TNP vs TOMB - the Peanut Gallery

Guy

TNPer
All four of you have confused findings of fact and law.

As well as that I submitted what I believe the Court should have done, rather than what it was legally obliged to do.

Of course the Court was not legally required to submit reasons, otherwise I'd have advised Tomb to pursue that avenue. But rather, it's totally irresponsible for a Court, in a criminal trial, to fail to do so.
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Guy:
All four of you have confused findings of fact and law.

As well as that I submitted what I believe the Court should have done, rather than what it was legally obliged to do.

Of course the Court was not legally required to submit reasons, otherwise I'd have advised Tomb to pursue that avenue. But rather, it's totally irresponsible for a Court, in a criminal trial, to fail to do so.
All I am concerned with is the law. Your opinion (or mine for that matter) on what you think the Court should have done, or whether it is 'irresponsible', is immaterial.
 
Well, strictly speaking, finding people guilty with the reasoning of "because they are guilty" is usually pretty bad form.

It could be argued that such a reasoning doesn't establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thus opening the door to a mistrial.
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Blue Wolf II:
Well, strictly speaking, finding people guilty with the reasoning of "because they are guilty" is usually pretty bad form.

It could be argued that such a reasoning doesn't establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thus opening the door to a mistrial.
In many circumstances I would agree, however, that isn't the system in place in TNP. Since explanation of a verdict is not required then using that as a justification for a mistrial seems problematic.
 
Gracius Maximus:
In many circumstances I would agree, however, that isn't the system in place in TNP. Since explanation of a verdict is not required then using that as a justification for a mistrial seems problematic.
Well, the Bill of Rights does say "a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence."

A Court, "the fact finder", failing to explain how they reached their conclusion of guilt, "reasonably certain evidence", could be construed to be in violation of this clause.
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Blue Wolf II:
Gracius Maximus:
In many circumstances I would agree, however, that isn't the system in place in TNP. Since explanation of a verdict is not required then using that as a justification for a mistrial seems problematic.
Well, the Bill of Rights does say "a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence."

A Court, "the fact finder", failing to explain how they reached their conclusion of guilt, "reasonably certain evidence", could be construed to be in violation of this clause.
Which is why there is an appeals process in place.
 
Well, at least we've reached the conclusion that the Court's rather lackluster of an explanation of how they determined guilt in this case would be grounds, in and of itself, for an appeal and that future Courts should probably invest the time to give a reasonable explanation for their findings of guilt, just as Guy has been arguing for.
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
You can either have a lacklustre explanation or a lack of an explanation. You cannot mash up both phrases to have a "lacklustre of an explanation".

And I do not think that anyone other than you and (possibly) GM have reached a conclusion on this. Personally, I do not feel the need for the justices to provide reasoning for a verdict. Again, in the UK, trials I have been involved in end with the judge simply saying "You have been found guilty of the charges brought against you".
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
flemingovia:
You can either have a lacklustre explanation or a lack of an explanation. You cannot mash up both phrases to have a "lacklustre of an explanation".

And I do not think that anyone other than you and (possibly) GM have reached a conclusion on this. Personally, I do not feel the need for the justices to provide reasoning for a verdict. Again, in the UK, trials I have been involved in end with the judge simply saying "You have been found guilty of the charges brought against you".
I agree that no explanation is needed. I simply pointed out that if the guilty party believed one was necessary he or she could attempt to appeal on those grounds. I do not think that to be legally sound but the process is in place for such a request. Not a R4R.
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
And I think we would agree that this would be something for the convicted person to do, not others electing to speak on their behalf.
 

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
Gracius Maximus:
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.
GM, I believe your forgot to put on your red rubber nose and have this music playing in the background when you made your post:

[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0[/flash]








Apart from that, the real way to have handled this whole matter would have been for Flemingovia to ask for a Review by the Court to determine if his denial of application to the NPAF was legal instead of going at it via criminal prosecution. The Review would have gotten him admitted to the NPAF instead of the current rail-roading of Tomb.
 
I was legally in the wrong, so said the Court, when I banned Govinda for spamming.

I wasn't taken to court, charged with Gross Misconduct, and ruled on without anyone defending me.
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Romanoffia:
Gracius Maximus:
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.
GM, I believe your forgot to put on your red rubber nose and have this music playing in the background when you made your post:

[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0[/flash]








Apart from that, the real way to have handled this whole matter would have been for Flemingovia to ask for a Review by the Court to determine if his denial of application to the NPAF was legal instead of going at it via criminal prosecution. The Review would have gotten him admitted to the NPAF instead of the current rail-roading of Tomb.
Thank you for the obviously well thought out response five days later. As always, on the ball. Good job. :duh:
 

falapatorius

TNPer
-
BW:
I wasn't taken to court, charged with Gross Misconduct, and ruled on without anyone defending me.
Maybe because no one filed an indictment. That was then...

*edit*There was someone defending Tomb. They just decided no defense was the best defense. :lol:
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Blue Wolf II:
With no words spoken in defense of his innocence, Tomb's "Defense" was in name only.
And (again) the defendant was active, he appointed a defense team which was active, he participated in the trial, and he and his team chose not to present defensive argumentation. That is their right under TNP law. No nation is required to testify.

He spoke in his defense when he entered the plea of 'Not Guilty'. That is the only thing that he was obligated to do, and even that would have been done for him had he not been active. So yes, he presented a defense. It was two words long. The burden of proof was on myself to present a compelling argument, not on the defense. In my opinion, the defense team very possibly believed that my argument was insufficient and only after the fact have decided to complain - which is actually not even correct. Tomb has not complained about the verdict even though he has been active since it was rendered. His defense team has only replied to your interjections. So, from my perspective, it would seem that only uninterested parties continue to argue a nonexistent point.

So, to clarify, words were spoken in defense of Tomb's claimed innocence (which is a moot point as the Court has ruled him guilty, thereby making him guilty according to our law). He posted them himself. What happened afterwards, while possibly unfortunate, was not the fault of anyone other than Tomb and his team.
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
Re-reading the threads, the conduct i find most perplexing is Belschaft's. I expect Roman to explode and I expect Blue Wolf to stir for the sake of it, but i do not understand Belschaft.

On the one hand, in the trial, he seems to be saying that he was unable to open his mouth in Tomb's defence, despite being on the defence team, because he did not have a direct mandate from Tomb as to how to conduct the defence.

On the other hand, in the R4R, he seems to be saying that he is able to legitimise Blue Wolf's R4R because he is on the defence team, even through he does not have a direct mandate from Tomb as to how to conduct the defence.

Am i alone in seeing a logical inconsistency here?
 

punk d

TNPer
-
-
if my post didn't go through, i was saying the same thing Flem. Bel's statements are the most troubling in all of this.
 

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
Gracius Maximus:
Romanoffia:
Gracius Maximus:
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.
GM, I believe your forgot to put on your red rubber nose and have this music playing in the background when you made your post:

[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0[/flash]








Apart from that, the real way to have handled this whole matter would have been for Flemingovia to ask for a Review by the Court to determine if his denial of application to the NPAF was legal instead of going at it via criminal prosecution. The Review would have gotten him admitted to the NPAF instead of the current rail-roading of Tomb.
Thank you for the obviously well thought out response five days later. As always, on the ball. Good job. :duh:

Oh, I'm sorry, I got the background music for your post wrong. It should have been this (and, by the way, you look good in straw):


[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs[/flash]



flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
The Review would have gotten him admitted to the NPAF
Thank you for accepting that Tomb was legally in the wrong to reject my NPAF application.

No, I don't think Tomb was in the wrong, legally speaking. I suspect he suspected that you had ulterior motives not entirely above board in applying to the NPAF. Tomb, and hence Elu were perfectly in within their legal and constitutional duties to make such a determination. Whether or not they were correct in assessing you as a potential 'security threat' at best is not even a legal question in terms of statute law.

However, if you had requested a Judicial Review of their action, this show trial would have never occurred and you would have probably gotten your way, whatever that was.
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
Admin note: posts in this thread are under consideration as to whether they constitute trolling, and whether a raise in warning level is appropriate. All I would say at this stage is .... keep it civil, folks
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
it has been quite a long time now since the trial ground to a halt for consideration of the requests for review.

Surely this should be dealt with by now?
 

St George

Speaker
-
-
-
-
-
It should be. It is disappointing that a trial that has - by TNP's standards at least - run relatively promptly has ground to a halt.
 

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
flemingovia:
Admin note: posts in this thread are under consideration as to whether they constitute trolling, and whether a raise in warning level is appropriate. All I would say at this stage is .... keep it civil, folks
I'm not sure if this was directed towards me or not. If so, I believe I have done reasonably well not rising to the troll bait being thrown out by certain individuals that have now twice posted in a more or less OOC capacity that I am somehow an idiot.
 

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
Admin note: posts in this thread are under consideration as to whether they constitute trolling, and whether a raise in warning level is appropriate. All I would say at this stage is .... keep it civil, folks
I'm not sure if this was directed towards me or not.
It was not.
 
flemingovia:
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
Admin note: posts in this thread are under consideration as to whether they constitute trolling, and whether a raise in warning level is appropriate. All I would say at this stage is .... keep it civil, folks
I'm not sure if this was directed towards me or not.
It was not.
That is the opinion of one admin. The other admin have not spoken on the matter, including me.
 

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
To clarify.

The note described a discussion among admins (and theoretically global moderators) focused on a particular post which was not made by Gracius Maximus. The note was made by flemingovia, an admin. Flemingovia was not directing his caution at Gracius Maximus.

Flemingovia was not the only admin discussing the post in question.

I imagine that this topic is likely to receive considerable scrutiny all around, at this point, however.
 
Top