Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
Are you telling me I'm not allowed to file further legitimate motions to defend my client just because you personally don't like them?
We're doing our jobs. You do yours.
We're doing our jobs. You do yours.
The North Pacific v. King Durk the Awesome
- Thread starter Romanoffia
- Start date
Mall
TNPer
The Defense requests an explanation of what the Court considers to be "disruptions" and further asks where in the Constibillocode it says that the Court can overrule the Defendant's right to choose its counsel. This is not a forum moderation issue, it is a legal issue for the Court to handle.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I'm telling you that it is pointless to keep submitting the same motion over and over and over again. The case will not be dismissed. It is going to trial. So, I suggest you start defending your client and cease and desist from your attempts to disrupt the proceedings.Treize_Dreizehn:
I'm trying to be nice here despite the Defence's attempts to test my disposition. I am trying to assure that the Defendant has proper representation. However, from what I have seen so far, the Defence team is not actually interested in defending its client by legitimate means, instead choosing to attempt to disrupt the proceedings to the point that no proceedings can occur.
You are expected to abide by the rules pertaining to this thread and this section of the forum. Both of you clearly are not as is demonstrated by your refusal to be civil and to abide by anything resembling the rules.
And, yes, the Court does have the authority to remove disruptive or incompetent defence attorneys and provide the Defendant with new and competent council.
Again, I will not hesitate to lock this thread and hand the entire matter over to forum Administration should you or Mall not abide by the rules and be civil and compliant with the rules of these proceedings.
You will not get a mistrial. You will, however assure that JAL will have a new defence team one way or another should you not comply.
Don't push me.
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
First of all you've threatened to remove me about 5 times and failed to follow through. If the court so wishes it may do so and I'll respect that decision. Until then:Romanoffia:
You have demonstrated a clear bias by the quoted statement. You have further proved that bias in IRC conversations we've held about this case.
I motion for the presiding justice to recuse himself based on this new information proving his prejudicial treatment of my client.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
You have pulled this one once before.Treize_Dreizehn:
Again, I am not in any way biased against or for your client. I am interested only in assuring that he has competent council. That means council who will actually answer the charges and defend the client rather than constantly insult this court and generally behave in an uncivil fashion.
You need to spend more time creating a defence rather than insulting the court and levelling bogus claims of bias in order to prevent a trial.
This case will go to trial. No ifs, ands or buts. So, please stop asking for recusals and redundant motions. Stop wasting the court's time, you time and your defendant's time with uncivil discourse and redundant motions.
Wait until discovery before you start asking for dismissals on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
I assure you, that if the evidence brought before the court is insufficient or inadmissible, and a valid motion is made for dismissal for same reasons, then the court will entertain such legitimate motions should the conditions dictate it.
So, I request that the Defense refrain from this line of action and defend its client rather than try to disrupt due process.
Motion Denied
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Just a scheduling note, if anyone has any motions they would like entertained by the court, get them posted now as time is running out on Pre-trial motions. You have 24 hours from the time of this post.
I will answer them forthwith.
Addendum:
Due to the three day extension I granted at the request of the Defence, I have adjusted the Discovery time as follows:
May 27 to June 2nd: Discovery (EDT Zone)
The rest of the proceedings will proportionately adjusted as a result with some room for flexibility if the Court so deems and if there are no objections to such flexibility in terms of extensions.
I will answer them forthwith.
Addendum:
Due to the three day extension I granted at the request of the Defence, I have adjusted the Discovery time as follows:
May 27 to June 2nd: Discovery (EDT Zone)
The rest of the proceedings will proportionately adjusted as a result with some room for flexibility if the Court so deems and if there are no objections to such flexibility in terms of extensions.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
The Prosecution notes that the Defendant's right to counsel would not be violated by the Court's removal of a specific individual from this venue. The Defendant and co-counsellors could continue to meet and consult separately from the Court proper, thus ensuring that the same level of counsel exists. The Bill of Rights indicates that any nation can seek counsel from any other nation but does not necessarily ensure that said counsel must be represented within the Court itself.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
I withdraw this statement from the record.Gracius Maximus:
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
For clarification purposes, will the Court be considering motions to dismiss during the Discovery phase of the trial?
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Motions to dismiss during the Discovery will not be entertained by the court.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
It is conceivable that motions other than those of dismissal could be made pre-trial.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
While this is not a motion being made, but rather a 'clarification', I will take liberty to answer your questions and concerns despite not having to do so and at my own volition:Mall:
The Court defines "disruptions" to the proceedings as the following and in a general way pertaining to all trials, not just this one:
Any behavior on the part of the Defense, Defendant, witnesses or Prosecution that the Court deems inappropriate, rude, disruptive or otherwise designed to cast aspersions upon the legitimacy of birth of the Presiding Justice or Justices in general.
Finally, A defendant has the right to choose anyone whom they wish to represent them. However, that does not excuse rude behavior on the part of their choice of defense. See bold text above.
Also be aware that the Court Rules allow for the Chief Justice to create rules on the fly where no specific rules are listed.
That is what the Court Rules say and those are the rules and the rules are the rules and we must follow the rules because that's what the rules say and those are the rules.
In the mean time, the Prosecution and the Defense should otherwise gather and exchange information and deposition as is the normal procedure during Discovery. Then, after all the admissible evidence from both sides is in, and as the Trial Phase begins, we will all sit down and have a very civil discussion as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence. And then and only then will the Court entertain motions by the Defense to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence or go to trial based upon the existing admissible evidence.
So, Mr. Mall, I am doing you a very big favor here by allowing motions to dismiss at the beginning of the trial phase and based upon the evidence obtained (and which is admissible) or not as the case must be. Believe me when I say that if I determine that the admissible evidence and testimony is insufficient I will have no problem with dismissing the case if there is insufficient evidence on any or all of the charges. But we first must see what the evidence does and does not contain.
I'm not trying to be a hardass here nor do I want this to turn into a real pissing contest because it will most assuredly be unpleasant for all involved.
Now, for the record:
I have given the Defense one extension on pre-trial which expires tonight at 12:01 AM (that's in about 8 hours from the time this posting). I will entertain motions up and until that time, but the motions must be valid motions and not perfunctory repetitions.
I give the Defense an assurance that they will not be removed from the Court Room no matter how rude and disrespectful they may become. Bring on the rudeness and disrespect all you want, I will look forward to it.
I have given the defense the legitimate opportunity to enter a Motion to Dismiss pending the completion of Discover and providing that there are no disruptions of or delays to the Discovery process.
You can accuse anyone of anything you want to accuse them of, be as rude as you want to be and even accuse the Prosecutor of having a penchant of gluing live pigeons to park benches and then smacking them with a golf club (woods, no iron's please as that might end the pigeons' suffering too quickly).
I am going to let everyone, out of fairness, be as rude and disruptive as they want even unto referring to each other with quaint Anglo-Saxon anatomical references. I am looking forward to all the colorful language and metaphors that can be conceived of as long as the trial continues unimpeded on the schedule I have set.
This is how fair and liberal the nice Judge is going to be. If anyone wants to throw a hissy-fit, they have my total permission.
Is that fair enough for you, Mr. Mall?
Is there anything else I can provide you with? Perhaps a plate of fish and chips or a platter of bangers and mash?
Mall
TNPer
Just for clarification then, the Court will refuse to hear any evidence which may demonstrate bias found within one or more members of the Court under any circumstances per that statement?Romanoffia:
Romanoffia:Is that fair enough for you, Mr. Mall?
Is there anything else I can provide you with? Perhaps a plate of fish and chips or a platter of bangers and mash?
I actually just had a hot dog and fries so for now I'm satiated, thank you. The Defense eagerly awaits the beginning of the trial phase.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Hmmmm. Let me think about alleged evidence of bias found concerning one or more members of the court...Mall:Just for clarification then, the Court will refuse to hear any evidence which may demonstrate bias found within one or more members of the Court under any circumstances per that statement?Romanoffia:
Romanoffia:Is that fair enough for you, Mr. Mall?
Is there anything else I can provide you with? Perhaps a plate of fish and chips or a platter of bangers and mash?
I actually just had a hot dog and fries so for now I'm satiated, thank you. The Defense eagerly awaits the beginning of the trial phase.
*thinking*
*thinking some more*
*thinking about it even more*
*thinking about eating dinner*
*thinking about the very nature of thought as it pertains to hearing*
Romanoffia Thinking at The Gates of Hell by Auguste Rodin
OK, let me see. I've been thinking about alleged evidence of bias on the part of members of the court.
I can only speak for me. I would say that given my firm belief that JAL is to be presumed innocent until and unless proved otherwise, I would say I have a bias in terms of presuming that the accused is innocent until and unless proved otherwise.
I do, however have a particular bias for certain varieties of cheese like Stilton, Bleu, Feta and the occasional wedge of Extra Sharp English Cheddar. I'm not biased towards French Cheeses mainly because every time I eat any French foods I have this sudden uncontrollable desire to surrender to the nearest member of the German Military and then collaborate. Other than that, I wouldn't call it bias but rather a discriminating palate for certain types of foods.
I'm not sure of the food biases of the other Justices but I suppose that they might have some nefarious bias towards more Plebeian varieties of cheese like Velveta. Certain members of the Court in the past have been known to eat Vegemite and Marmite as I do not believe that Parwill is manufactured any more. Me, I absolutely hate Vegemite, even in the context of cheese sandwiches.
But the court would be very interested at this time in hearing any evidence to support any allegations of bias against the Defendant if such allegations are made as allegations and not accusations and if said evidence presented is taken in the proper context and presented in the proper context. Oh, and it has to be IC and not OOC and not in any violation of privacy rights such as private communications as that would be a possible TOS which abbreviation I actually believe means Taken Out and Shot. No, wait, that's a German term possibly originating from the phrase "Sie werden herausgenommen und erschossen. Gegen die Mauer, du böse Französisch Lieferant von kitschig Käse."
But seriously, it's not a matter of hearing allegations of bias because I have found it nearly impossible to not hear such allegations given the incessant repetition of such allegations which I absolutely find baseless. But if you feel you must harp on the subject, by all means, please to. I need the entertainment. And I assure you I will be entertained at this point.
As for commentary from the Defense, er, excuse me, Defence of an abusive, sarcastic, sardonic or rude nature at this time, by all means, please feel free to engage in such activities. It would please the court very much.
Just be creative about it.
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
You're putting conditions on the presentation of evidence you clearly know already exists?Romanoffia:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Actually, I don't know what evidence actually exists beyond the content of the indictment. In fact, I would rather not know what the evidence is until the appropriate time as I don't really want to be mulling anything over prematurely and/or out of relevant context. But that's the stance you have to take a Judge.
I can't wait to see the depositions.
I can't wait to see the depositions.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
That's it, I'm done with this crap.
In light of this: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7197753/1/#new
The case of The North Pacific v. JAL is hereby DISMISSEDwith Prejudice upon the following ground:
1.) I have found that the administration of Justice in The North Pacific, under the Legal Code of The North Pacific and The Constitution thereof is an impossible task to accomplish if Justices are subject to recall due to public opinion rather than the delivery of impartial Justice free from outside influence.
2.) It is impossible to render Justice in the case of TNP v. JAL because of the entirely flawed Legal Codes and Constitution in The North Pacific, specifically but not limed to the entire lack of independence from public opinion of the actions of Presiding Justices and the Court in general.
No justice can be obtained if a Presiding Justice or the Court is subject to recall if their decisions are subject to the court of public opinion at the expense of Justice delivered impartially.
3.) The legal system has been reduced to a matter of mob rule. If a justice makes an unpopular decision based upon evidence then the Justice is subject to recall at the hands of mob rule. If such influence can be exerted over the Court, then no Justice can be attained.
4.) Hence, the Trial of TNP v. JAL is dismissed without prejudice due to the fact that this trial cannot be conducted, ever, without public opinion causing the recall of a Justice who does not bend to public opinion and trolling tactics used by defence attorneys that promote public ire with anything the Court Does.
It is the opinion of this Presiding Justice that this case can never be tried due to the abuse that will be levelled at the Court, the fact that the Court lacks anything resembling the Independence required to deliver Justice, that Justice under any circumstance under our current legal system can no longer be obtained for those reasons.
Case dismissedwith prejudice.
In light of this: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7197753/1/#new
The case of The North Pacific v. JAL is hereby DISMISSED
1.) I have found that the administration of Justice in The North Pacific, under the Legal Code of The North Pacific and The Constitution thereof is an impossible task to accomplish if Justices are subject to recall due to public opinion rather than the delivery of impartial Justice free from outside influence.
2.) It is impossible to render Justice in the case of TNP v. JAL because of the entirely flawed Legal Codes and Constitution in The North Pacific, specifically but not limed to the entire lack of independence from public opinion of the actions of Presiding Justices and the Court in general.
No justice can be obtained if a Presiding Justice or the Court is subject to recall if their decisions are subject to the court of public opinion at the expense of Justice delivered impartially.
3.) The legal system has been reduced to a matter of mob rule. If a justice makes an unpopular decision based upon evidence then the Justice is subject to recall at the hands of mob rule. If such influence can be exerted over the Court, then no Justice can be attained.
4.) Hence, the Trial of TNP v. JAL is dismissed without prejudice due to the fact that this trial cannot be conducted, ever, without public opinion causing the recall of a Justice who does not bend to public opinion and trolling tactics used by defence attorneys that promote public ire with anything the Court Does.
It is the opinion of this Presiding Justice that this case can never be tried due to the abuse that will be levelled at the Court, the fact that the Court lacks anything resembling the Independence required to deliver Justice, that Justice under any circumstance under our current legal system can no longer be obtained for those reasons.
Case dismissed
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
Many thanks to Romanoffia for his patience and jurisprudence throughout this ordeal. Whilst there have been rumors of my coups and purges throughout the years, there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate these libelous rumors. The security and prosperity of the North Pacific and the feeders in general have always been my top priority. Once again, the truth prevails.
Thanks again. Hail Romanoffia!
Thanks again. Hail Romanoffia!
I would like to note that this is an illegal ruling, according to the Court's own previous determination:
Cases cannot legally be dismissed with prejudice. Assuming the dismissal stands, the Attorney General is free to bring the same indictment again.
Presiding Justice's Comment:
You have no authority to make such a determination. I am the Chief Justice and I will not have my authority usurped. Precedent notes that dismissals with and without prejudice have been entertained by the court before.
This case has been dismissed with prejudice and will not be brought again on the same evidence set.
As Presiding Justice, I have made this Lawful determination and as Chief Justice, I will not have my Lawful and Constitutional authority questioned on this matter.
The case is closed. Be warned.
Cases cannot legally be dismissed with prejudice. Assuming the dismissal stands, the Attorney General is free to bring the same indictment again.
Presiding Justice's Comment:
You have no authority to make such a determination. I am the Chief Justice and I will not have my authority usurped. Precedent notes that dismissals with and without prejudice have been entertained by the court before.
This case has been dismissed with prejudice and will not be brought again on the same evidence set.
As Presiding Justice, I have made this Lawful determination and as Chief Justice, I will not have my Lawful and Constitutional authority questioned on this matter.
The case is closed. Be warned.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
End of case. Case closed.
The Chief Justice has rendered this decisions as Presiding Justice.
This is the end of the matter.
The Chief Justice has rendered this decisions as Presiding Justice.
This is the end of the matter.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I have re-issued the Dismissal of The North Pacific v. JAL to eliminate any questions concerning the manner of dismissal.SillyString:
The case of The North Pacific v. JAL is hereby DISMISSED upon the following grounds:
1.) I have found that the administration of Justice in The North Pacific, under the Legal Code of The North Pacific and The Constitution thereof is an impossible task to accomplish if Justices are subject to recall due to public opinion rather than the delivery of impartial Justice free from outside influence.
2.) It is impossible to render Justice in the case of TNP v. JAL because of the entirely flawed Legal Codes and Constitution in The North Pacific, specifically but not limed to the entire lack of independence from public opinion of the actions of Presiding Justices and the Court in general.
No justice can be obtained if a Presiding Justice or the Court is subject to recall if their decisions are subject to the court of public opinion at the expense of Justice delivered impartially.
3.) The legal system has been reduced to a matter of mob rule. If a justice makes an unpopular decision based upon evidence then the Justice is subject to recall at the hands of mob rule. If such influence can be exerted over the Court, then no Justice can be attained.
4.) Hence, the Trial of TNP v. JAL is DISMISSED due to the fact that this trial cannot be conducted, ever, without public opinion causing the recall of a Justice who does not bend to public opinion and trolling tactics used by defence attorneys that promote public ire with anything the Court Does.
5.) Interference in the trial by a Junior Justice has disrupted the ability of this trial to be salvaged.
It is the opinion of this Presiding Justice that this case can never be tried due to the abuse that will be levelled at the Court, the fact that the Court lacks anything resembling the Independence required to deliver Justice, that Justice under any circumstance under our current legal system can no longer be obtained for the reasons previously stated.
It is also the opinion of the Court that the trial procedure was tainted by the interference of Junior/Associate Justice Silly String and it is the recommendation of this Court and the Chief Justice that Silly String recuse herself in any further matters concerning TNP v. JAL should the AG resubmit an indictment in this case.
Case dismissed.