Romanoffia:
Excuse me? Clown show?
The Court only permitted the Prosecution to argue a case. The Defence wasn't even permitted to argue a case. The Court rubber stamped every objection, no matter how bogus those objections were.
Then, when the Court decided to throw the Defence a bone in an attempt to make this look like a fair trial, the Court then not only redacted the questions but also redacted the answers to those questions which the Court allowed to be asked and answered. So, what the Hell was the point of there even being a Defence? We all know what the pre-ordained verdict was going to be no matter what the evidence showed or didn't show. This is especially true of this case in which the Defence was literally silenced and not permitted to argue a case.
Now, I ask you, Mr. Prosecutor, what would you do if you had been constantly silenced and censored, excuse me, redacted by the Court to the point that you couldn't even submit any legitimate evidence? The logical thing is to just throw one's hand up and call it quits. We all know that the verdict was going to guilty, even if it meant suppressing legitimate question (which the court permitted) and suppressing the answers to Justice approved questions that suddenly became unacceptable?
Is this a screw up on the part of the Court? Yes it was, and it is just yet one more example of how screwed up the Court system is in TNP.
So, don't use Ol' Roman as a punching back or whipping boy for something that is obviously the fault of the Court, the Legal System and the Court Rules which were not correctly followed.
The only Clown Show around here was the Court and the Prosecution.
Sigh...
No, you are incorrect.
The reason I categorize the defense team as a 'clown show' is very simple.
1. Mall only has one argument. That the player involved in the events may not have been the player actually taking part in the activities under trial. Tomb cleared that away with a simple 'yes' to my questions in deposition regarding his statements. End of story.
2. Belschaft was just coming out of an impeachment/treason/whatever fiasco in TSP and was not in any state to take part in a legal defense. Admittedly, his position was the only one that I had any real concern about as prosecutor, because I know him to be competent overall. Bad timing I guess. Plus, it seems that Tomb disregarded his opinion in the initial strategy session because you took the lead.
3. Which brings us to you. We all knew what you would attempt to do, which is spout on and on about legal procedure, usually from RL which has no relevance here. What I did find surprising was that you posted questions in the deposition that were blatantly wrong legally (IC and OOC) and that you were clearly wrong in your initial response to my objections. It took me less than 5 minutes online to find dozens of sites that outlined what were and were not valid objections during depositions and you, as someone that supposedly has a multitude of RL legal experience, either thought you could use that to strong-arm me into acquiescence (major error in judgement) or you just don't actually know as much about the law as you claim. Then you quit. No one was surprised.
Basically, if the Court had overruled my questions then I would have done the logical thing, which is simply to reword them.
If the Court had then redacted my answers, then I would have simply (and calmly) pointed out that the redaction was in error and reposed the questions. Although, the Court is free to redact any item within the depositions that it wishes, so your complaint in that regard is actually unfounded legally.
I posted my opening statement on 11 June. On 16 June I prompted the Court because it was apparent that the defense team had opted not to utilize its right to present a defense. Which is perfectly valid. As I pointed out above, the defense is not obligated to present an argument. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
As far as the Attorney General's Office is concerned, it could have been that the defense team had so much confidence in their position that they felt I had not made a compelling enough argument. I certainly was preparing to present additional statements in response to defense counsel argumentation.
At no point is the Court obligated to force a defendant to present a defense. That is the right and privilege of the defendant and his appointed team. Too bad they got stuck in the car.
