TNP v Teflon JAL

Mall:
Gracius Maximus:
Treize_Dreizehn:
We'll see. I think my motion was pretty clear. So we'll know if they decline it out of hand if the court is hostile to my client or not. Personally I think this case is VERY weak. I'm sorta surprised they even accepted the indictment. Hell the evidence isn't even labeled right. Two of the pieces have their labels reversed.
Click to expand...
True, two of the links are labelled incorrectly in the indictment. How horrible. *rollseyes*

But you are correct, the case is weak. That tends to happen when evidence is removed. Was that done at your direction?
Click to expand...
As Douria's legal counsel I would like you to clarify whether or not you are accusing my client of some sort of impropriety.
Click to expand...
I believe I was clear.
 
flemingovia:
Is chasmanthe part of the prosecution team on this case? If so, he should have been listed in the opening post.

If he is not part of the prosecution's team, then it is quite improper for him to have sought to influence the justices by posting in the official trial thread, and I trust his comments will be split out from the official proceedings.

As for my comments discrediting the court... I do not think the justices need any help from me in that regard. "

Oh, and by the way, the RA also voted on admission procedures, yet the court had no problem with, de facto, setting these aside. Nor did they have a problem with, again de facto, overruling the express wish of the Regional Assembly. So when you cite the sovereign will of the RA in this regard, you are on very thin ice.
Click to expand...
The prosecution in any criminal case is handled by the Office of the Attorney General. While I may be the primary prosecutor in the trial, the AG is part of the Office I believe.

Aside from that, the prosecutor is actually Gracious Maximums, whoever that is.
 
flemingovia:
Is chasmanthe part of the prosecution team on this case? If so, he should have been listed in the opening post.

If he is not part of the prosecution's team, then it is quite improper for him to have sought to influence the justices by posting in the official trial thread, and I trust his comments will be split out from the official proceedings.

As for my comments discrediting the court... I do not think the justices need any help from me in that regard. "

Oh, and by the way, the RA also voted on admission procedures, yet the court had no problem with, de facto, setting these aside. Nor did they have a problem with, again de facto, overruling the express wish of the Regional Assembly. So when you cite the sovereign will of the RA in this regard, you are on very thin ice.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm part of it. No, the court didn't mention me. (This forum only mentions me when it's explicitly necessary to do so, except for in McMasterdonia's farewell speech, apparently, he didn't even mention you, Flem! :blush: I jest.) I may lack maturity but I've outgrown the need to correct every little omission and mistake that somebody posts. Though unlisted, I am on the prosecution team, I won't be participating significantly in this trial unless Gracius Maximus is dismissed or recalled during the proceedings. I think he's done a great job and his fake lawyering skills are much better than mine even on a good day.

Does that answer your question, Sir Flemingovia? It's a novelty to be asked questions, even if it is in the third person! :rofl:

In the event that the court is adamant in not recognising me as counsel then I'm happy for the post to be split into this thread, it was only a response to GM's post which mentioned me.
 
Actually, it was in the third person because I was not asking you anything.

Courts run on precision. Or at least, they used to. If someone is involved in a particular case, they would be listed in the indictment. I will take note that this is no longer the policy of the Attorney General's office.

As someone involved in team management every day, it does, by the way, denote a certain lack of trust in your deputy that you feel the need to interject. But your team, your team-building strategy.

I leave it to the defence (defence, defenze) team* to decide whether to protest at your interjection in an official trial thread. If I were on the team, I certainly would. Just sayin.




*actually, I rather wish now that I was on the defence (defense, defenze) team. the way this case is unfolding like a train crash in slow motion means it would be an easy score, and I have a certain reputation for winning cases to maintain. But it is equally fun to sit here munching popcorn watching justices inflated by self importance make one cock up after another. Carry on.
 
flemingovia:
As someone involved in team management every day, it does, by the way, denote a certain lack of trust in your deputy that you feel the need to interject. But your team, your team-building strategy.
Click to expand...
Gracius Maximus:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I would have better demonstrated trust by saying nothing in response to this then.

You're apparently very good at twisting things into their opposite meaning.
 
Chasmanthe:
You're apparently very good at twisting things into their opposite meaning.
Click to expand...
Au contraire, I usually bring out precisely their meaning, intended or otherwise.

Pierconium is not much burdened with self-doubt. Unless you specifically told him to recuse himself, he would lose no sleep.

Actually, even then he would lose no sleep.
 
Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument...

What kind of judge is this?
 
flemingovia:
Au contraire, I usually bring out precisely their meaning, intended or otherwise.

Pierconium is not much burdened with self-doubt. Unless you specifically told him to recuse himself, he would lose no sleep.

Actually, even then he would lose no sleep.
Click to expand...
I did contemplate volunteering to serve as part of the Defense but thought certain parties here would cry foul.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument...

What kind of judge is this?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of the Court's obligation to explain themselves to us. Could you point out where it states this in the law? Just curious.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument...

What kind of judge is this?
Click to expand...
Why is the defense bringing 2 motions of the same nature when the first was denied. I'd consider yourself lucky that the court entertained the 2nd one.

But also - your 2nd argument was weak. Our court procedures call for most of the evidence to be introduced during discovery so motions like yours are hard to win because, by rule, the evidence should be submitted at a later stage in the process. I recall a few defense attorneys trying the same thing in cases where I was AG and none of them were supported by the court because we were not at the stage for all evidence.

What's bad about the rules is that this phase is the only time you can enter a motion to dismiss but again, by rule not all the evidence has been entered. This definitely favors the prosecution, but it might be the only way our rules favor prosecutors.

EDIT: What the court could do, is table the motion to dismiss until the end of discovery given arguments by defense around the evidence. To me, that should be possible under the court rules and makes common sense given the arguments.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Treize_Dreizehn:
Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument...

What kind of judge is this?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of the Court's obligation to explain themselves to us. Could you point out where it states this in the law? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Yes things would be so much simpler if rulings were handed down without any explanation whatsoever :fish:
 
Mall:
Gracius Maximus:
Treize_Dreizehn:
Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument...

What kind of judge is this?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of the Court's obligation to explain themselves to us. Could you point out where it states this in the law? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Yes things would be so much simpler if rulings were handed down without any explanation whatsoever :fish:
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Mall:
Gracius Maximus:
Treize_Dreizehn:
Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument...

What kind of judge is this?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of the Court's obligation to explain themselves to us. Could you point out where it states this in the law? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Yes things would be so much simpler if rulings were handed down without any explanation whatsoever :fish:
Click to expand...
That would indeed make the Court's job a lot easier but I suspect that no one would like the results. :lol:

On the other hand, we could put in a drive through window and have McJustice in the name of efficiency.

2ennq7o.jpg
 
Interesting admission from roman that jal would not get as fair a trial from the other justices. Or was he questioning their competence or experience?
 
I didn't perceive his post that way. It seemed to me that he was portraying himself as especially lenient or fair-minded, without accusing the other justices of anything.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I didn't perceive his post that way. It seemed to me that he was portraying himself as especially lenient or fair-minded, without accusing the other justices of anything.
Click to expand...
How can someone be especially fair? You're either fair or you aren't, and it was phrased in comparison to the other Justices. Worrisome to say the least.
 
flemingovia:
Interesting admission from roman that jal would not get as fair a trial from the other justices. Or was he questioning their competence or experience?
Click to expand...
What COE said.

OOC: I sit as a magistrate justice in my county in RL. My style is to use principles of law and mitigating circumstances as guiding my determination of the viability of cases or judgements. One of the Common Law principles I tend to apply is the "Reasonable Man" rule - meaning that the question is always posed in terms of whether or not a person was reasonable in violating the law to accomplish a legitimate end.

For instance, it is illegal to drive an motorized vehicle on public roads without a license. Now, suppose an unlicensed driver had to drive someone to the hospital for emergency medical treatment. If they were pulled over by the police for driving in excess of the speed limit and driving without a license, I would say that in such an emergency it was reasonable for the law to be violated. This would however not mitigate subsequent damages due to recklessness on the part of the driver nor would it negate negligence. I would rather find such a defendant not guilty under the "Reasonable Man" rule rather than to be a tight-ass and find him guilty of the crime of doing the right, proper and necessary thing.

If that attitude in RL or RP makes me a Reet Perfect Bastard, then so be it.
 
Roman could have been implying that due to his experience as a justice he has the most experience/qualifications to conduct a fair trial.

However, I think it was not the right way to go. The problem with the defense, especially TD, is not having respect for the bench. Even if TD has no respect for Roman as a justice, you can't act like it. The multiple motions by defense is also annoying.

The theatrics by defense are coming as no surprise.
 
punk d:
However, I think it was not the right way to go. The problem with the defense, especially TD, is not having respect for the bench.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "give me the respect I deserve" thing.

I seem to recall we used to say to Govindia, over and over again, that respect is earned, not given as a right.

GM:
To me, it seems that TD is attempting to be dismissed by the Court so that he does not have to excuse himself from the trial.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting turn of events if Romanoffia should seek to dismiss JAL's chosen counsel. Nowhere in our laws (I looked) does it state that Justices have that power.

What our Bill of Rights DOES say is that "A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing." it does not add "unless this is overruled by a justice or put any other limit on the right.

So I think if a duly appointed counsel were to be dismissed by a Justice, the said justice would be in serious legal doo-doo.
 
Justices don't earn respect, but they have the power to make life hell for an attorney if they "feel" disrespected.
 
ummm. Not sure they should, actually. They might have the POWER to make life hell, but they do not have the RIGHT.

the Bill of Rights again:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer.
Click to expand...

If the Justice is coming down especially hard on a defendant because of the manner of their defence, then the trial is not impartial or neutral.

If JAL felt that his counsels were not being treated with neutrality, he would be well within his rights to claim a mistrial.
 
I do have one interesting follow up question: If someone feels their rights under the BOR have been broken by the court, to whom do they appeal? The delegate?
 
Considering that JAL has himself and two other people on his council as well as TD, if it came to any case of alleged breakages of BOR, the court would rule against him as his defence wasn't impeded.
 
not according to the BOR. It says he can be represented by the counsel of his choice. Simply that. Who else is representing him is immaterial. If the court prevents him from receiving the representation he chooses, they have broken his rights under the bor.
 
punk d:
Roman could have been implying that due to his experience as a justice he has the most experience/qualifications to conduct a fair trial.

However, I think it was not the right way to go. The problem with the defense, especially TD, is not having respect for the bench. Even if TD has no respect for Roman as a justice, you can't act like it. The multiple motions by defense is also annoying.

The theatrics by defense are coming as no surprise.
Click to expand...
I don't get no respect at all...Watch the first two minutes...


[flash]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qe4QcymLM&feature=kp[/flash]
 
The Defense team has nothing but respect for Romanoffia. It is indeed unfortunate that such a fine, upstanding gentleman has to endure a trial against the titan which is JAL.
 
Mall:
The Defense team has nothing but respect for Romanoffia. It is indeed unfortunate that such a fine, upstanding gentleman has to endure a trial against the titan which is JAL.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that I am a glutton for punishment? :lol:
 
Romanoffia:
Mall:
The Defense team has nothing but respect for Romanoffia. It is indeed unfortunate that such a fine, upstanding gentleman has to endure a trial against the titan which is JAL.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that I am a glutton for punishment? :lol:
Click to expand...
We keep giving you so many opportunities to end the trial and escape unharmed but you keep throwing yourself back onto the fire! You tell me! :P
 
Mall:
Romanoffia:
Mall:
The Defense team has nothing but respect for Romanoffia. It is indeed unfortunate that such a fine, upstanding gentleman has to endure a trial against the titan which is JAL.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that I am a glutton for punishment? :lol:
Click to expand...
We keep giving you so many opportunities to end the trial and escape unharmed but you keep throwing yourself back onto the fire! You tell me! :P
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know what you're up against when dealing with me. :evil:

You are just an amateur at this kind of stuff. I, on the other hand, am a consummate professional when it comes to driving your kind crazy.

I can be an asshat too, but at least I do it with a little more subtlety and class. :lol:



Live footage from TNP v. JAL

[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6q37n7GDCY[/flash]​
 
Roman, this is a trial, not a personal contest between you and the defence team. You may not care much what people think of you, but please spare a thought for the dignity of the office you hold. Behaving like a petulant child is not doing you any favours or winning you any respect.
 
Speak for yourself there Flem. Roman is coming across, to me at least.

Look, let's talk ooc for a moment.

We know durk is guilty. We do. He's admittedly as much himself. No one here actually thinks he is innocent, so unless Roman literally starts to just post binary in the court, I'm not sure I care at how he is supposedly degrading an office that others have dealt worse blows to before without this much boohah.
 
flemingovia:
Roman, this is a trial, not a personal contest between you and the defence team. You may not care much what people think of you, but please spare a thought for the dignity of the office you hold. Behaving like a petulant child is not doing you any favours or winning you any respect.
Click to expand...
Look, I am trying to make sure that JAL gets a fair trial. I have been accused of Bias by the Defense Team which is utter stupidity. If I have any bias at all it is to assure that JAL is presumed innocent until proved otherwise.

All I want to do is to maintain order in the trial thread and find out the facts in this matter. That's all. But it cannot be done when I have people trolling the courtroom with inane and disruptive behavior. The have no respect for the Court and that will continue even if another Justice handles the case, but only worse.

This trial will go on as planned regardless of public opinion. If it doesn't, it makes a sham of the entire region.
 
Nierr:
Speak for yourself there Flem. Roman is coming across, to me at least.

Look, let's talk ooc for a moment.

We know durk is guilty. We do. He's admittedly as much himself. No one here actually thinks he is innocent, so unless Roman literally starts to just post binary in the court, I'm not sure I care at how he is supposedly degrading an office that others have dealt worse blows to before without this much boohah.
Click to expand...
Speaking OOC here - in all fairness to JAL, I am not presuming any guilt. In fact, I am of the attitude and disposition that JAL is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. I hold this true OOC and I hold it true IC.

Still speaking OOC, what do you suppose would happen if I started playing the same game Mall and TD are playing? Mall and TD complain, as for an extension, I give it to them, they then accuse me of Bias out of the blue, they claim they want a fair trial, then they want to stop the trial, and if I stop the trial they will complain that JAL isn't getting a fair trial. I recognize this strategy and it is the strategy of trolls. No matter what I do it will be thrown back in my face like I am doing something wrong which I am not.

The only thing Mall and TD are accomplishing is to make a total mockery out of this region, the region's government and the region as a whole. Trolling is trolling whether or not it is OOC or IC. And since the moderation team is incapable of maintaining order, and no matter how I handle the situation, I will be seen as in the wrong no matter what I do.

If I continue the trial, I am a bastard for it.

If I dismiss the charges, I am a bastard for it.

So, that leaves me with only one choice and that is to play by Mall's and TD's methods and rules and still be called a bastard for it.

All said and done, I am nearing the point where I simply do not give a damn either way as far as this is all concerned. If the people here (and I am still speaking OOC) want this type of behavior in this region and on this forum, then people get what they deserve in terms of civility and orderly behavior.

I've been about as nice as I can be in terms of RP. I have bent over backwards to play by the rules, but when I see the rules being totally ignored by troll tactics and no one is willing or capable of putting a lid on it, I begin to wonder if any of it is worth while at this point.

It seems no matter what I do I always get framed as being in the wrong. But I reckon that is just the destructive form of game-play engaged in by destructive people who aren't really interested in gaming, but rather in game play that is designed to destroy the game and render it no longer enjoyable to play.

I know a lot of people who have left not only this region but the game entirely over the years precisely because of the kind of behavior displayed by Mall and TD. We might as well just hand over the region to them and have done with it because that's exactly what everyone here is doing now by tolerating their behavior in the trial thread.

So, if I am to be considered a bastard and in the wrong by being ethical and fair, then so be it. Frankly, I'm getting to the point where I am just about to throw my hands up entirely and start playing the game like TD and Mall are playing it. And if that ever happens, God help everyone because if being a bastard is the only way to play the game, then that's what will happen. But this utter lack of civil behavior on the part of Mall and TD is exactly what drives people away from this region or turns them into total bastards.

In all honesty, I have no real problem with JAL and have nothing but respect for him - at least he plays an entertaining game that provides a lot of fun for all involved.

Again, if the only way to gain respect and dignity in this game is to play it like TD and Mall do and use their troll tactics, I may very well do exactly that. Apparently such behavior is absolutely immune from moderation so, why not do the same? Just sayin'.
 
For what it's worth I don't think we accused you of bias, rather we pointed to your statement as evidence that the rest of the Court is biased *shrugs*

My client is innocent of the charges placed before him, I have no doubt that the Court will either determine that for itself or ultimately dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top