Depositions

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
A thread for depositions in the trial TNP vs Tomb.

Opened at the request of the Attorney General, Gracius Maximus.
 
Since the it appears that the depositions are complete. If the defense has any desire to comment or question on anything, they have until the end of the evidence period to do so. After that this thread will be locked.
 
The following Objections are entered into the public record by the Attorney General of The North Pacific in response to defense counsel's questions posed to deponent Eluvatar in the trial The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.

1.) Eluvatar, under TNP Law and the regulations governing the NPAF, is it not the job of the MoD to approve or deny NPAF application?
Click to expand...

Objection.

Calls for a legal conclusion. Eluvatar is not a Justice, member of the Attorney General staff or listed as defense counsel on this trial. Interpretation of the law is not his place within this deposition.

2.) According to TNP Law and regulations governing the NPAF, does the Delegate have any specific statutory ability to accept or deny applications to the NPAF?
Click to expand...

Objection.

Calls for a legal conclusion. Eluvatar is not a Justice, member of the Attorney General staff or listed as defense counsel on this trial. Interpretation of the law is not his place within this deposition.

3.) As Minister of Defence, were you not the individual who issued the denial of Flemingovia's application?
Click to expand...

No objection (for clarity).
 
Gracius Maximus:
The following Objections are entered into the public record by the Attorney General of The North Pacific in response to defense counsel's questions posed to deponent Eluvatar in the trial The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.

1.) Eluvatar, under TNP Law and the regulations governing the NPAF, is it not the job of the MoD to approve or deny NPAF application?
Click to expand...

Objection.

Calls for a legal conclusion. Eluvatar is not a Justice, member of the Attorney General staff or listed as defense counsel on this trial. Interpretation of the law is not his place within this deposition.

2.) According to TNP Law and regulations governing the NPAF, does the Delegate have any specific statutory ability to accept or deny applications to the NPAF?
Click to expand...

Objection.

Calls for a legal conclusion. Eluvatar is not a Justice, member of the Attorney General staff or listed as defense counsel on this trial. Interpretation of the law is not his place within this deposition.

3.) As Minister of Defence, were you not the individual who issued the denial of Flemingovia's application?
Click to expand...

No objection (for clarity).
Click to expand...
Your Honour, All three questions are points of factual information that an MoD or Delegate should, by the very nature of occupying those positions.

As MoD, Eluvatar should know the regulations and laws that govern his position. If the MoD is not expected to know those laws and regulations, then the Delegate should not be expected to know those regulation. Hence, knowledge of the exact authority given to the MoD by Law and Regulations is required by the MoD if he is to be able to competently execute his job as MoD.

Knowledge of lack thereof concerning a specific law or laws is a factual request and does in no way require the person asked those questions to make any kind of legal determination whatsoever.

If I asked Eluvatar if he was aware of the existence of the Bill of Rights or any specific law, it is a question concerning the scope of his knowledge in relation to the same. It is not asking for a legal conclusion. Is it not expected of a Government official to know the rules governing his position?

If I asked Flemingovia if he was aware of the item in the Bill of Rights concerning the Right to Free Speech, under the AG's logic, would be asking Flemingovia to make a "legal Conclusion". If the AG's objection to the first two questions are upheld, it would be exactly the same as saying that Flemingovia is not competent to determine if his rights were violated or not because his is not a Justice, an AG, Defendant or Defence Counsel.



I therefore request, given the AG's objections be overruled and the witness be required to answer all three questions
.
 
The defense counsel makes several logical errors in his summation. Stating that the MoD's knowledge of legislation defines the Delegate's knowledge of the same legislation is incorrect.

While the MoD may be aware of his role, asking what the Delegate's legislated role might be is a request for a legal conclusion.

In light of this, the prosecution withdraws the objection to question 1 but maintains its objection to question 2.
 
The objection is upheld. The court recommends that the defense ask the opinion of the witness. As "Do you believe ... such and such?"
 
Romanoffia:
Eluvatar:
Romanoffia:
1.) Eluvatar, under TNP Law and the regulations governing the NPAF, is it not the job of the MoD to approve or deny NPAF application?
Click to expand...

Yes, the NPA Code of Governance establishes that the Minister of Defense will accept or reject applications to join the NPA.
Click to expand...
So, you ultimately made the decision to deny Flemingovia's application to the NPAF?
Click to expand...
Objection.

Mischaracterizes earlier testimony.

We have already heard that the MoD is charged with accepting or rejecting applications to the NPA but that does not make the MoD a standalone entity devoid of responsibility to the Delegate, who is listed as the chief executive of the NPA, and therefore superior in position to the MoD. If the MoD consults the Delegate and the Delegate provides a position on an applicant, it is not the MoD making the ultimate decision.
 
Romanoffia:
And, Eluvatar, is it your opinion that the Minister of Defense is responsible for denying or accepting applications to the NPAF?
Click to expand...
Objection.

Asked and answered.

Defense counsel has already received a response to this question above.
 
Both objections overruled. The second question was not asked and answered, since it was objected to, and redacted.
 
Your Honour, I object to the redactions of legitimate questions. Clearly, No justice can be had in this case, especially when legitimate questions and legitimate factual answers are removed from the record.

It is clear that any legitimate question I ask will be objected to and the court appears to be sustaining objections out of hand. In such an environment, my Client's Right to a Fair Trial cannot be obtained.

Therefore, I am informing my client that I am resigning from the defence team because I have apparently am not permitted to depose witnesses.
 
Gracius Maximus:
There are questions without objections currently on the record awaiting answers.
Click to expand...
Just for the record, a legitimate question which was not objected to was redacted along with the answer. This is a violation of Court Rules and a violation of due process. The whole process is screwed up, and as such, it is impossible for me to do my job given the arbitrary objections and completely incomprehensible sustaining of those objection by the Court.

My withdrawal from the Defence Team stands. Let someone else try to make sense of these proceedings.
 
It was one of the two question and answers you 'redacted', the exact question and the exact response of which were absolutely material to and necessary to the effective and successful defence of the Defendant. You should clearly remember the nature of the specific question and the response to it. Again, I no longer have a dog in this fight and I will leave the remediation (hopefully) to the remaining members of the Defence Team if they so choose to act.

Other than that, I am choosing to no longer comment on this case or this matter unless the Defence decides to call me as a witness.
 
I answered this question because I understood the prosecution to have withdrawn their objection to it:

Romanoffia:
1.) Eluvatar, under TNP Law and the regulations governing the NPAF, is it not the job of the MoD to approve or deny NPAF application?
Click to expand...
 
I hope it is not inappropriate for me to comment, as my purview in the AG's office is not the criminal division, but I wanted to point out to the moderating justice that actually editing peoples' posts with redactions renders the posts following that one thoroughly confusing and really disrupts the flow of information.

Could this please be avoided?
 
It seems quite evident that the redaction of posts was a rather bad policy on my part, as it has led to some rather pernicious confusion.

From this point on, parts which are struck from the record will be redacted after the deposition is complete.

The Court apologizes for the inconvenience.
 
For the record, I was not confused by the redactions and simply missed one post. I believe the process has been overall very smooth and efficient.
 
The prosecution requests that all commentary from Romanoffia after this post, in which he resigns as Defense Counsel, be removed from the record.

Only parties relevant to the ongoing trial should be posting here.

Also, considering that no other party from the defense has posted questions and no questions have been made to other deponents, we move that this deposition be closed at this point and that the trial be allowed to proceed.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The prosecution requests that all commentary from Romanoffia after this post, in which he resigns as Defense Counsel, be removed from the record.

Only parties relevant to the ongoing trial should be posting here.

Also, considering that no other party from the defense has posted questions and no questions have been made to other deponents, we move that this deposition be closed at this point and that the trial be allowed to proceed.
Click to expand...
Sure, why not. The entire thread is already redacted all to Hell so as to be utterly meaningless.
 
In which the Prosecution stated "In light of this, the prosecution withdraws the objection to question 1 but maintains its objection to question 2." I erroneously switched the statement around in my head.

The Court apologizes to the Defense for redacting the wrong question.
 
I have split all posts in this thread, excluding objections and redacted posts into another thread for clarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top