The North Pacific v. King Durk the Awesome

[Romanoffia]

Oh, yea, oh, yea!

This Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. King Durk the Awesome as filed by Gracius Maximus, Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific here:

Indictment:

Criminal Complaint

Defendant: King Durk the Awesome
Plaintiff: The North Pacific

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 committed treason by providing material support to a group for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The South Pacific, a treatied ally of The North Pacific. The Defendant also masked their IP in order to circumvent regional forum administration and register a second nation for membership in the Regional Assembly in violation of the nation's oath as a member of the that body.

Relevant Laws

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.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Balder and Europeia.

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

19. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.

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

Specific Offense(s): Treason; Fraud; Proxying; Gross Misconduct

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): Treason: 20 April 2013 - 30 April 2013; Proxying, Fraud, Gross Misconduct: 05 December 2012 - 16 May 2013


Summary of Events: Durk supported the coup perpetrated against the Coalition of The South Pacific by Milograd, including accessing the Delegate nation to assist in purging the region and combating liberation attempts (attempts which included the NPA). He also registered for Regional Assembly membership with another account, that of Bokeryville, which gave him the benefit of two votes in the Regional Assembly.

Supporting Evidence

(Admission of guilt on the NS forums): http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=14231755#p14231755

(Application oath of Bokeryville to the Regional Assembly): http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8094081&t=6917173

(Removal of Bokeryville from the Regional Assembly due to CTE): http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8078137&t=6923980

(Screenshot of Durkadurkiranistan III posting on TSP's Regional Message Board):

Spoiler: TSP RMB Screenshot

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.

Further, The North Pacific wishes to seek the harshest possible punishment for these crimes (Regional Assembly removal, ejection and banning).

Representing The North Pacific will be Gracious Maximums, Deputy Attorney General, and

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be Romanoffia.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Treason; Fraud; Proxying; and 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.

King Durk the Awesome, how do you plead?

---

Estimated Schedule (subject to change):

May 14th to 18th: Plea
May19th to May22th: Pre-Trial
May 23 to May 27th: Discovery
May 28th to June 3rd: Arguments
June 4 th to June 8th: Deliberation

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

 

[King Durk the Awesome]

cool, not guilty, and i'll be rep'ing myself for the time being

 

[Romanoffia]

The Court thanks you for your prompt response.

The proceedings will now continue according to the schedule I have posted.

 

[King Durk the Awesome]

An update,

A legal team of Douria, Mall, Cormac, and myself will be representing me.

 

[Romanoffia]

That's fine with the Court. In fact, I'll be looking forward to that!

 

[Mall]

The Defense moves that all charges be dropped due to a complete lack of evidence.

The Defense notes that the links regarding Bokeryville merely show that a user by the name of Bokeryville existed on these forums, they provide no link between the Defendant and the nation itself.

Additionally below is the full text of the Defendant's statement on the NS forums

Another retirement thread. This one will be brief.

I hesitate to call it 'retirement' at all, because really, Nationstates is just a game and we don't have 'careers' here. I play Nationstates for fun, and anything that isn't fun, I won't waste my time with. Recruiting, writing embassy updates, etc. - you all know the drill. Perhaps that was my biggest pitfall as a player; oh well. After almost nine (9!) years of playing Nationstates, the list of things I'd consider fun (within the game) have dwindled to couping feeders and trolling the UDL. It's why I haven't done much of anything in Nationstates over the past two years; frankly I've been functionally 'retired' for those years. Now I wish to make my 'retirement' (ugh) formal primarily so that people may stop asking me to do stuff.

I see the game entering a new era. Mahaj is taking the reigns at UDL, several notable players have resigned, influence is more popular than ever, and offsite forum democracies are once again seen as the gold standard in Nationstates gameplay, at least as far as the feeders are concerned. Kind of like the old days, in that respect. If you ask me, forum democracies are hogwash, but they give us something to fight over and demagogue about, and that is very crucial to the game indeed. I see good things for gameplay in the near future.

Not sure what else to say at this point, except that, if you think of me and want to please my memory, build an isolated cabin fortress in the backwoods of Northwest Montana, buy a snowmaker, and creepily hit on some poor unsuspecting Asian girl.

See ya

Nowhere in the post which has been submitted as evidence is The South Pacific, Bokeryville, or anything even relating to these charges mentioned.

The RMB screenshot fails to link the Defendant to the nation in question, and even if it were to be shown to be the defendant then it would simply be him exercising his right to free speech which is guaranteed by the Constibillicode of this region. This is a pathetic attempt to bring down a member of TNP who has never once been convicted of any crime and is a holder of TNP Order of Merit.


The Defense motions that the Court dismiss these charges on a separate ground as well. Per the Court's ruling here the Court can choose to ignore the laws of the region when there is a compelling interest to do so. The Defendant provides endless entertainment and joy to the region, to convict him of these crimes would be going against the interests of the region itself. Additionally the trial itself would turn into such a massive disaster due to the simple fact of the "JAL Effect" on the Court that the region will suffer from the trial.

The Defense thanks the Court for its time.

 

[Romanoffia]

The Defense moves that all charges be dropped due to a complete lack of evidence.

The Defense notes that the links regarding Bokeryville merely show that a user by the name of Bokeryville existed on these forums, they provide no link between the Defendant and the nation itself.

Additionally below is the full text of the Defendant's statement on the NS forums

Another retirement thread. This one will be brief.

I hesitate to call it 'retirement' at all, because really, Nationstates is just a game and we don't have 'careers' here. I play Nationstates for fun, and anything that isn't fun, I won't waste my time with. Recruiting, writing embassy updates, etc. - you all know the drill. Perhaps that was my biggest pitfall as a player; oh well. After almost nine (9!) years of playing Nationstates, the list of things I'd consider fun (within the game) have dwindled to couping feeders and trolling the UDL. It's why I haven't done much of anything in Nationstates over the past two years; frankly I've been functionally 'retired' for those years. Now I wish to make my 'retirement' (ugh) formal primarily so that people may stop asking me to do stuff.

I see the game entering a new era. Mahaj is taking the reigns at UDL, several notable players have resigned, influence is more popular than ever, and offsite forum democracies are once again seen as the gold standard in Nationstates gameplay, at least as far as the feeders are concerned. Kind of like the old days, in that respect. If you ask me, forum democracies are hogwash, but they give us something to fight over and demagogue about, and that is very crucial to the game indeed. I see good things for gameplay in the near future.

Not sure what else to say at this point, except that, if you think of me and want to please my memory, build an isolated cabin fortress in the backwoods of Northwest Montana, buy a snowmaker, and creepily hit on some poor unsuspecting Asian girl.

See ya

Nowhere in the post which has been submitted as evidence is The South Pacific, Bokeryville, or anything even relating to these charges mentioned.

The RMB screenshot fails to link the Defendant to the nation in question, and even if it were to be shown to be the defendant then it would simply be him exercising his right to free speech which is guaranteed by the Constibillicode of this region. This is a pathetic attempt to bring down a member of TNP who has never once been convicted of any crime and is a holder of TNP Order of Merit.


The Defense motions that the Court dismiss these charges on a separate ground as well. Per the Court's ruling here the Court can choose to ignore the laws of the region when there is a compelling interest to do so. The Defendant provides endless entertainment and joy to the region, to convict him of these crimes would be going against the interests of the region itself. Additionally the trial itself would turn into such a massive disaster due to the simple fact of the "JAL Effect" on the Court that the region will suffer from the trial.

The Defense thanks the Court for its time.

The Court does not ignore laws and certainly not for 'compelling' reasons. Nor does the Court appreciate the implications of such a statement. And, in editions, the Court will not allow this trial to be driven by irrelevant arguments in an attempt to re-frame the nature of the indictment or the charges into something other than what it is - a trial about treason, etc.,,,. This is not a trial concerning an ambiguity in a law that has nothing to do with treason, etc.,,,.

I see no reason to dismiss any of the charges.

As such, Motion Denied.

(Addendum: grammar error corrected and struck)

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

The defense motions for the charges to be dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence.

Let us examine the four pieces of evidence in "support" of the charges as they currently stand.

First of all we'd be remiss if we didn't examine the treason charge. This is relating to my client's supposed participation in the Coup of The South Pacific.

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

The only alleged participation in evidence is the screen shot as shown here:

Spoiler

.

None of the statements made by Durkadurkirastan III there indicate treason. They are simple statements that are protected free speech. Furthermore, as this should go without saying, there is no supporting evidence to even hope to allege that the puppet in question belongs to my client.

The law is clear, substantive support must be proven, and none of the evidence as presented shows any substantive support given by my client to a coup of a treatied ally or TNP itself. Nor does it prove any assistance in "governance" of any such region.

Second of all, we should examine the charges of Gross Misconduct, Proxying, and Fraud.

The other three pieces of evidence seem to be hoping to prove those charges so I'll examine them here.

The link to the forum post on the NS forums. It appears to be a post by my client retiring. But the post contains no references to Bokeryville, and contains no references to alleged participation in the TSP coup. I'd go on but I think the fact that it is entirely unrelated to the case at hand is sufficient.

Beyond that we have two posts on TNP's forum including an Oath by Bokeryville and a post indicating his removal from the RA due to inactivity (which are, it's important to note, incorrectly labeled). Perhaps most importantly, without some evidence proving that King Durk the Awesome was a member of the RA at the same time, which the prosecution has failed to provide, these posts are as meaningless as the NS Forum Post. And even had the prosecution provided a clear link between the two with the NS forum post... without any evidence proving King Durk the Aweseome and Bokeryville's simultaneous presence on the RA, there is no evidence to support the prosecution's case.

At this point it has become clear the the prosecutor was entirely unprepared for this case. The prosecution has begun a case with no relevant evidence to support the charges he has brought. The prosecution has in effect asked the court to use it's imagination, and to assume some guilt rather than the alternative.

Furthermore, beyond the motions to dismiss the charges, I believe the defense is well within its rights under Article 4.2 of the General Evidentiary Rules, to request the evidence as currently presented be ruled "inadmissible" as it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

I would also note to the courts, the prosecution was not rushed to this point. The careless and haphazard manner in which this case has been handled so far by the Attorney General's office is entirely their own doing. I see no reason my client should suffer for their unpreparedness.

I have outlined clearly that the evidence which should support these charges are completely irrelevant to the charges as written. I would hope that the motion to dismiss these charges with prejudice for lack of evidence are not subsequently ignored due to rhetoric as my colleague's were.

The defense thanks you for your time.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

In reply to the motion from the Defense:

At no point do the Court Rules, the Constitution, Legal Code or Bill of Rights indicate that all evidence must be presented at the time of the filing of an indictment before the Court. As such, citing an opinion of lack in regards to evidence is premature on the part of defense counsel. The Court accepted the indictment as presented. Pointing to possible issues of relevance within the indictment itself do not preclude the possibility of evidence being presented within the Discovery phase of the trial.

As to the specific items within the indictment, one needs only look at the edit timestamp on the NS forum post to see that the defendant chose to remove his admission of guilt shortly after the indictment was posted. A cached version of the page does still include the untampered with evidence related to said admission.

The prosecution has not asked the Court to imagine anything beyond what has been presented and to consider the indictment on its own merits. Unfortunately, the defendant, with or without the input of his counsel, has tampered with the evidence in question, thereby precluding the opportunity for the Court to see the facts of the case.

If the evidence had not been tampered with, the primary point in defense counsel's motion would be moot, therefore, since this can be remedied during Discovery, we request that this motion be denied.

Note: I am not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, I don't claim to run a law firm IRL. At no point in the Court Rules does it state this process must be run as a RL courtroom and I do not intend to manage the case as if it is. Meaning, that I do expect common sense, logic and reason to have some input in the proceedings (i.e. looking at Bokeryville's oath and not assuming that because Durk's oath from 16 November 2012 isn't listed that it somehow miraculously doesn't exist). If that is not sufficient for the Court or the Attorney General, especially considering the way the law has been bent in a recent ruling, then just say so and I will recuse myself from the case.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I believe the evidence is sufficient. That is, of course, ultimately a matter for the court.

As we haven't reached the discovery phase, I wouldn't preclude the possiblity of additional evidence if the need arises.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the prosecution is outlining facts that are not, as of yet in evidence. He may not submit further evidence yet nor should his claims of further evidence be given any sort of significance. The prosecution had the opportunity to provide screenshots rather than post links if he so wished. He could have included this phantom evidence he is asking the Court to assume exists.

He did not, and now asks the court to allow him to reach the discovery phase of this trial without having evidence to support the charges he has brought before the court. The prosecution has failed to bring a compelling case to the court, and rather than address my points in substance instead has simply said "there is more, I swear!"

It is the prosecutors responsibility to organize his evidence and ensure enough of it exists to at least support the charges as presented. The prosecution did not do that. The prosecution has wasted the time of my client and the time of this court with these charges by failing to live up to the expectations one expects from one in his office. I apologize for my part in pointing out his mistakes here, but they are mistakes nonetheless. I would be remiss if I did not represent my client to the fullest extent by doing so.

Thank you.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the prosecution is outlining facts that are not, as of yet in evidence. He may not submit further evidence yet nor should his claims of further evidence be given any sort of significance. The prosecution had the opportunity to provide screenshots rather than post links if he so wished. He could have included this phantom evidence he is asking the Court to assume exists.

He did not, and now asks the court to allow him to reach the discovery phase of this trial without having evidence to support the charges he has brought before the court. The prosecution has failed to bring a compelling case to the court, and rather than address my points in substance instead has simply said "there is more, I swear!"

It is the prosecutors responsibility to organize his evidence and ensure enough of it exists to at least support the charges as presented. The prosecution did not do that. The prosecution has wasted the time of my client and the time of this court with these charges by failing to live up to the expectations one expects from one in his office. I apologize for my part in pointing out his mistakes here, but they are mistakes nonetheless. I would be remiss if I did not represent my client to the fullest extent by doing so.

Thank you.

No. At the time of the initial indictment the evidence did in fact exist, and was observed to exist by members of the Court, at the point of the provided link. Your client tampered with the evidence after the fact, which is noted in the timestamp. It isn't a case of claiming something exists when it was never presented. It was presented and then removed. As I have stated, this isn't a real life court, in which case evidence like this would not be open for editing, so continuing to espouse that it should be treated as such an making claims of what should have been presented in your opinion based upon some fanciful idea of how you believe the Court should operate is not relevant. The indictment was accepted by the Court, therefore, dismissing charges based upon the indictment is counterintuitive.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the prosecution is outlining facts that are not, as of yet in evidence. He may not submit further evidence yet nor should his claims of further evidence be given any sort of significance. The prosecution had the opportunity to provide screenshots rather than post links if he so wished. He could have included this phantom evidence he is asking the Court to assume exists.

He did not, and now asks the court to allow him to reach the discovery phase of this trial without having evidence to support the charges he has brought before the court. The prosecution has failed to bring a compelling case to the court, and rather than address my points in substance instead has simply said "there is more, I swear!"

It is the prosecutors responsibility to organize his evidence and ensure enough of it exists to at least support the charges as presented. The prosecution did not do that. The prosecution has wasted the time of my client and the time of this court with these charges by failing to live up to the expectations one expects from one in his office. I apologize for my part in pointing out his mistakes here, but they are mistakes nonetheless. I would be remiss if I did not represent my client to the fullest extent by doing so.

Thank you.

No. At the time of the initial indictment the evidence did in fact exist, and was observed to exist by members of the Court, at the point of the provided link. Your client tampered with the evidence after the fact, which is noted in the timestamp. It isn't a case of claiming something exists when it was never presented. It was presented and then removed. As I have stated, this isn't a real life court, in which case evidence like this would not be open for editing, so continuing to espouse that it should be treated as such an making claims of what should have been presented in your opinion based upon some fanciful idea of how you believe the Court should operate is not relevant. The indictment was accepted by the Court, therefore, dismissing charges based upon the indictment is counterintuitive.

I'm going to note now that the prosecution failed to take into account that he presented evidence that was not immutable when he had the opportunity to screenshot the evidence he wanted to preserve. And beyond that has failed to address the majority of my OTHER points.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the prosecution is outlining facts that are not, as of yet in evidence. He may not submit further evidence yet nor should his claims of further evidence be given any sort of significance. The prosecution had the opportunity to provide screenshots rather than post links if he so wished. He could have included this phantom evidence he is asking the Court to assume exists.

He did not, and now asks the court to allow him to reach the discovery phase of this trial without having evidence to support the charges he has brought before the court. The prosecution has failed to bring a compelling case to the court, and rather than address my points in substance instead has simply said "there is more, I swear!"

It is the prosecutors responsibility to organize his evidence and ensure enough of it exists to at least support the charges as presented. The prosecution did not do that. The prosecution has wasted the time of my client and the time of this court with these charges by failing to live up to the expectations one expects from one in his office. I apologize for my part in pointing out his mistakes here, but they are mistakes nonetheless. I would be remiss if I did not represent my client to the fullest extent by doing so.

Thank you.

No. At the time of the initial indictment the evidence did in fact exist, and was observed to exist by members of the Court, at the point of the provided link. Your client tampered with the evidence after the fact, which is noted in the timestamp. It isn't a case of claiming something exists when it was never presented. It was presented and then removed. As I have stated, this isn't a real life court, in which case evidence like this would not be open for editing, so continuing to espouse that it should be treated as such an making claims of what should have been presented in your opinion based upon some fanciful idea of how you believe the Court should operate is not relevant. The indictment was accepted by the Court, therefore, dismissing charges based upon the indictment is counterintuitive.

I'm going to note now that the prosecution failed to take into account that he presented evidence that was not immutable when he had the opportunity to screenshot the evidence he wanted to preserve. And beyond that has failed to address the majority of my OTHER points.

I have not stated that I failed to screenshot said evidence. It is in my possession. I simply feel that this phase of the trial is not the most appropriate point at which to share it. I do believe I addressed your comment regarding the presentation of the oath. I didn't find any of your other points sufficient in their grounding to warrant comment. If the Court does, so be it.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

I have not stated that I failed to screenshot said evidence. It is in my possession. I simply feel that this phase of the trial is not the most appropriate point at which to share it. I do believe I addressed your comment regarding the presentation of the oath. I didn't find any of your other points sufficient in their grounding to warrant comment. If the Court does, so be it.

If it is in the prosecutor's possession it should've been part of the original indictment. As it stands the indictment was deemed good enough to get us to this stage of the trial. The strength of the prosecution's evidence in the initial indictment is what gets us to the discovery phase, not promises of more evidence. The current evidence is incredibly flawed, which is a fact that even prosecution acknowledges. The defense will not be dragged into an argument over what time is appropriate for presenting the evidence necessary to back up your charges. There is no argument to be had.

You may not ask the court to assume facts not in evidence. There has been no evidence presented to the court that Bokeryville and King Durk the Awesome were in the RA at the same time even if you could prove that my client at one time claimed to be Bokeryville. The prosecution cannot ask the court to use common sense to conjur evidence out of thin air, the prosecution has to do its job and present evidence to that effect. The evidence the prosecution has presented with regards to the treason charge is similarly debunked as a simple matter of law... there was no material support given in any pieces of evidence submitted.

We are not beholden to the mistakes of the prosecution. We are dealing with provable facts, and the proved facts in this case do not support the charges as outlined.

I'm sorry.

 

[Romanoffia]

The defense motions for the charges to be dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence.

Let us examine the four pieces of evidence in "support" of the charges as they currently stand.

First of all we'd be remiss if we didn't examine the treason charge. This is relating to my client's supposed participation in the Coup of The South Pacific.

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

The only alleged participation in evidence is the screen shot as shown here:

Spoiler

.

None of the statements made by Durkadurkirastan III there indicate treason. They are simple statements that are protected free speech. Furthermore, as this should go without saying, there is no supporting evidence to even hope to allege that the puppet in question belongs to my client.

The law is clear, substantive support must be proven, and none of the evidence as presented shows any substantive support given by my client to a coup of a treatied ally or TNP itself. Nor does it prove any assistance in "governance" of any such region.

Second of all, we should examine the charges of Gross Misconduct, Proxying, and Fraud.

The other three pieces of evidence seem to be hoping to prove those charges so I'll examine them here.

The link to the forum post on the NS forums. It appears to be a post by my client retiring. But the post contains no references to Bokeryville, and contains no references to alleged participation in the TSP coup. I'd go on but I think the fact that it is entirely unrelated to the case at hand is sufficient.

Beyond that we have two posts on TNP's forum including an Oath by Bokeryville and a post indicating his removal from the RA due to inactivity (which are, it's important to note, incorrectly labeled). Perhaps most importantly, without some evidence proving that King Durk the Awesome was a member of the RA at the same time, which the prosecution has failed to provide, these posts are as meaningless as the NS Forum Post. And even had the prosecution provided a clear link between the two with the NS forum post... without any evidence proving King Durk the Aweseome and Bokeryville's simultaneous presence on the RA, there is no evidence to support the prosecution's case.

At this point it has become clear the the prosecutor was entirely unprepared for this case. The prosecution has begun a case with no relevant evidence to support the charges he has brought. The prosecution has in effect asked the court to use it's imagination, and to assume some guilt rather than the alternative.

Furthermore, beyond the motions to dismiss the charges, I believe the defense is well within its rights under Article 4.2 of the General Evidentiary Rules, to request the evidence as currently presented be ruled "inadmissible" as it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

I would also note to the courts, the prosecution was not rushed to this point. The careless and haphazard manner in which this case has been handled so far by the Attorney General's office is entirely their own doing. I see no reason my client should suffer for their unpreparedness.

I have outlined clearly that the evidence which should support these charges are completely irrelevant to the charges as written. I would hope that the motion to dismiss these charges with prejudice for lack of evidence are not subsequently ignored due to rhetoric as my colleague's were.

The defense thanks you for your time.

The admissibility of evidence is generally determined during the actual trial or previously in the examination of evidence provided during depositions before those depositions are entered into the official court record/transcript.

Also, as noted by GM, the entire body of evidence is not generally supplied in the indictment itself. This is what 'discovery' is for and I suggest that the defense engage in the process of discovery at the proper time (mainly, May 23-27, to be exact). This is when all evidence is submitted and any determinations of the admissibility of evidence or lack of evidence can be dealt with at that time.

Considering that this motion to dismiss is essentially a crafty wording of the first motion to dismiss and therefore, the Court says,

Motion to Dismiss is Denied, in toto.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

The admissibility of evidence is generally determined during the actual trial or previously in the examination of evidence provided during depositions before those depositions are entered into the official court record/transcript.

Also, as noted by GM, the entire body of evidence is not generally supplied in the indictment itself. This is what 'discovery' is for and I suggest that the defense engage in the process of discovery at the proper time (mainly, May 23-27, to be exact). This is when all evidence is submitted and any determinations of the admissibility of evidence or lack of evidence can be dealt with at that time.

Considering that this motion to dismiss is essentially a crafty wording of the first motion to dismiss and therefore, the Court says,

Motion to Dismiss is Denied, in toto.

In the interests of justice, I'd like to make a motion that the presiding justice recuse himself from this trial. It has become clear that the presiding justice is incapable of presiding over this case in an impartial manner, due to my client's and his extensive history.

Furthermore, as presiding justice in at least one previous trial for my defendant, the presiding justice is the least likely candidate for an impartial justice in this matter.

If Romanoffia is not interested in arguments on the law and worse, is not capable of making his rulings based on any substantive argument, he should not have accepted this case as presiding justice.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

The admissibility of evidence is generally determined during the actual trial or previously in the examination of evidence provided during depositions before those depositions are entered into the official court record/transcript.

Also, as noted by GM, the entire body of evidence is not generally supplied in the indictment itself. This is what 'discovery' is for and I suggest that the defense engage in the process of discovery at the proper time (mainly, May 23-27, to be exact). This is when all evidence is submitted and any determinations of the admissibility of evidence or lack of evidence can be dealt with at that time.

Considering that this motion to dismiss is essentially a crafty wording of the first motion to dismiss and therefore, the Court says,

Motion to Dismiss is Denied, in toto.

In the interests of justice, I'd like to make a motion that the presiding justice recuse himself from this trial. It has become clear that the presiding justice is incapable of presiding over this case in an impartial manner, due to my client's and his extensive history.

Furthermore, as presiding justice in at least one previous trial for my defendant, the presiding justice is the least likely candidate for an impartial justice in this matter.

If Romanoffia is not interested in arguments on the law and worse, is not capable of making his rulings based on any substantive argument, he should not have accepted this case as presiding justice.

Considering the ultimate outcome of the previous trial, it seems somewhat unlikely that defense counsel would have relevant issue with the presiding justice.

The Prosecution believes the Court to be, in general, lenient towards defendants, regardless of their identity. Your determination of competency and disparaging remarks upon the actions of the sitting Justice simply because they happen to disagree with your presentation is not a legitimate reason for recusal in our opinion.

 

[Mall]

I believe the evidence is sufficient. That is, of course, ultimately a matter for the court.

As we haven't reached the discovery phase, I wouldn't preclude the possiblity of additional evidence if the need arises.

The Defense requests that the Court instruct the Attorney General to keep out of this thread unless the current prosecution intends to step down. The North Pacific is represented by the very capable Gracius Maximus per the indictment, nowhere is Chasmanthe mentioned. At the very least this is an intrusion into our current case, at worst it is an attempt by a member of the government to influence the opinion of the Court when they have no legal standing to do so. If the AG would like to be a member of the Prosecution's team then he ought to declare so for the benefit of the Court and the Defense just as the Defense did in order to outline who would be members of the Defense team.

 

[Mall]

The admissibility of evidence is generally determined during the actual trial or previously in the examination of evidence provided during depositions before those depositions are entered into the official court record/transcript.

Also, as noted by GM, the entire body of evidence is not generally supplied in the indictment itself. This is what 'discovery' is for and I suggest that the defense engage in the process of discovery at the proper time (mainly, May 23-27, to be exact). This is when all evidence is submitted and any determinations of the admissibility of evidence or lack of evidence can be dealt with at that time.

Considering that this motion to dismiss is essentially a crafty wording of the first motion to dismiss and therefore, the Court says,

Motion to Dismiss is Denied, in toto.

In the interests of justice, I'd like to make a motion that the presiding justice recuse himself from this trial. It has become clear that the presiding justice is incapable of presiding over this case in an impartial manner, due to my client's and his extensive history.

Furthermore, as presiding justice in at least one previous trial for my defendant, the presiding justice is the least likely candidate for an impartial justice in this matter.

If Romanoffia is not interested in arguments on the law and worse, is not capable of making his rulings based on any substantive argument, he should not have accepted this case as presiding justice.

Considering the ultimate outcome of the previous trial, it seems somewhat unlikely that defense counsel would have relevant issue with the presiding justice.

The Prosecution believes the Court to be, in general, lenient towards defendants, regardless of their identity. Your determination of competency and disparaging remarks upon the actions of the sitting Justice simply because they happen to disagree with your presentation is not a legitimate reason for recusal in our opinion.

The Defense also questions why the Prosecution would be opposed to the current Justice recusing themselves, since it would seem to be the case that they would have no compelling reason to object unless they believed that they gained some advantage from keeping the Justice in question on the case.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I believe the evidence is sufficient. That is, of course, ultimately a matter for the court.

As we haven't reached the discovery phase, I wouldn't preclude the possiblity of additional evidence if the need arises.

The Defense requests that the Court instruct the Attorney General to keep out of this thread unless the current prosecution intends to step down. The North Pacific is represented by the very capable Gracius Maximus per the indictment, nowhere is Chasmanthe mentioned. At the very least this is an intrusion into our current case, at worst it is an attempt by a member of the government to influence the opinion of the Court when they have no legal standing to do so. If the AG would like to be a member of the Prosecution's team then he ought to declare so for the benefit of the Court and the Defense just as the Defense did in order to outline who would be members of the Defense team.

May I request the OP be updated to include both of us on the prosecution, as was the pattern established by TNP vs H&H ?

 

[Romanoffia]

The admissibility of evidence is generally determined during the actual trial or previously in the examination of evidence provided during depositions before those depositions are entered into the official court record/transcript.

Also, as noted by GM, the entire body of evidence is not generally supplied in the indictment itself. This is what 'discovery' is for and I suggest that the defense engage in the process of discovery at the proper time (mainly, May 23-27, to be exact). This is when all evidence is submitted and any determinations of the admissibility of evidence or lack of evidence can be dealt with at that time.

Considering that this motion to dismiss is essentially a crafty wording of the first motion to dismiss and therefore, the Court says,

Motion to Dismiss is Denied, in toto.

In the interests of justice, I'd like to make a motion that the presiding justice recuse himself from this trial. It has become clear that the presiding justice is incapable of presiding over this case in an impartial manner, due to my client's and his extensive history.

Furthermore, as presiding justice in at least one previous trial for my defendant, the presiding justice is the least likely candidate for an impartial justice in this matter.

If Romanoffia is not interested in arguments on the law and worse, is not capable of making his rulings based on any substantive argument, he should not have accepted this case as presiding justice.

You client's history of accomplishments is irrelevant to this case in terms of evidence. Such history can only be considered in relation to the case insofar as those specific accomplishments are part of the defendant's alleged actions leading to the indictment, which means they are largely irrelevant.

Insulting the Court in an attempt to create and frame an image of 'bias' on the part of the Court does not create bias on the part of the Court and any further attempts at such a strategy will be considered contempt, which is actionable under the Court Rules.

Also, being a Presiding Justice in multiple cases involving a unique defendant does not constitute any conflict of interest nor present any rational or legal reason for a Justice to recuse himself from any given case.

And also, I am interested in arguments on the law, not hissy fits on the part of any participant at not getting their way in attempts to bully the Court into decisions that are not legally sound nor impartial.

Believe me when I tell you, I am the Defendant's best bet for having a fair trial based upon the facts. I suggest you concentrate on building your case rather than insulting the Court or attempting to inflict delays on these proceedings.

Finally, if you insist upon insulting the Court and making accusations of bias where no bias exists, I will remove you from the court room because I will not tolerate disrespect for the Bench from anyone.

Do I make myself clear?



Motion denied.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

Finally, if you insist upon insulting the Court and making accusations of bias where no bias exists, I will remove you from the court room because I will not tolerate disrespect for the Bench from anyone.

Do I make myself clear?

Motion denied.

I would like to appeal the presiding justice's dismissals to the wider court, as the presiding justice seems to be incapable of making a ruling that is not based on his own petty presumptions of guilt and bias against my client. The fact that the presiding justice is not impartial is indeed crystal clear, your honor. And I for one will not stand idly by while you threaten me for saying so.

These motions were made in good faith and are strong and compelling. The presiding justice's dismissal of them without explanation is not acceptable behavior and not the actions of an unbiased justice.

 

[Mall]

Believe me when I tell you, I am the Defendant's best bet for having a fair trial based upon the facts. I suggest you concentrate on building your case rather than insulting the Court or attempting to inflict delays on these proceedings.

The Defense motions for a dismissal of all charges since the presiding Justice has openly admitted that the rest of the Court has a bias against the Defendant. It is clear from the presiding Justice's statement that the Defendant cannot receive a fair trial under these conditions. Additionally the Defense is disturbed by the fact that the presiding Justice is attempting to stifle the Defense's ability to ensure a fair trail for the Defendant as per his Constibillicodial rights.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

I'd like to motion for an extension of pre-trial motions as my client's work schedule has precluded his full participation in his own defense. An additional three days would be appreciated, as he should have more available free time this weekend.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

While in principle the Prosecution has no objection to an extension of pre-trial motions, we would like to note Article 1, section 8 of the Adopted Court Rules:

In the case of Indictments seeking an ejection and/or banning, or expulsion from the RA due to oath violation, the procedures set by the Legal Code will be followed exactly as stated.

Therefore, considering the nature of the charges and the likely punishment if a Guilty verdict were reached, an extension of any portion of the trial is not allowed.

Further, it seems, in our opinion, that the defendant making the same motions that his counsel has already presented multiple times will receive the same result and only serves to prolong the trial needlessly.

We would also like to reiterate our position that we feel that defense counsel is presenting a hostile face to the Court and unnecessarily attempting to disrupt proceedings by calling the bench's authority and fairness into question.

 

[Romanoffia]

Finally, if you insist upon insulting the Court and making accusations of bias where no bias exists, I will remove you from the court room because I will not tolerate disrespect for the Bench from anyone.

Do I make myself clear?

Motion denied.

I would like to appeal the presiding justice's dismissals to the wider court, as the presiding justice seems to be incapable of making a ruling that is not based on his own petty presumptions of guilt and bias against my client. The fact that the presiding justice is not impartial is indeed crystal clear, your honor. And I for one will not stand idly by while you threaten me for saying so.

These motions were made in good faith and are strong and compelling. The presiding justice's dismissal of them without explanation is not acceptable behavior and not the actions of an unbiased justice.

What did I just warn the Defense about concerning leveling accusations of bias? Apparently I did not make myself clear the first time or are you just trying to annoy me?

Again, I will not tolerate any attempts on the part of the defense to paint the court with a tar brush by incessantly claiming that the Court is biased. I am not threatening you, I am promising you. Your accusations will not delay nor change the trial procedure nor disrupt it any further than it already has.

I am the Presiding Justice in this case. I am also the Chief Justice. I will not tolerate any further casting of aspersions upon this Court as your accusations are obviously intended to disrupt the trial and is tantamount to an attempt to prevent a trial. There will be a trial, with or without you.

You are removed from the Court Room for twenty four (24 hours) for Contempt of Court. You were warned about leveling accusations and characterizing this Court in the manner which you have chosen.

Considering that there are multiple members of the Defense Team, I'm sure they will fair fine without you for twenty four hours and as such, the Defendant is in no way deprived of Council, so don't even go that route.

Pull your shenanigans one more time and I promise you that I will remove you from the proceedings permanently. And I can do it. Not a threat, a promise.

 

[Romanoffia]

Believe me when I tell you, I am the Defendant's best bet for having a fair trial based upon the facts. I suggest you concentrate on building your case rather than insulting the Court or attempting to inflict delays on these proceedings.

The Defense motions for a dismissal of all charges since the presiding Justice has openly admitted that the rest of the Court has a bias against the Defendant. It is clear from the presiding Justice's statement that the Defendant cannot receive a fair trial under these conditions. Additionally the Defense is disturbed by the fact that the presiding Justice is attempting to stifle the Defense's ability to ensure a fair trail for the Defendant as per his Constibillicodial rights.

What did I warn the Defense about concerning multiple attempts at rewording the same motion? Am I talking to a blank wall here?

If the Defense Team insists on disrupting the trial by leveling accusations of bias against the court in an attempt to claim bias on the part of the Court, the Contempt levies will continue.

The trial will continue as scheduled without any delays or shenanigans.

Again, I suggest you work on building your case instead of wasting your defendant's time by not properly defending him. In fact, the Defense Team has done absolutely nothing so far resembling a legal defense.

The accusations and disruptive behavior of the Defense Team leads me to the conclusion that the Defense Attorneys are reluctant to defend the Defendant, and their actions are effectively denying the Defendant of a legitimate attempt at a good defense. If this be the case, please let me know and I am more willing to allow the Defendant to choose a new Defense Team more suited to the aims of providing him with a good defense.


Motion Denied.

Let me ask the Defense Team a simple question:

Are you trying to get fired by the Defendant because you don't want to defend him?

 

[Romanoffia]

I'd like to motion for an extension of pre-trial motions as my client's work schedule has precluded his full participation in his own defense. An additional three days would be appreciated, as he should have more available free time this weekend.

Please see my last post.

However, I will contemplate an extension of the Pre-trial phase and adjust the schedule provided that:

1.) I hear no more aspersions cast upon the impartiality of this Court;

2.) I hear no more motions to dismiss on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence';

3.) That the Prosecution does not object (as was indicated in the Prosecution's earlier post).

Since your request for a motion for an extension was made in a civil and polite manner and is quite legitimate, I will recess the Court for 24 hours (and adjust the schedule as needed) until we hear of objections, if any, from the Prosecution. The Court will however hear any arguments pertaining to an extension of the Pre-trial phase during the 'recess'.

Once I hear of any objections or not as the case may be, I will render a decision on the three day extension.

Also, given the civil tone of this request, I hereby rescind the Contempt of Court ruling against Treize_Dreizehn.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

Pull your shenanigans one more time and I promise you that I will remove you from the proceedings permanently. And I can do it. Not a threat, a promise.

I have not been entirely clear here and that may be the source of your hostility. It is understandable and entirely my fault.

The ultimate issue here is that I do not believe my client can get a fair trial in TNP. You have said yourself that the other justices have a bias(the "he has the best chance at a fair trial with me" comment). Furthermore, the court accepted an indictment without apparently looking at it at all.

It's clear from even a cursory glance that the indictment needed more evidence to hold water. Yet it was accepted. It may not be in the forefront of your minds, but it is a realistic deduction that the chance to convict my client, who is innocent, entered into your thinking.

I also genuinely appreciate the opportunity you're giving my client to help participate in his own defense here.

But I'd like to be clear, so I can't be accused of shenanigans later. My request of an appeal to the wider court stands, and I make that appeal out of a genuine concern for the threat of convicting my quite innocent client, and not that giant stick you have up your ass. I promise.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

But I'd like to be clear, so I can't be accused of shenanigans later. My request of an appeal to the wider court stands, and I make that appeal out of a genuine concern for the threat of convicting my quite innocent client, and not that giant stick you have up your ass. I promise.

The Prosecution continues to be amazed that this level of contempt is tolerated by the Court.

 

[Romanoffia]

Pull your shenanigans one more time and I promise you that I will remove you from the proceedings permanently. And I can do it. Not a threat, a promise.

I have not been entirely clear here and that may be the source of your hostility. It is understandable and entirely my fault.

The ultimate issue here is that I do not believe my client can get a fair trial in TNP. You have said yourself that the other justices have a bias(the "he has the best chance at a fair trial with me" comment). Furthermore, the court accepted an indictment without apparently looking at it at all.

It's clear from even a cursory glance that the indictment needed more evidence to hold water. Yet it was accepted. It may not be in the forefront of your minds, but it is a realistic deduction that the chance to convict my client, who is innocent, entered into your thinking.

I also genuinely appreciate the opportunity you're giving my client to help participate in his own defense here.

But I'd like to be clear, so I can't be accused of shenanigans later. My request of an appeal to the wider court stands, and I make that appeal out of a genuine concern for the threat of convicting my quite innocent client, and not that giant stick you have up your ass. I promise.

I have no hostility, just a lack of tolerance for the feces of the bull.

I never said nor implied that the other Justices have any bias. I am just saying that I implied that I have a rather high threshold for leniency in the name of justice. I implied, you inferred. And I read the indictment in detail.

I presume everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. I function on the principle of the presumption of innocence.

I also have no other desire than for the defendant to have an adequate defense despite the defense.

And, I have no stick up my ass but if anyone tries to disrupt the court with inane BS, they will most assuredly have my foot up their ass.

As for an appeal to the 'wider court', that is not in the offing as it is not proper procedure and it tend to establish the precedent that the Presiding Justice is not the Presiding Justice. No, the wider court will only be involved in the deliberations, which, by the way are private.

But I'd like to be clear, so I can't be accused of shenanigans later. My request of an appeal to the wider court stands, and I make that appeal out of a genuine concern for the threat of convicting my quite innocent client, and not that giant stick you have up your ass. I promise.

The Prosecution continues to be amazed that this level of contempt is tolerated by the Court.

Isn't it amazing? If there was an award for tolerance in TNP, I would probably get it. Then again, I love the entertainment value in getting chewed out by any number of people. I have developed an immunity to being chewed out because I have been chewed out so many times (mostly unjustly) that my belly button is about to cave in.

On that note, I'll grant a three day extension of the Pre-Trial phase and adjust the schedule accordingly for the sake of yanks who have a three day weekend for Memorial Day.

You know, being a Court Justice is a real challenging job around here. It can be entertaining insofar as a colonoscopy with an oil drilling rig can be entertaining. Not.

 

[Mall]

I'd like to motion for an extension of pre-trial motions as my client's work schedule has precluded his full participation in his own defense. An additional three days would be appreciated, as he should have more available free time this weekend.

Please see my last post.

However, I will contemplate an extension of the Pre-trial phase and adjust the schedule provided that:

1.) I hear no more aspersions cast upon the impartiality of this Court;

2.) I hear no more motions to dismiss on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence';

3.) That the Prosecution does not object (as was indicated in the Prosecution's earlier post).

Since your request for a motion for an extension was made in a civil and polite manner and is quite legitimate, I will recess the Court for 24 hours (and adjust the schedule as needed) until we hear of objections, if any, from the Prosecution. The Court will however hear any arguments pertaining to an extension of the Pre-trial phase during the 'recess'.

Once I hear of any objections or not as the case may be, I will render a decision on the three day extension.

Also, given the civil tone of this request, I hereby rescind the Contempt of Court ruling against Treize_Dreizehn.

The Defense notes that it does not accept the terms put forward by the Court for the extension since it does not wish to constrain itself and risk impeding upon the ability of its client to receive a fair trial. If the other two members of the Court come forward during this period and state that they despise JAL then you can rest assured that there will be another motion to dismiss presented. That having been said, the Defense is merely seeking to protect the Defendant as is our duty. The Defense has never intended to insult the presiding Justice, nor is it seeking to turn his life into the living hell it will undeniably become once this goes to trial. The Defense wishes to mitigate the stress felt by the presiding Justice whenever possible.

The Defense thanks the Court for its extension of the pre-trial motions.

 

[Romanoffia]

I'd like to motion for an extension of pre-trial motions as my client's work schedule has precluded his full participation in his own defense. An additional three days would be appreciated, as he should have more available free time this weekend.

Please see my last post.

However, I will contemplate an extension of the Pre-trial phase and adjust the schedule provided that:

1.) I hear no more aspersions cast upon the impartiality of this Court;

2.) I hear no more motions to dismiss on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence';

3.) That the Prosecution does not object (as was indicated in the Prosecution's earlier post).

Since your request for a motion for an extension was made in a civil and polite manner and is quite legitimate, I will recess the Court for 24 hours (and adjust the schedule as needed) until we hear of objections, if any, from the Prosecution. The Court will however hear any arguments pertaining to an extension of the Pre-trial phase during the 'recess'.

Once I hear of any objections or not as the case may be, I will render a decision on the three day extension.

Also, given the civil tone of this request, I hereby rescind the Contempt of Court ruling against Treize_Dreizehn.

The Defense notes that it does not accept the terms put forward by the Court for the extension since it does not wish to constrain itself and risk impeding upon the ability of its client to receive a fair trial. If the other two members of the Court come forward during this period and state that they despise JAL then you can rest assured that there will be another motion to dismiss presented. That having been said, the Defense is merely seeking to protect the Defendant as is our duty. The Defense has never intended to insult the presiding Justice, nor is it seeking to turn his life into the living hell it will undeniably become once this goes to trial. The Defense wishes to mitigate the stress felt by the presiding Justice whenever possible.

The Defense thanks the Court for its extension of the pre-trial motions.

Why is it that when I bend over backwards for the sake of civility and order I always get results like this?

You have no choice but to follow the constraints I have stated because I am the Judge and I say so.

If you do not comply, I will remove you from the courtroom permanently and if necessary, declare the Defense teal incompetent. And then I will appoint a new defense team.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

If you do not comply, I will remove you from the courtroom permanently and if necessary, declare the Defense teal incompetent. And then I will appoint a new defense team.

I don't feel a pressing need to comply with your constraints at all. I don't believe you are able to issue them, and regardless of if you are or not, I know you're incapable of enforcing them.

 

[Mall]

Additionally the Defense notes that the Court is currently threatening to violate the Constibillocodian right of the Defendant to choose his own Defense team. The Court has no right to remove the Defense team.

 

[Romanoffia]

If you do not comply, I will remove you from the courtroom permanently and if necessary, declare the Defense teal incompetent. And then I will appoint a new defense team.

I don't feel a pressing need to comply with your constraints at all. I don't believe you are able to issue them, and regardless of if you are or not, I know you're incapable of enforcing them.

Actually, yes I can enforce them as I have some very broad moderation capabilities in this section of the forum.

Also, your behaviour and Mall's behaviour has now become a forum moderation issue here. You are not defending your client, you are both trolling.

The Court also has the authority to remove disruptive participants from the Court Room and will do so, and then appoint new council for the defendant if needs be.

In other words, don't push your luck with me or you will find out exactly what can be done and by whom.

 

[Romanoffia]

Additionally the Defense notes that the Court is currently threatening to violate the Constibillocodian right of the Defendant to choose his own Defense team. The Court has no right to remove the Defense team.

Uh, yes, the court has the authority to do so if the disruption continues.

Keep it up, pal.

Your trolling is being taken note of.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

If you do not comply, I will remove you from the courtroom permanently and if necessary, declare the Defense teal incompetent. And then I will appoint a new defense team.

I don't feel a pressing need to comply with your constraints at all. I don't believe you are able to issue them, and regardless of if you are or not, I know you're incapable of enforcing them.

Actually, yes I can enforce them as I have some very broad moderation capabilities in this section of the forum.

Also, your behaviour and Mall's behaviour has now become a forum moderation issue here. You are not defending your client, you are both trolling.

The Court also has the authority to remove disruptive participants from the Court Room and will do so, and then appoint new council for the defendant if needs be.

In other words, don't push your luck with me or you will find out exactly what can be done and by whom.

I am acting in the best interests of my client. If you, as moderating justice bar me from the proceedings I may appeal elsewhere, but I will not post here you have not done so(and I doubt you will). So this is less a moderation issue than you think.

That said, all you are doing is exposing your bias against my client.

 

[Romanoffia]

If you do not comply, I will remove you from the courtroom permanently and if necessary, declare the Defense teal incompetent. And then I will appoint a new defense team.

I don't feel a pressing need to comply with your constraints at all. I don't believe you are able to issue them, and regardless of if you are or not, I know you're incapable of enforcing them.

Actually, yes I can enforce them as I have some very broad moderation capabilities in this section of the forum.

Also, your behaviour and Mall's behaviour has now become a forum moderation issue here. You are not defending your client, you are both trolling.

The Court also has the authority to remove disruptive participants from the Court Room and will do so, and then appoint new council for the defendant if needs be.

In other words, don't push your luck with me or you will find out exactly what can be done and by whom.

I am acting in the best interests of my client. If you, as moderating justice bar me from the proceedings I may appeal elsewhere, but I will not post here you have not done so(and I doubt you will). So this is less a moderation issue than you think.

That said, all you are doing is exposing your bias against my client.

I have no bias against your client.

You and Mall, however are doing everything you can to deny your client a proper defense due to your constant disruption of this trial by refusing to obey the rules in terms of civility or procedure. You and Mall are behaving in a most incompetent fashion and as such, it is the Court's opinion that the Defense Team is not competent to properly defend its client.

This is your absolute last warning. One more disruptive action on the part of the Defense will result in this thread being locked and put in moderation with the forum Administration.

As such, this is going to be a moderation issue and I am contacting the forum Administration as my last recourse in maintaining order here.