-Counter Objection: Too many counters, also... it references his testimony to you, it's relevant for that reason alone
[13:59] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection: Calls for speculation.
[14:00] <Venico> No but they didn't say much besides dismissing the court and asking to be convicted
[14:00] <Mall> Counter-Counter-Counter-Counter Objection: those are two separate objections and thus should have been a triple counter paired with a quadruple counter, thereby making this a pentuplecounter.
[14:00] <Mall> Counterobjection asking the witness to read is not speculating.
[14:00] <Mall> I have nothing else for the witness.
[14:00] <Treize_Dreizehn> Nor I.
[14:00] <Treize_Dreizehn> I believe that concludes the deposition and the log?
[14:00] <Venico> Yipee Kiyah Motherfucker
[14:00] <Mall> Indeed.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Both the defense and prosecution have deposed Venico and the log of that deposition is here I certify to the best of my knowledge that it is honest and accurate:

[13:06] <Treize_Dreizehn> Start logging here:
[13:06] <Treize_Dreizehn> Venico, 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?
[13:06] <Venico> So help me Overseer
[13:06] <Venico> I do
[13:07] <Treize_Dreizehn> Excellent. So, can you walk us through the events of Feb 17th and 18th which led to this current court case?
[13:08] <Venico> Well I was contacted by an anonymous nation whose name escapes now, about a potential coup of TNP. I told my friend Koth and he told me that he also got one.
[13:09] <Venico> So I decided to delve further and see how much of an actual threat this person was
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> For the record, you're referring to this exchange:
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> http://imgur.com/a/l5CER#0
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> Correct?
[13:10] <Venico> That is the exchange ys
[13:10] <Venico> yes
[13:10] <Treize_Dreizehn> So after you decided to delve further, what did you discover?
[13:11] <Venico> I eventually got him to give me his skype name where the conversation continued, I assured him that I needed to know his identity in order to know how viable a coup was.
[13:12] <Venico> That is when he told me he was Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
[13:12] <Venico> After that I carefully logged everything and steered the conversation in a more easy going conversation so I could compile everything.
[13:13] <Treize_Dreizehn> The prosecution would like to indicate Exhibit B. http://pastebin.com/yqqkjDRd
[13:13] <Treize_Dreizehn> Is that the conversation to which you are referring?
[13:13] <Venico> Yes it is
[13:14] <Venico> Well that is the shortened version.
[13:14] <Treize_Dreizehn> And during this conversation, did Haafingar and Hjaalmarch indicate his desire to overthrow the legitimate government of TNP?
[13:14] <Venico> He indicated that over the telegram. Hell, that was how he started the conversation.
[13:15] <Mall> Objection
[13:15] <Mall> The Prosecution is speculating that the nation which was contacting Venico was indeed the Defendant.
[13:16] <Treize_Dreizehn> And during this conversation, did the person you were conversing with indicate his desire to overthrow the legitimate government of TNP?
[13:17] <Venico> Yes they did
[13:17] <Venico> That's how they started the conversation
[13:17] <Treize_Dreizehn> Have you, before or after this incident had any contact with Haafingar and Hjaalmarch?
[13:18] <Venico> No I have not. Although he logged into skype after these charges were filed once and I almost shit myself. Didn't contact him though.
[13:19] <Treize_Dreizehn> Thank you. I have no further questions at this time.
[13:19] <Mall> Objection to the statement made by the witness, can he clarify as to whether the account belonged to the Defendant or to the anonymous nation claiming to be the Defendant?
[13:20] <Venico> The account I'm referring to is efernand87 who claimed to be the defendant
[13:20] <Venico> and identified themselves as such
[13:21] <Treize_Dreizehn> Your witness.
[13:21] <Mall> Is the witness prepared for cross?
[13:21] * Venico lights a cigarette
[13:21] <Venico> Sure shootin'
[13:22] <Mall> Can you start by explaining who you are to the Court? A little background on your involvement in TNP first and then your roles elsewhere?
[13:22] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, irrelevant.
[13:23] <Venico> I'm Venico the Night Father, Co-founder/leader of the Brotherhood of Malice, founder and Warrior Pharaoh of the Osiris Fraternal Order, and general Priest of Raider Unity
[13:24] <Mall> And what is your connection to The North Pacific?
[13:24] <Venico> I currently am an ambassador from the Brotherhood of Malice to The North Pacific
[13:24] <Venico> And am a former Regional Assembly member
[13:26] <Mall> Thank you. Can you please indicate to the Court any evidence that you have that the nation which contacted you is indeed Haafingar and Hjaalmarch? IP addresses or any exchanges with the Defendant's main nation would be considered acceptable.
[13:26] <Venico> He contacted me with his Skype account. I don't know if that is considered acceptable or not.
[13:27] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:27] <Mall> Counterobjection, that's the entire point.
[13:28] <Mall> So what you're saying is that you have no evidence beyond an anonymous puppet's statement that the Defendant is indeed who you were talking to, per your statements earlier?
[13:29] <Venico> The evidence I have is presented is in the logs I provided the court. I can't personally speculate about who was sitting behind the computer at the time.
[13:30] <Mall> Allow me to rephrase that. Do you have any evidence beyond the word of an anonymous puppet's statement that the Defendant is indeed who you were talking t, per your statements earlier?
[13:30] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, the witness has already answered that question.
[13:30] <Venico> They showed a knowledge of TNP's court system and then when asked about this incident by the courst asked to be convicted.
[13:30] <Mall> Counterobjection, no he didn't, he merely indicated the means through which current evidence has already been provided.
[13:31] <Venico> Not court system, endorsement count.
[13:31] <Mall> Is the endorsement count of TNP available for public viewing?
[13:31] <Venico> I don't know
[13:31] <Mall> Is it not the case that anyone with a stable internet connection could look at nations in TNP and see how many endorsements they have presuming they have a basic understanding of how the game works?
[13:32] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, argumentitive.
[13:32] <Venico> That's not what I was referring to. H&H demonstrated a knowledge that McM would allow certain RA members over the endorsement limit based on certain rules that I don't remember.
[13:33] <Venico> But yes any sensible person can check their endorsement count.
[13:33] <Mall> So just to clarify you are indicating that the anonymous nation claiming to be the Defendant had a rudimentary knowledge of TNP's rules regarding endorsement counts?
[13:34] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation, regarding the term "rudimentary"
[13:34] <Venico> I don't know how rudimentary this knowledge is. So, I don't know.
[13:35] <Mall> Thank you. The Defense is done with Cross examination and prepared to depose the Witness.
[13:35] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to redirect.
[13:36] <Mall> Your witness.
[13:36] <Treize_Dreizehn> Venico, given all the facts in evidence how certain are you of the identity of the player who contacted you on Feb 17th and 18th?
[13:37] <Mall> Objection
[13:37] <Mall> Obvious opinion and speculation
[13:37] <Venico> I am reasonably certain.
[13:38] <Treize_Dreizehn> And that player's identity was what?
[13:38] <Venico> Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
[13:39] <Treize_Dreizehn> Have you seen the contact made between Haafingar and Hjaalmarch and Ator People, when the defendant was contacted about this trial?
[13:39] <Venico> Yes have
[13:39] <Venico> Yes I have*
[13:40] <Treize_Dreizehn> What did that contact consist of?
[13:40] <Mall> Objection this is irrelevant to the Witness' testimony
[13:40] <Venico> H&H dismissed the court and asked to be convicted
[13:41] <Treize_Dreizehn> Counter-Objection, it was mentionted by the witness during the Defence's cross. It is relevant.
[13:41] <Treize_Dreizehn> Do you recall his exact words?
[13:42] <Venico> No but I'm sure if you showed me it I would be able to
[13:42] <Treize_Dreizehn> Is this the comment you're referring to? https://i.imgur.com/X0gFJ9T.png
[13:42] <Venico> Yes it is.
[13:43] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to specifcy the witness is referring to Prosecution Exhibit F.
[13:43] <Venico> specify*
[13:43] <Mall> Objection the Witness is speculating as to what the Prosecution meant by specifcy
[13:44] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to specify the witness is referring to Prosecution Exhibit F.
[13:44] <Treize_Dreizehn> I have no further questions.
[13:44] * Venico chuckles lightly
[13:44] <Mall> Is the Witness prepared?
[13:44] <Venico> ...for? O.o
[13:45] <Mall> To be questioned.
[13:45] <Venico> I thought that was already happening...
[13:45] <Venico> but sure
[13:46] <Mall> Is the Prosecution ready for the Defense to question the witness?
[13:46] <Treize_Dreizehn> I have no objections to that.
[13:47] <Mall> Could the witness please explain to the court what a "puppet nation" is?
[13:47] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection. Irrelevant to testimony.
[13:48] <Venico> It's when a person uses a nation besides the one they're most commonly known for. Like if I sent a telegram from Gabe1785. Or if Sythia posted as Haafingar and Hjaalmarch.
[13:48] <Mall> Counterobjection the existence of puppet nations and what they are is central to the Witness' testimony.
[13:49] <Mall> Does NationStates provide any means of determining whether two puppets are controlled by the same player on the site itself?
[13:50] <Venico> For normal players? No. But an admin or a game moderator (I believe) can see if two nations are connected via an IP or an email address.
[13:51] <Mall> To the best of your knowledge are you an admin or game moderator, or has one of those categories told you that the anonymous nation is the Defendant?
[13:51] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:51] * Venico chuckles
[13:52] <Venico> No I'm not a mod or an admin. Nor has one told me anything regarding H&H
[13:52] <Mall> Counterobjection, if the witness is unable to answer this question without speculation then the witness is incompetent and possibly insane.
[13:52] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, badgering the witness with a counterobjection.
[13:53] <Mall> Counterobjection I was badgering the prosecution, not the witness.
[13:54] <Mall> Moving on then. Venico if a puppet contacted you claiming to be me would you believe it?
[13:55] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:55] <Treize_Dreizehn> and calls for opinion.
[13:55] <Venico> No, but that's only because I know you'd contact me via normal means.
[13:55] <Mall> Fair enough. I have nothing else for the Witness at this time. Your witness for cross.
[13:56] <Treize_Dreizehn> Thank you.
[13:57] <Treize_Dreizehn> When the defendant messaged Ator People as referenced in Exhibit F, did that reinforce your belief in the identity of the original sender of the messages, as referenced in Exhibits A and B?
[13:57] <Mall> Objection, irrelevant.
[13:57] <Venico> Yes it did.
[13:57] <Treize_Dreizehn> CounterObjection: You just asked about his opinion, if they allow that, they'll allow this.
[13:58] <Treize_Dreizehn> No further questions.
[13:58] <Treize_Dreizehn> Mall?
[13:58] <Mall> Counter-Counter-objection: speculation as to the Court's intentions and decisions.
[13:59] <Mall> Venico in the message to Ator People did the Defendant at any point state that the anonymous nation was their puppet explicitly?
[13:59] <Treize_Dreizehn> Counter-Counter-Counter Objection: Too many counters, also... it references his testimony to you, it's relevant for that reason alone
[13:59] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection: Calls for speculation.
[14:00] <Venico> No but they didn't say much besides dismissing the court and asking to be convicted
[14:00] <Mall> Counter-Counter-Counter-Counter Objection: those are two separate objections and thus should have been a triple counter paired with a quadruple counter, thereby making this a pentuplecounter.
[14:00] <Mall> Counterobjection asking the witness to read is not speculating.
[14:00] <Mall> I have nothing else for the witness.
[14:00] <Treize_Dreizehn> Nor I.
[14:00] <Treize_Dreizehn> I believe that concludes the deposition and the log?
[14:00] <Venico> Yipee Kiyah Motherfucker
[14:00] <Mall> Indeed.
Click to expand...
The Defense confirms that this is an accurate log and notes that the Court will need to peruse through the objections in order to legitimize it. Furthermore the Defense would like to make it known to the Court that should any specific objections require clarification the Defense is available to go into greater detail on any point.
 
The Defense would also like to note that The Dourian Embassy is no longer needed as a Witness.
 
Mall:
The Defense objects to the submission of Exhibit F, the prosecution's description of what the intent of the Defendant's meaning was is purely speculative and in no way grounded in what was stated. We request that the Court remove Exhibit F from their considerations or at the very least request that the prosecution present an accurate depiction of what is being portrayed.
Click to expand...
Objection regarding description with the exhibit is sustained. Counsel, assuming guilt from the telegram is just that, an assumption. Please amend the description and reason for the exhibit or withdraw it.
 
The Prosecution hereby submits the following evidence as prosecution exhibit F

Prosecution Exhibit F - Message from Haafingar and Hjaalmarch to Ator People

X0gFJ9T.png
 
The prosecution objects to the fabrications presented by the Defense as Exhibits A-B and E as irrelevant to the case at hand, as well as objecting to Exhibits A-B as being testimony by the defense counsel, rather than evidence.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
The prosecution objects to the fabrications presented by the Defense as Exhibits A-B and E as irrelevant to the case at hand, as well as objecting to Exhibits A-B as being testimony by the defense counsel, rather than evidence.
Click to expand...
The Defense notes that Exhibits A and B are being objected to simply because they demonstrate the useless nature of the Prosecution's own Exhibits. Furthermore the assumption that the Defense Counsel is the one being portrayed in those conversations is merely that, an assumption. Per what the Prosecution has set forth as their own standard of truth for this trial the Prosecution must accept that both Douria and Francos Spain are the individuals speaking in those conversations.

Exhibit E is critical evidence which demonstrates that it is entirely conceivable that someone would lie on the internet which is central to the defense of my client. To remove this evidence would only be acceptable if the Prosecution would be willing to concede that the internet is a den of lies and depravity, thereby making the removal of the evidence irrelevant.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
The prosecution objects to the fabrications presented by the Defense as Exhibits A-B and E as irrelevant to the case at hand, as well as objecting to Exhibits A-B as being testimony by the defense counsel, rather than evidence.
Click to expand...
Sustained. Exhibits A and B are inappropriate not only because they are fabricated for the trial, but also because they're irrelevant for proving the truth of the charges against the Defendant. Exhibit E is also irrelevant. You don't need to enter a dictionary into evidence.

The defense is welcome to bring these arguments up during the arguments portion of the trial, but these exhibits are just that, arguments, not evidence.

Exhibits A, B, and E for the Defense are to be excluded.

The Court is currently determining the admissibility of the deposition of Venico.
 
As Moderating Justice I have reviewed the objections and sustained or overruled them as necessary. The edited log is below. If there are no objections, this will be the official log.

[13:06] <Treize_Dreizehn> Start logging here:
[13:06] <Treize_Dreizehn> Venico, 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?
[13:06] <Venico> So help me Overseer
[13:06] <Venico> I do
[13:07] <Treize_Dreizehn> Excellent. So, can you walk us through the events of Feb 17th and 18th which led to this

current court case?
[13:08] <Venico> Well I was contacted by an anonymous nation whose name escapes now, about a potential coup of TNP.

I told my friend Koth and he told me that he also got one.
[13:09] <Venico> So I decided to delve further and see how much of an actual threat this person was
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> For the record, you're referring to this exchange:
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> http://imgur.com/a/l5CER#0
[13:09] <Treize_Dreizehn> Correct?
[13:10] <Venico> That is the exchange ys
[13:10] <Venico> yes
[13:10] <Treize_Dreizehn> So after you decided to delve further, what did you discover?
[13:11] <Venico> I eventually got him to give me his skype name where the conversation continued, I assured him

that I needed to know his identity in order to know how viable a coup was.
[13:12] <Venico> That is when he told me he was Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
[13:12] <Venico> After that I carefully logged everything and steered the conversation in a more easy going

conversation so I could compile everything.
[13:13] <Treize_Dreizehn> The prosecution would like to indicate Exhibit B. http://pastebin.com/yqqkjDRd
[13:13] <Treize_Dreizehn> Is that the conversation to which you are referring?
[13:13] <Venico> Yes it is
[13:14] <Venico> Well that is the shortened version.
[13:14] <Treize_Dreizehn> And during this conversation, did ************************ indicate his desire to

overthrow the legitimate government of TNP?
[13:14] <Venico> He indicated that over the telegram. Hell, that was how he started the conversation.
[13:15] <Mall> Objection
[13:15] <Mall> The Prosecution is speculating that the nation which was contacting Venico was indeed the Defendant.
Sustained. Question is excluded, rephrased question is allowed.
[13:16] <Treize_Dreizehn> And during this conversation, did the person you were conversing with indicate his desire

to overthrow the legitimate government of TNP?
[13:17] <Venico> Yes they did
[13:17] <Venico> That's how they started the conversation
[13:17] <Treize_Dreizehn> Have you, before or after this incident had any contact with Haafingar and Hjaalmarch?
[13:18] <Venico> No I have not. Although ****** logged into skype after these charges were filed once and I almost

shit myself. Didn't contact him though.
[13:19] <Treize_Dreizehn> Thank you. I have no further questions at this time.
[13:19] <Mall> Objection to the statement made by the witness, can he clarify as to whether the account belonged to

the Defendant or to the anonymous nation claiming to be the Defendant?
Sustained. Let the record show the witness clarified his statement.
[13:20] <Venico> The account I'm referring to is efernand87 who claimed to be the defendant
[13:20] <Venico> and identified themselves as such
[13:21] <Treize_Dreizehn> Your witness.
[13:21] <Mall> Is the witness prepared for cross?
[13:21] * Venico lights a cigarette
[13:21] <Venico> Sure shootin'
[13:22] <Mall> Can you start by explaining who you are to the Court? A little background on your involvement in TNP

first and then your roles elsewhere?
[13:22] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, irrelevant.
Overruled.
[13:23] <Venico> I'm Venico the Night Father, Co-founder/leader of the Brotherhood of Malice, founder and Warrior

Pharaoh of the Osiris Fraternal Order, and general Priest of Raider Unity
[13:24] <Mall> And what is your connection to The North Pacific?
[13:24] <Venico> I currently am an ambassador from the Brotherhood of Malice to The North Pacific
[13:24] <Venico> And am a former Regional Assembly member
[13:26] <Mall> Thank you. Can you please indicate to the Court any evidence that you have that the nation which

contacted you is indeed Haafingar and Hjaalmarch? IP addresses or any exchanges with the Defendant's main nation

would be considered acceptable.
[13:26] <Venico> He contacted me with his Skype account. I don't know if that is considered acceptable or not.
[13:27] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
Overruled.
[13:27] <Mall> Counterobjection, that's the entire point.
[13:28] <Mall> So what you're saying is that you have no evidence beyond an anonymous puppet's statement that the

Defendant is indeed who you were talking to, per your statements earlier?
[13:29] <Venico> The evidence I have is presented is in the logs I provided the court. I can't personally speculate

about who was sitting behind the computer at the time.
[13:30] <Mall> Allow me to rephrase that. Do you have any evidence beyond the word of an anonymous puppet's

statement that the Defendant is indeed who you were talking t, per your statements earlier?
[13:30] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, the witness has already answered that question.
[13:30] <Venico> They showed a knowledge of TNP's court system and then when asked about this incident by the

courst asked to be convicted.
Overruled.
[13:30] <Mall> Counterobjection, no he didn't, he merely indicated the means through which current evidence has

already been provided.
[13:31] <Venico> Not court system, endorsement count.
[13:31] <Mall> Is the endorsement count of TNP available for public viewing?
[13:31] <Venico> I don't know
[13:31] <Mall> Is it not the case that anyone with a stable internet connection could look at nations in TNP and

see how many endorsements they have presuming they have a basic understanding of how the game works?
[13:32] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, argumentitive.
Overruled.
[13:32] <Venico> That's not what I was referring to. H&H demonstrated a knowledge that McM would allow certain RA

members over the endorsement limit based on certain rules that I don't remember.
[13:33] <Venico> But yes any sensible person can check their endorsement count.
[13:33] <Mall> So just to clarify you are indicating that the anonymous nation claiming to be the Defendant had a

rudimentary knowledge of TNP's rules regarding endorsement counts?
[13:34] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation, regarding the term "rudimentary"
Overruled.
[13:34] <Venico> I don't know how rudimentary this knowledge is. So, I don't know.
[13:35] <Mall> Thank you. The Defense is done with Cross examination and prepared to depose the Witness.
[13:35] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to redirect.
[13:36] <Mall> Your witness.
[13:36] <Treize_Dreizehn> Venico, given all the facts in evidence how certain are you of the identity of the player

who contacted you on Feb 17th and 18th?
[13:37] <Mall> Objection
[13:37] <Mall> Obvious opinion and speculation
Overruled.
[13:37] <Venico> I am reasonably certain.
[13:38] <Treize_Dreizehn> And that player's identity was what?
[13:38] <Venico> Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
[13:39] <Treize_Dreizehn> Have you seen the contact made between Haafingar and Hjaalmarch and Ator People, when the

defendant was contacted about this trial?
[13:39] <Venico> Yes have
[13:39] <Venico> Yes I have*
[13:40] <Treize_Dreizehn> What did that contact consist of?
[13:40] <Mall> Objection this is irrelevant to the Witness' testimony
Overruled.
[13:40] <Venico> H&H dismissed the court and asked to be convicted
[13:41] <Treize_Dreizehn> Counter-Objection, it was mentionted by the witness during the Defence's cross. It is

relevant.
[13:41] <Treize_Dreizehn> Do you recall his exact words?
[13:42] <Venico> No but I'm sure if you showed me it I would be able to
[13:42] <Treize_Dreizehn> Is this the comment you're referring to? https://i.imgur.com/X0gFJ9T.png
[13:42] <Venico> Yes it is.
[13:43] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to specifcy the witness is referring to Prosecution Exhibit F.
[13:43] <Venico> specify*
[13:43] <Mall> Objection the Witness is speculating as to what the Prosecution meant by specifcy
Overruled.
[13:44] <Treize_Dreizehn> I'd like to specify the witness is referring to Prosecution Exhibit F.
[13:44] <Treize_Dreizehn> I have no further questions.
[13:44] * Venico chuckles lightly
[13:44] <Mall> Is the Witness prepared?
[13:44] <Venico> ...for? O.o
[13:45] <Mall> To be questioned.
[13:45] <Venico> I thought that was already happening...
[13:45] <Venico> but sure
[13:46] <Mall> Is the Prosecution ready for the Defense to question the witness?
[13:46] <Treize_Dreizehn> I have no objections to that.
[13:47] <Mall> Could the witness please explain to the court what a "puppet nation" is?
[13:47] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection. Irrelevant to testimony.
Overruled.
[13:48] <Venico> It's when a person uses a nation besides the one they're most commonly known for. Like if I sent a

telegram from Gabe1785. Or if Sythia posted as Haafingar and Hjaalmarch.
[13:48] <Mall> Counterobjection the existence of puppet nations and what they are is central to the Witness'

testimony.
[13:49] <Mall> Does NationStates provide any means of determining whether two puppets are controlled by the same

player on the site itself?
[13:50] <Venico> For normal players? No. But an admin or a game moderator (I believe) can see if two nations are

connected via an IP or an email address.
[13:51] <Mall> To the best of your knowledge are you an admin or game moderator, or has one of those categories

told you that the anonymous nation is the Defendant?
[13:51] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
Overruled.
[13:51] * Venico chuckles
[13:52] <Venico> No I'm not a mod or an admin. Nor has one told me anything regarding H&H
[13:52] <Mall> Counterobjection, if the witness is unable to answer this question without speculation then the

witness is incompetent *** ******** ******.
[13:52] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, badgering the witness with a counterobjection.
Sustained. Portions of the question excluded.
[13:53] <Mall> Counterobjection I was badgering the prosecution, not the witness.
[13:54] <Mall> Moving on then. Venico if a puppet contacted you claiming to be me would you believe it?
[13:55] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection, calls for speculation.
[13:55] <Treize_Dreizehn> and calls for opinion.
[13:55] <Venico> No, but that's only because I know you'd contact me via normal means.
[13:55] <Mall> Fair enough. I have nothing else for the Witness at this time. Your witness for cross.
[13:56] <Treize_Dreizehn> Thank you.
[13:57] <Treize_Dreizehn> When the defendant messaged Ator People as referenced in Exhibit F, did that reinforce

your belief in the identity of the original sender of the messages, as referenced in Exhibits A and B?
[13:57] <Mall> Objection, irrelevant.
Overruled.
[13:57] <Venico> Yes it did.
[13:57] <Treize_Dreizehn> CounterObjection: You just asked about his opinion, if they allow that, they'll allow

this.
[13:58] <Treize_Dreizehn> No further questions.
[13:58] <Treize_Dreizehn> Mall?
[13:58] <Mall> Counter-Counter-objection: speculation as to the Court's intentions and decisions.
[13:59] <Mall> Venico in the message to Ator People did the Defendant at any point state that the anonymous nation

was their puppet explicitly?
[13:59] <Treize_Dreizehn> Counter-Counter-Counter Objection: Too many counters, also... it references his testimony

to you, it's relevant for that reason alone
The Court is lost in these counter objections so let's move on.
[13:59] <Treize_Dreizehn> Objection: Calls for speculation.
Overruled.
[14:00] <Venico> No but they didn't say much besides dismissing the court and asking to be convicted
[14:00] <Mall> Counter-Counter-Counter-Counter Objection: those are two separate objections and thus should have

been a triple counter paired with a quadruple counter, thereby making this a pentuplecounter.
[14:00] <Mall> Counterobjection asking the witness to read is not speculating.
[14:00] <Mall> I have nothing else for the witness.
[14:00] <Treize_Dreizehn> Nor I.
[14:00] <Treize_Dreizehn> I believe that concludes the deposition and the log?
 
The Defense is content with the Court's version of the log. Additionally the Defense would like to note now that the time to submit evidence has passed that the Prosecution failed to timestamp and date any of its pieces of evidences and thus they must all be discarded per the Court rules on evidence. As such Prosecution exhibits A-E, including how they relate to the testimony of Venico, must be removed.
 
The Defense notes that the above statement also applies to Prosecution Exhibit F, and indeed to the deposition of Venico.
 
Mall:
The Defense is content with the Court's version of the log. Additionally the Defense would like to note now that the time to submit evidence has passed that the Prosecution failed to timestamp and date any of its pieces of evidences and thus they must all be discarded per the Court rules on evidence. As such Prosecution exhibits A-E, including how they relate to the testimony of Venico, must be removed.
Click to expand...
Counsel, I'll make the determination as to whether evidence will be discarded, not you or the prosecution.

If the Defense has a problem with the exhibits so far presented I would have appreciated an objection earlier, but I'm willing to allow you to lodge one now.
 
Mall:
Additionally the Defense would like to note now that the time to submit evidence has passed that the Prosecution failed to timestamp and date any of its pieces of evidences and thus they must all be discarded per the Court rules on evidence.
Click to expand...
Except the are timestamped and dated at the level to which they are required. The court's evidentiary rules are about ensuring the pieces are legitimate, and give the Justice the leeway they need to determine if evidence has been fabricated.

The language is here: "Such material will include the location of the material (with an URL if available), including the poster or sender, the recipient, and the date stamp of the material, and any other objective information that tends to establish that the material is bona fide and not a fabrication." and followed up by:

"Documents not provided to all parties prior to trial, or whose authenticity is insufficiently demonstrated, may be excluded from the trial by the Moderating Justice."

So that said. I'll take a moment to answer you by pointing out several points with regards to my exhibits:

Exhibit A: The left hand side of the images all contain forum threads and post counts from the NS Forums. Those threads can be looked up right now, and the post counts verify the date and time of the exchange.

Exhibit B: Includes timestamps on the left.

Exhibit C: Link to a post on these forums, which includes a time and date of the post.

Exhibit D: Includes "member's local time" which is when screenshot was taken.

Exhibit E: A screenshot from "The Boneyard" and verifiable evidence.

Exhibit F: Was provided originally by the Moderating Justice, who is tasked with determining authenticity before discarding evidence as referenced in the quote above.

Venico's Log: The Defense and Prosecution have both certified the log as genuine.

Given that it is clear the dismissal of evidence is an option rather than a requirement... and the main thrust of the rule is to establish authenticity... I cannot for the life of me understand what the defense is getting at here.

I'd also like to point out that we are tasked with acting in good faith, and waiting until evidence can no longer be submitted to object to it is not a good faith action.
 
I'd also ask that if the defense is allowed to extend their time for objecting to my evidence, that I be allowed to amend the evidence as needed. The prosecution does not believe the evidence requires further authentication, but can make an effort to provide it if it is required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top