Deposition Official Copy

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Per Chapter 1, Section 3.7 of TNP's Adopted Court Rules, a forum thread for depositions can be opened when collecting via Instant Messenger is not feasible. Considering the varied timezones and schedules of the witnesses, defense counsel, and the Attorney General staff, I believe it necessary to conduct the Depositions in this manner. This allows defense counsel the right to access that is mandated within the Court Rules.

The Attorney General plans to fulfill three depositions within this thread. The first two will be the simple collection of statements under oath from Eluvatar and Flemingovia verifying the authenticity of the IRC logs that they have submitted to the Court via our indictment. The third will be a deposition of Tomb under oath to validate the authenticity of his oath of office and various statements made by him on this forum.

Aside from the Moderating Justice and myself, the only parties to post within this thread are those being deposed and the Defendant's specified defense counsel. Please maintain decorum (as found in Chapter 3, Section 2 of TNP's Adopted Court Rules) within this thread.

I will be sending a Private Message to all necessary parties linking them to this thread.

If Eluvatar, Flemingovia, and Tomb will post the necessary oath within this thread, it can be considered to carry forward to the conclusion of each individual deposition. Once the necessary questions and/or authentications have been made for each particular party, I will verify that portion of the depositions complete, thereby releasing the affected party from the oath and involvement within this topic.

The mandated oath to be posted by Eluvatar, Flemingovia, and Tomb: I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.
 
[me]places his hand upon the holy and sacred book of Flemingovia and swears:

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
 
Flemingovia, can you verify that the log presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of TombMy Webpage labelled as 'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Flemingovia' is a true copy of the IRC log which you submitted to the Attorney General's Office for the purposes of seeking legal redress of a wrong committed by then Delegate Tomb?

Flemingovia, can you verify that this IRC log is authentic and has not been altered, except where noted as 'redacted', by you and that no statements made within the log have been altered or changed in any way whatsoever?
 
Gracius Maximus:
Flemingovia, can you verify that the log presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of TombMy Webpage labelled as 'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Flemingovia' is a true copy of the IRC log which you submitted to the Attorney General's Office for the purposes of seeking legal redress of a wrong committed by then Delegate Tomb?

Flemingovia, can you verify that this IRC log is authentic and has not been altered, except where noted as 'redacted', by you and that no statements made within the log have been altered or changed in any way whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Yes and yes. Other than the redactions I cannot see any alterations that have been made to the text.
 
flemingovia:
Gracius Maximus:
Flemingovia, can you verify that the log presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of TombMy Webpage labelled as 'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Flemingovia' is a true copy of the IRC log which you submitted to the Attorney General's Office for the purposes of seeking legal redress of a wrong committed by then Delegate Tomb?

Flemingovia, can you verify that this IRC log is authentic and has not been altered, except where noted as 'redacted', by you and that no statements made within the log have been altered or changed in any way whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Yes and yes. Other than the redactions I cannot see any alterations that have been made to the text.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Provided that defense counsel has no comments or questions on this matter, the Attorney General's Office considers Flemingovia's deposition complete.
 
Tomb, can you verify that the Oath of Office presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'Oath of Office' is in fact an authentic copy of the Oath of Office you submitted here on 5 March 2015 and again here on 11 May 2015?

Tomb, can you verify the authenticity of the forum post you made here on 11 May 2015, acknowledging that you posted the statement, from your account, of your own free will?

Tomb, can you verify the authenticity of the statements credited to you within the IRC logs presented to the Court by Eluvatar within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, provided by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' and 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, provided by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request'?
 
Gracius Maximus:
Tomb, can you verify that the Oath of Office presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'Oath of Office' is in fact an authentic copy of the Oath of Office you submitted here on 5 March 2015 and again here on 11 May 2015?

Tomb, can you verify the authenticity of the forum post you made here on 11 May 2015, acknowledging that you posted the statement, from your account, of your own free will?

Tomb, can you verify the authenticity of the statements credited to you within the IRC logs presented to the Court by Eluvatar within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, provided by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' and 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, provided by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request'?
Click to expand...
1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. And Yes.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Attorney General.
 
Eluvatar, can you verify that the IRC logs presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar with less redaction', 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request', and 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' are true copies of the IRC logs which you submitted to the Attorney General's Office and to answer a Freedom of Information Act request?

Eluvatar, can you verify that these IRC logs are authentic and have not been altered, except where noted as 'redacted', by you and that no statements made within the logs have been altered or changed in any way whatsoever?
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Gracius Maximus:
Tomb, can you verify that the Oath of Office presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'Oath of Office' is in fact an authentic copy of the Oath of Office you submitted here on 5 March 2015 and again here on 11 May 2015?

Tomb, can you verify the authenticity of the forum post you made here on 11 May 2015, acknowledging that you posted the statement, from your account, of your own free will?

Tomb, can you verify the authenticity of the statements credited to you within the IRC logs presented to the Court by Eluvatar within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, provided by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' and 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, provided by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request'?
Click to expand...
1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. And Yes.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Attorney General.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Provided that defense counsel has no comments or questions on this matter, the Attorney General's Office considers Tomb's deposition complete.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Eluvatar, can you verify that the IRC logs presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar with less redaction', 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request', and 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' are true copies of the IRC logs which you submitted to the Attorney General's Office and to answer a Freedom of Information Act request?

Eluvatar, can you verify that these IRC logs are authentic and have not been altered, except where noted as 'redacted', by you and that no statements made within the logs have been altered or changed in any way whatsoever?
Click to expand...

'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar with less redaction' is different from my personal record of that conversation in the following ways, and those ways only: There are omitted lines where the submitted log has lines consisting only of "...", there are omitted portions where the submitted log has "[redacted]", and there are a few lines where in my record there is a space at the end of the line which is absent from the submitted log. (i.e. `"Those" implies more than Gladio. ` vs `"Those" implies more than Gladio.`).

'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' is identical to my personal record of that conversation except that there are a few lines where in my record there is a space at the end of the line, which I imagine is removed by this forum's software.

'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' is identical to my personal record of that conversation except that there are a few lines where in my record there is a space at the end of the line, which I imagine is removed by this forum's software.
 
Eluvatar:
Gracius Maximus:
Eluvatar, can you verify that the IRC logs presented to the Court within The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb labelled as 'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar with less redaction', 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request', and 'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' are true copies of the IRC logs which you submitted to the Attorney General's Office and to answer a Freedom of Information Act request?

Eluvatar, can you verify that these IRC logs are authentic and have not been altered, except where noted as 'redacted', by you and that no statements made within the logs have been altered or changed in any way whatsoever?
Click to expand...

'Redacted IRC conversation between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar with less redaction' is different from my personal record of that conversation in the following ways, and those ways only: There are omitted lines where the submitted log has lines consisting only of "...", there are omitted portions where the submitted log has "[redacted]", and there are a few lines where in my record there is a space at the end of the line which is absent from the submitted log. (i.e. `"Those" implies more than Gladio. ` vs `"Those" implies more than Gladio.`).

'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 8 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' is identical to my personal record of that conversation except that there are a few lines where in my record there is a space at the end of the line, which I imagine is removed by this forum's software.

'IRC conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar on 10 May 2015, submitted by Eluvatar in reply to FoIA request' is identical to my personal record of that conversation except that there are a few lines where in my record there is a space at the end of the line, which I imagine is removed by this forum's software.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I believe we can safely assume that the empty space at the end of the line(s) is not material to the matter at hand, and is indeed attributable to the forum software, and that the confirmation of the textual portion of the record is sufficient.

Since there is some disparity in your reply to the first question, can you verify that the copy you presented to the Court here was submitted from your account?
 
Gracius Maximus:
Since there is some disparity in your reply to the first question, can you verify that the copy you presented to the Court here was submitted from your account?
Click to expand...

I indeed submitted that log to the Attorney General's office, and the copy I submitted matches the copy in the court's listing of evidence. As I said, the copy in the court's listing of evidence differs from my personal copy only in the identified removed portions and the absence of several irrelevant space characters.
 
Eluvatar:
Gracius Maximus:
Since there is some disparity in your reply to the first question, can you verify that the copy you presented to the Court here was submitted from your account?
Click to expand...

I indeed submitted that log to the Attorney General's office, and the copy I submitted matches the copy in the court's listing of evidence. As I said, the copy in the court's listing of evidence differs from my personal copy only in the identified removed portions and the absence of several irrelevant space characters.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Provided that defense counsel has no comments or questions on this matter, the Attorney General's Office considers Eluvatar's deposition complete.
 
If I may, I would like the opportunity as part of the Defence Team, to depose both Flemingovia and Eluvatar.
 
plembobria:
The Court upholds the Prosecution's objections.
Click to expand...
Thank you Your Honour. Let me rephrase the questions and ask them one by one in condensed format and get straight to the point to ascertain certain factual points:

1.) -redacted-

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?"

3.) As Minister of Defence, were you not the individual who issued the denial of Flemingovia's application?
 
And, Eluvatar, is it your opinion that the Minister of Defense is responsible for denying or accepting applications to the NPAF?
 
Romanoffia:
So, you ultimately made the decision to deny Flemingovia's application to the NPAF?
Click to expand...

In the sense of one always having choices, I decided to, yes, rather than defy instructions. I would not ordinarily characterize it as my decision, however.

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...

The NPA Code of governance establishes that the Minister of Defense is responsible for accepting or rejecting applications to join the NPA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top