The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch

Ator People:
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.
Click to expand...
The Defense is simply pointing out that should the Court fail to discard the evidence that has thus far been presented by the Prosecution then it would be ignoring the Court's own rules in doing so, which would result in the Defense being forced to appeal to the remaining Justices to rectify the situation.

The Defense apologizes for the time at which the objection has been lodged but holidays and the like, combined with not having noticed the Court's rules until recently forced the timing to be what it is.
Treize_Dreizehn:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
The Defense notes the following quote from the Court's Rules:
Parties are responsible for documenting all forms of electronic evidence, such as forum posts, private messages, NS telegrams, or IRC logs before they are presented at trial.

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.
Click to expand...
The Defense asks the Court to note that the Rules clearly state that the date stamp of the material must be included since "and" does not mean "or", and "will" does not mean "could". The Rules are quite clear, and the smoke that the Prosecution is blowing which includes asking us to go on a merry hunt to find dates of specific posts is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the illegal submission of evidence which the Prosecution is attempting to pass off on the Court. Additionally in being appointed to this role the Defense was given the task to defend our client to the best of our abilities while not violating any laws of TNP, to claim that the Defense is acting in bad faith by expecting the Prosecution to follow the same rules that govern the Defense is absurd.
Treize_Dreizehn:
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.
Click to expand...
The Defense strenuously objects to this motion, the burden which was laid out for the Prosecution in terms of the timing of submissions of evidence was made clear and was extremely fair. The fact that this objection comes late is not relevant, the Court would have been obligated to remove the exhibits even without Defense objections. The Court should not punish the Defendant simply because the Prosecution finds itself unable to legally prosecute the Defendant in the time alloted. The Defense asks that the Court remove the illegal evidence and continues the trial without further delay. Thank you.
 
The Defense is content with the illegal evidence from both sides being removed. Additionally the Defense notes that the Prosecution is correct in asserting that they have put forth an opinion, but the Defense has put forth a simple series of facts backed by the Laws of TNP, a theme which has already established itself in this trial and will continue to play out no doubt.

The Defense notes that it is not the Defense's responsibility to ensure that all of the Prosecution's evidence was submitted legally within the allotted timeframe, it was the Prosecution's responsibility. We maintain our position that no more time should be allocated to submitting evidence in the interest of fairness to the Defendant.

The Defense awaits the Court's decision on this matter.
 
Mall:
The Defense is content with the illegal evidence from both sides being removed. Additionally the Defense notes that the Prosecution is correct in asserting that they have put forth an opinion, but the Defense has put forth a simple series of facts backed by the Laws of TNP, a theme which has already established itself in this trial and will continue to play out no doubt.

The Defense notes that it is not the Defense's responsibility to ensure that all of the Prosecution's evidence was submitted legally within the allotted timeframe, it was the Prosecution's responsibility. We maintain our position that no more time should be allocated to submitting evidence in the interest of fairness to the Defendant.

The Defense awaits the Court's decision on this matter.
Click to expand...
The defense is of the opinion that the rules of evidentiary procedure are absolutes, while the language clearly states that the presiding justice has leeway in regards to accepting or discarding evidence they believe to be fraudulent or authentic. The law clearly backs up the prosecutions interpretation, and the prosecution eagerly awaits the ruling from the presiding justice.
 
I would also like to point out section 4.11 of the General Evidentiary Rules, specifically: "Other types of acceptable evidence include, but are not necessarily limited to, documentary evidence such as screenshots, chat logs, telegrams, forum posts, and other documents. Unless specifically covered by an exception under these Rules, documentary evidence must be authenticated through witness testimony, or it may be excluded as Hearsay."

That is to say, even if the Justice agrees with the previous points by the defense, all evidence that was authenticated by witness testimony is admissible.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
I would also like to point out section 4.11 of the General Evidentiary Rules, specifically: "Other types of acceptable evidence include, but are not necessarily limited to, documentary evidence such as screenshots, chat logs, telegrams, forum posts, and other documents. Unless specifically covered by an exception under these Rules, documentary evidence must be authenticated through witness testimony, or it may be excluded as Hearsay."

That is to say, even if the Justice agrees with the previous points by the defense, all evidence that was authenticated by witness testimony is admissible.
Click to expand...
The Defense would like to note that the Prosecution's interpretation of that line is incorrect. That line is merely stating that the evidence must also be authenticated by witness testimony, not that any evidence authenticated in such a way is admissible.
 
Mall:
The Defense is simply pointing out that should the Court fail to discard the evidence that has thus far been presented by the Prosecution then it would be ignoring the Court's own rules in doing so, which would result in the Defense being forced to appeal to the remaining Justices to rectify the situation.

The Defense apologizes for the time at which the objection has been lodged but holidays and the like, combined with not having noticed the Court's rules until recently forced the timing to be what it is.
Treize_Dreizehn:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
The Defense notes the following quote from the Court's Rules:
Parties are responsible for documenting all forms of electronic evidence, such as forum posts, private messages, NS telegrams, or IRC logs before they are presented at trial.

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.
Click to expand...
The Defense asks the Court to note that the Rules clearly state that the date stamp of the material must be included since "and" does not mean "or", and "will" does not mean "could". The Rules are quite clear, and the smoke that the Prosecution is blowing which includes asking us to go on a merry hunt to find dates of specific posts is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the illegal submission of evidence which the Prosecution is attempting to pass off on the Court. Additionally in being appointed to this role the Defense was given the task to defend our client to the best of our abilities while not violating any laws of TNP, to claim that the Defense is acting in bad faith by expecting the Prosecution to follow the same rules that govern the Defense is absurd.
Treize_Dreizehn:
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.
Click to expand...
The Defense strenuously objects to this motion, the burden which was laid out for the Prosecution in terms of the timing of submissions of evidence was made clear and was extremely fair. The fact that this objection comes late is not relevant, the Court would have been obligated to remove the exhibits even without Defense objections. The Court should not punish the Defendant simply because the Prosecution finds itself unable to legally prosecute the Defendant in the time alloted. The Defense asks that the Court remove the illegal evidence and continues the trial without further delay. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Court is back in session.

The Defense Counsel's objection on evidence is overruled. The evidence provided by the prosecution provides enough objection information which "tends to establish that the material is bona fide and not a fabrication." (Court Rules, Article 8.2).

This concludes Discovery. Arguments on the evidence and the law will now be heard and are scheduled to conclude on April 27th.
 
The Defense notes that so far the Prosecution has failed to post any argument regarding the Defendant's alleged crimes. While it is true that the window for argumentation has not closed, the Defense is aware that the Prosecution could decide to submit their arguments at the last possible second. In the interest of fairness the Defense would like to request that should this occur, the Court give the Defense an opportunity to respond. Currently the Defense has nothing to defend against since no argument has in fact been constructed.
 
The defendant took two oaths to this region. In exhibits C and G he promised both responsible action as a member of TNP's society and pledged to serve the region's security interests. Furthermore, he pledged his loyalty to The North Pacific's government.

Let's examine the charge of Gross Misconduct:

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...

As clearly shown in exhibits A and B and corroborated by witness testimony, the defendant willfully took steps towards the overthrow of the government of The North Pacific, in contravention of the region's security interests, and irresponsibly placed the region in potential danger through his actions. Of course, despite the fact that a treason charge requires one to actually take concrete steps, the planning of such a crime is clearly in violation of The North Pacific's laws on Conspiracy as shown here:

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

As the defendant clearly both planned and attempted(but failed) to commit the crime of Treason(taking arms or providing material support... for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific). The action of gathering endorsements, if taken in good faith, is not a crime. The key component here is planning and intent. Once the defendant began to gather endorsements for the express purpose of overthrowing the government of The North Pacific, he was both planning and attempting(but failing) to commit treason.

The North Pacific law on conspiracy requires no co-conspirators. The speech he used to plan this with Venico Brightaxe is itself legal under North Pacific laws. The speech is not illegal. However, that speech confirms his own intentions and frames his other concrete actions. It is valid evidence in contextualizing the intentions of the defendant and his actions. The defense has not provided one shred of evidence to the contrary as to the defendant's intention. The evidence as presented stands as a testament to the intent of the actions which the defendant took.

Rather than defend those actions, the defense has presented numerous pieces of evidence in an attempt to throw a smoke screen over those actions.

The defendant presented a birth year as 1987 in Exhibit D, and used a skype name ending in the numbers 87. He mentioned making his nation "two months ago" and the defendant's nation was nearly two months old at the time as shown in Exhibit E. The defense would have you believe that live:efernand87 is not in fact the defendant. He would have you believe that the nation of "Mysterious Me" is also not the defendant. The defense would have you believe that Venico Brightaxe with no potential for gain and in fact potential for loss, brought false information to light incriminating another raider. Or that someone impersonated the defendant with implausibly specific evidence(like his birth year or his founding date) in an attempt to discredit him.

The defense would have you believe that the message to Ator People(Exhibit F) asking for a quick conviction was in fact not in any way associated with a hope that this frankly embarrassingly incompetent incident could be put behind the defendant. The defense is not only stretching to grasp at straws with this line of argument, he is stretching the limits of credulity. The evidence clearly establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, the identity of the defendant.

The defendant has committed crimes under The North Pacific Legal Code and has asked us to convict him for those crimes. We should do our duty in this, fulfill his request and see justice served.

I await the arguments of the defense on the law and evidence. I also eagerly await my opportunity to rebut those arguments.
 
Mall:
The Defense notes that so far the Prosecution has failed to post any argument regarding the Defendant's alleged crimes. While it is true that the window for argumentation has not closed, the Defense is aware that the Prosecution could decide to submit their arguments at the last possible second. In the interest of fairness the Defense would like to request that should this occur, the Court give the Defense an opportunity to respond. Currently the Defense has nothing to defend against since no argument has in fact been constructed.
Click to expand...
The prosecution would like to note that its arguments are forthcoming(or posted already), and that the defense is allowed multiple opportunities for arguments. It may simple argue against the charges already presented, against the testimony or even the evidence itself. The defense has failed to present a case in expectation not of arguing against the facts but rather the arguments the prosecution presents. Furthermore the defense has all day on the 27th to present its arguments.

When the defense presents it's arguments in reply to my own, I expect I will offer my own rebuttal argument as appropriate.
 
The Prosecution, quite simply, has no case. They have walls of text and plenty of nice pictures, but at the end of the day how much actual evidence do they have that links the Defendant to the suspect nation in question? None. Let us examine the Prosecution's weak "evidence" and see where that gets us. The Defense will strive for simple, to the point counterarguments rather than walls of text since this really is rather open and shut.
Treize_Dreizehn:
The defendant presented a birth year as 1987 in Exhibit D, and used a skype name ending in the numbers 87. He mentioned making his nation "two months ago" and the defendant's nation was nearly two months old at the time as shown in Exhibit E. The defense would have you believe that live:efernand87 is not in fact the defendant. He would have you believe that the nation of "Mysterious Me" is also not the defendant. The defense would have you believe that Venico Brightaxe with no potential for gain and in fact potential for loss, brought false information to light incriminating another raider. Or that someone impersonated the defendant with implausibly specific evidence(like his birth year or his founding date) in an attempt to discredit him.
Click to expand...
The Defense would like to note various simple facts.
  • There were multiple people born in 1987. More than just the Defendant.
  • The Prosecution, in that argument, did exactly what the Court asked them not to do: refer to the Mysterious Me nation as the Defendant without evidence first.
  • Anyone can input into the Skype birthday field whatever they would like, the Defense Counsel has no idea what birthday is listed for its own NS skype and even its personal skype account.
  • The Defendant's date of nation creation is public record, so if anyone wanted to impersonate them then this "evidence" is utterly meaningless. There is nothing "implausibly specific" about it.
  • The obligation does not lay with the Defense to prove that the Defendant was being impersonated, but rather with the Prosecution to prove that he wasn't.

Treize_Dreizehn:
The defense would have you believe that the message to Ator People(Exhibit F) asking for a quick conviction was in fact not in any way associated with a hope that this frankly embarrassingly incompetent incident could be put behind the defendant. The defense is not only stretching to grasp at straws with this line of argument, he is stretching the limits of credulity.
Click to expand...
The Defense points out that nowhere in that Exhibit does the Defendant state that they are Mysterious Me. What you see is the expression of frustration that would be expected from a new player who comes to a region and is suddenly charged with crimes because they were impersonated. The Prosecution's interpretation of the Defendant's statements is unbacked by other evidence, and frankly the Prosecution's desperation regarding this piece of evidence demonstrates the lack of any meaningful proof elsewhere in the argument.
Treize_Dreizehn:
The evidence clearly establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, the identity of the defendant.
Click to expand...
The evidence establishes nothing meaningful regarding the Defendant. There is no admission of guilt, merely an admission of frustration, perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. There are no incriminating telegrams from the Defendant's nation, merely a series of telegrams sent from an anonymous puppet. There is no IP evidence, merely a Skype call from an account which has no links to the Defendant besides having the same birth year (which is public knowledge). Quite simply, there is no evidence.
 
As a note to the presiding justice, and with no disrespect intended towards the defense, but the prosecution does not, having read the defense's arguments, believe a rebuttal is necessary.

The prosecution believes its own previous arguments are sufficient to prove its case.

The prosecution eagerly awaits the findings of the court.
 
If there are no further motions, this will conclude arguments and the Court will begin deliberations tomorrow. Thank you, counsel.
 
Not out of a sense of discomfort or rush, but the Defense is somewhat curious as to a timeframe on the decision by the Court.
 
The prosecution hopes this hasn't been lost in the shuffle of recent governmental activity, and joins with the Defense in eagerly awaiting a ruling.
 
Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court rules as follows:

Haafingar and Hjaalmarch is found Not Guilty on the charges of Conspiracy and Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

Due to insufficient reasonably certain evidence establishing Haafingar and Hjaalmarch as the party responsible for committing the alleged crimes, the Court cannot render a Guilty verdict in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top