Request for Review: Tomb's Show Trial

[Blue Wolf II]

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. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Regarding Tomb's recent trial on the charges of Gross Misconduct it has been observed that Tomb's defense was completely absent from the case itself. Of the entire team, only Roman ever posted and only twice, once to ask a question about Courtroom procedure and the other to thank the Court for answering his question. Roman then left the Defense Team shortly thereafter.

As far as the actual defending against evidence, not one single word was spoken on behalf of Tomb. The Prosecution was allowed to make its case without the Defense being present. The Court expressed that it was concerned about the Defense's failure to present an argument, any argument at all, but then proceeded with the Trial regardless. As a result, Tomb received no defense against the Prosecution's accusations.

I believe that the Trial thus violated the Bill of Rights, Paragraph 7, listed above, specifically the "fair, impartial, and public trial" bit, with heavy emphasis on the word "fair".

A debate, in point of fact, involves two sides. In this case, only one side argued their case, and the other was completely absent. Had this case been reversed, and it was the Prosecution that was missing at the start of the evidence phase, and not the Defense, then the case would have been thrown out, as we've seen in the past.

Just as a trial can not proceed without Prosecutor, it stands to reason it can not proceed without a Defense and Tomb's Defense Team abandoned him, either declared, as was in the case of Roman, or by never posting, as was the case with Mall and Bel. As such, this trial should have been stopped and reconvened when a new Defender could be found. However, it was somehow allowed to continue.

I ask the Court to review this case and recommend they declare a mistrial due to a lack of legal representation of behalf of the Defendant and restart the case at a date of their choosing with a new Defense.

 

[Flemingovia]

I see where BW is coming from, but I think this case needs an appeal not a Request For Review.

our laws state that a R4R may be requested in this instance: "Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law."

A verdict in a criminal trial is neither a law nor a government policy.

I do not think this is the instrument for Blue Wolf to make his intervention.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Well, in this case I am asking the Court, a government entity, to review it's ad hoc policy of allowing a trial to proceed with an absent, or non-existent, Defense or Defense Team.

 

[plembobria]

Obviously I must recuse myself from this matter. I don't think the remaining court will think that you are an affected party, because you're not.

Tomb has the right to an appeal. Perhaps he can find a better team for the appeal than two inactive members and one who has a funny tendency to resign.

 

[SillyString]

As far as the actual defending against evidence, not one single word was spoken on behalf of Tomb. The Prosecution was allowed to make its case without the Defense being present. The Court expressed that it was concerned about the Defense's failure to present an argument, any argument at all, but then proceeded with the Trial regardless. As a result, Tomb received no defense against the Prosecution's accusations.
[...]

Just as a trial can not proceed without Prosecutor, it stands to reason it can not proceed without a Defense and Tomb's Defense Team abandoned him, either declared, as was in the case of Roman, or by never posting, as was the case with Mall and Bel. As such, this trial should have been stopped and reconvened when a new Defender could be found. However, it was somehow allowed to continue.

Well, in this case I am asking the Court, a government entity, to review it's ad hoc policy of allowing a trial to proceed with an absent, or non-existent, Defense or Defense Team.

I think you might be looking for the following section of a preceding ruling in an r4r:

The court realizes the difficulty of moderating a trial in which the defendant does not participate, but it is not appropriate to issue a default ruling in favor of the plaintiff when that occurs. In cases where the defendant is unable to participate in trial proceedings, or even select their defense attorney, it would be appropriate for the court to delay the trial until the defendant is able to appear. However, if it can be demonstrated to the court that the defendant is able to participate, but chooses not to do so, it would be appropriate for the court to appoint a defense attorney and continue the trial in their absence. There may be other legal and constitutional ways to handle an absentee defendant.

While I know that Tomb and his defense attorneys were contacted at least once regarding their nonparticipation, I do not know whether their continued nonparticipation falls into the camp of can't or won't. It is also up to the court to determine what other constitutional methods they have to handle either one, in accordance with the last sentence of that excerpt.

I believe Tomb or any of his attorneys or any future ones he might choose to appoint) would have the standing to request a review of the continuation of the trial despite the absence of the defense. Members of the AG's office would additionally have the requisite standing to do so. In my interpretation, no other person can.

Edit: That particular ruling addresses civil cases, not criminal ones, but I think it can reasonably be extended since the potential penalties for the defense in criminal trials are much more severe than civil ones ever could have been. Of course, it also addresses only situations where the defendant has not appointed counsel for whatever reason, and not ones where they have done so but then remain inadequately represented for whatever reason.

 

[Belschaft]

While I know that Tomb and his defense attorneys were contacted at least once regarding their nonparticipation, I do not know whether their continued nonparticipation falls into the camp of can't or won't. It is also up to the court to determine what other constitutional methods they have to handle either one, in accordance with the last sentence of that excerpt.

I believe Tomb or any of his attorneys or any future ones he might choose to appoint) would have the standing to request a review of the continuation of the trial despite the absence of the defense. Members of the AG's office would additionally have the requisite standing to do so. In my interpretation, no other person can.

I was contacted, and made it clear that I had not been in communication with Tomb since first being appointed to the defense team and as such was not able to represent him, being completely unaware of his wishes in regards to the matter.

If only to deal with the absurd matter of standing, I'm willing to endorse this request on my own initiative so as to rectify this gross miscarriage of justice.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

How were you completely unaware? You stated in the other thread that there was at least one strategy meeting. Tomb appointed you and with your consent you were part of at least one strategy meeting and decided according to your own words that since Roman was the lead you were taking your ball and going home. That doesn't make it the Court's fault.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

How were you completely unaware? You stated in the other thread that there was at least one strategy meeting. Tomb appointed you and with your consent you were part of at least one strategy meeting and decided according to your own words that since Roman was the lead you were taking your ball and going home. That doesn't make it the Court's fault.

And the Court still ruled without hearing a word from the Defense speaking on behalf, and in defense, of their client.

That is the Court's fault. They chose to allow for only one side to present its case. They chose to allow a one sided argument to occur and then chose to rule on the case after only hearing one side. In doing so, they made the case entirely unbalanced and a guilty verdict almost assured.

That is where the Court is at fault.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

How were you completely unaware? You stated in the other thread that there was at least one strategy meeting. Tomb appointed you and with your consent you were part of at least one strategy meeting and decided according to your own words that since Roman was the lead you were taking your ball and going home. That doesn't make it the Court's fault.

And the Court still ruled without hearing a word from the Defense speaking on behalf, and in defense, of their client.

That is the Court's fault. They chose to allow for only one side to present its case. They chose to allow a one sided argument to occur and then chose to rule on the case after only hearing one side. In doing so, they made the case entirely unbalanced and a guilty verdict almost assured.

That is where the Court is at fault.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense is not obligated to present any argumentation at all (here or in RL, since that matters to so many people posting here). The lack of argumentation by the defense is on the defense, not the Court. The defendant and his appointed counsel chose not to engage with the argumentation phase of the trial even though the schedule was apparent and agreed to.

The Court ruled based upon the evidence presented. It does not matter if the defense made any statements. The evidence was never objected to or called into question, even when the defense counsel was active.

So again, it isn't the Court's fault that Tomb et al proved themselves incompetent/inactive/whatever.

 

[Belschaft]

General question; when was the last time anyone saw Tomb?

 

[RPI]

I believe he just posted today in the Out of Character forum.

EDIT: yup, he did right here.

 

[Romanoffia]

Funny trial. Only one side (the prosecution) was permitted to argue its case. The Defence was entirely silenced by redactions of 'approved' questions and apparently unsatisfactory answers by defence witnesses were appropriately 'redacted', apparently because the court didn't like the answers, I suppose?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Since the trial is now all but over, what were the redacted questions and answers? This doesn't seem to be a case based upon spies and secret evidence (like the failed Treason case against me was, years ago) so I am interested to know what was so scandalous that it was censored by the Court.

On a side note, Ivan is asking for Tomb to get at least three to four months, I presume that being a three month suspension from the Regional Assembly. Ravania, by comparison, got six months suspension from the RA for committing the rather serious crime of Espionage.

So, in essence, if the Court agrees with Ivan or gives a harsher sentence than what Ivan recommended, they're saying that Tomb suggesting that Flem should maybe make a few promises before being allowed to join the NPA is on par with (or worse than) stealing information from the North Pacific Army and giving it to a group acting against The North Pacific, who then use that stolen intelligence to try and subvert TNP politically and militarily.

Seems legit.

 

[plembobria]

Funny trial. Only one side (the prosecution) was permitted to argue its case. The Defence was entirely silenced by redactions of 'approved' questions and apparently unsatisfactory answers by defence witnesses were appropriately 'redacted', apparently because the court didn't like the answers, I suppose?

Look Roman, this deluded fantasy of yours is rather irritating. You are somehow implying that I censored questions and answers in order to control the evidence of the case and repress the defense.

I admitted that the my handling of objections and redacting questions immediately was a bad idea, and apologized. I also admitted and that I had made a mistake and redacted a legitimate question. I also apologized there.

A forum deposition has never been done before. There was absolutely no precedent to follow for the procedure. I made mistakes and admitted to them when they were brought to my attention. My management of objections led to confusion for all of us, which is why I mistakenly redacted a legitimate question.If I could do it all over again I would managed the whole thing differently.

When you objected to my redaction of legitimate questions you should have waited for my response. Instead you resigned immediately, and that is not my fault. Stop blaming the court for your inability to handle conflict. I take full responsibility for my mismanagement, but that does not vindicate you for resigning.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

My management of objections led to confusion for all of us, which is why I mistakenly redacted a legitimate question.If I could do it all over again I would managed the whole thing differently.

When you objected to my redaction of legitimate questions you should have waited for my response.

[...]

I take full responsibility for my mismanagement, but that does not vindicate you for resigning.

So if you admit the trial was mismanaged, and you've decided to take "full responsibility" for your self-admitted mismanagement, then why did you proceed with a verdict, why are you proceeding with the sentencing, and why has the case not been declared a mistrial?

Are you just saying these things or do you really mean them?

 

[plembobria]

I didn't say the trial was mismanaged. I said the deposition was mismanaged. I PM'd the remaining defense council for the argumentation phase and the sentencing phase. They didn't show up. It's not my fault Roman resigned, and it's not my fault the other members of the defense didn't show up. If Roman had objected and waited I would have allowed him to re-ask the question. Instead he resigned in the same post. That is not my fault.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Continuing to spout ad nauseum that the defendant was not 'permitted' to present a defense doesn't make it true or accurate.

No one prevented the defense team or Tomb from posting an argument. The defense opted not to post an argument, which is their right and choice.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Since the trial is now all but over, what were the redacted questions and answers? This doesn't seem to be a case based upon spies and secret evidence (like the failed Treason case against me was, years ago) so I am interested to know what was so scandalous that it was censored by the Court.

On a side note, Ivan is asking for Tomb to get at least three to four months, I presume that being a three month suspension from the Regional Assembly. Ravania, by comparison, got six months suspension from the RA for committing the rather serious crime of Espionage.

So, in essence, if the Court agrees with Ivan or gives a harsher sentence than what Ivan recommended, they're saying that Tomb suggesting that Flem should maybe make a few promises before being allowed to join the NPA is on par with (or worse than) stealing information from the North Pacific Army and giving it to a group acting against The North Pacific, who then use that stolen intelligence to try and subvert TNP politically and militarily.

Seems legit.

You are correct.

Having the Delegate nation, entrusted with the security of the region as a whole and representative of the region on the world stage, seek to restrict the freedoms and liberties of a constituent nation in a blatant and flippant manner is a much more serious crime than stealing a few secrets from the NPA.

Perhaps I should have asked for a harsher sentence.

Your casual disregard for the crime which Tomb did commit is worrisome.

 

[punk d]

I'd like to ask the court to ask members posting to keep their comments to the actual review requested. There is a lot of information in this thread that is not particularly germane to the review request.

If I assume that Bel's post constitutes as standing and the court will review, to me the question becomes this - if a defendant hires a defense team and that defense team does begin the trial at what point is the court no longer required to ensure the defendant has a defense if the defense team and defendant disappear?

From our laws, this seems a little tricky and I don't find a clear interpretation. I am very interested to see what the court thinks.

 

[Flemingovia]

Personally, I think the only person who has standing according to TNP rules is Tomb himself.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Personally, I think the only person who has standing according to TNP rules is Tomb himself.

And the Attorney General.

 

[SillyString]

Personally, I think the only person who has standing according to TNP rules is Tomb himself.

And the Attorney General.

I think Tomb's lawyers would also be able to submit a R4R, since they are authorized to represent him during his criminal trial and any r4rs related to that have a direct bearing on the same. But they would likely need to be acting on his behalf, and not simply taking initiative.

 

[Flemingovia]

I do not agree, for what it is worth.

"affected party" and "having had a chat with an affected party on IRC a few months ago when he said I could defend him in a trial and not having spoken to him since and done bugger all, but now wanting to put in a R4R on his behalf, which is something different"

.... are very different things.

For all we know Tomb may just want to see an end to this and put it behind him, but he is now being used as a cause celebre by drama queens.

I do not think we can assume any more that the former defence barristers are speaking with any mandate now that a verdict has been delivered.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I do not agree, for what it is worth.

"affected party" and "having had a chat with an affected party on IRC a few months ago when he said I could defend him in a trial and not having spoken to him since and done bugger all, but now wanting to put in a R4R on his behalf, which is something different"

.... are very different things.

For all we know Tomb may just want to see an end to this and put it behind him, but he is now being used as a cause celebre by drama queens.

I do not think we can assume any more that the former defence barristers are speaking with any mandate now that a verdict has been delivered.

Oh, so the Defense Team can lose a case on Tomb's behalf but not appeal on his behalf?

Isn't that pretty hypocritical?

Flem, while it is true a verdict has been reached, a sentence has not. This means the trial is still on and the Defense Team very much intact, and with the trial ongoing and the Defense still acting on behalf of Tomb, that would make them an "affected party".

Also Flem, you might considered people trying to protect a citizen's right to a fair trial to be "drama queens", but you screamed very loudly when you though your rights were being violated. Maybe you're just another one of those people who feel the Bill of Rights only applies when it rules in their favor, eh?

 

[Severisen]

I respectfully request those uninvolved in this R4R refrain from further comment. I apologize for my absence, or I'd have asked sooner. If those not involved have commentary, they can take it to the appropriate thread. If this R4R is accepted, there will be a time for the submission of briefs.

With regards to this review, as a member of the sitting court that issued the ruling being reviewed, I hereby recuse myself, and ask the delegate to appoint the appropriate THOs as necessary.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I respectfully request those uninvolved in this R4R refrain from further comment. I apologize for my absence, or I'd have asked sooner. If those not involved have commentary, they can take it to the appropriate thread. If this R4R is accepted, there will be a time for the submission of briefs.

With regards to this review, as a member of the sitting court that issued the ruling being reviewed, I hereby recuse myself, and ask the delegate to appoint the appropriate THOs as necessary.

In the opinion of the Attorney General's Office, since the submitter definitively does not have standing in this case it would be appropriate to reject it as submitted and require an affected party to submit a request in the appropriate format. In this instance, a request for review is not appropriate as it is in regards to a Court ruling in a criminal trial, not a law or legislative act.

The appropriate format would be to seek an appeal of the verdict.

For reference:

Chapter 2: Requests for Review
1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.

Section 2: Appeals
1. The petitioner in a rejected request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may appeal a decision made by an individual Justice to the Court as a whole for consideration.
2. The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.
3. During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue.

A R4R is not an appropriate response to a criminal trial verdict and the sitting Justices should be able to make that determination before accepting recusal. Recusal would be more appropriate in the event of a properly submitted appeal.

 

[Belschaft]

Personally, I think the only person who has standing according to TNP rules is Tomb himself.

And the Attorney General.

I think Tomb's lawyers would also be able to submit a R4R, since they are authorized to represent him during his criminal trial and any r4rs related to that have a direct bearing on the same. But they would likely need to be acting on his behalf, and not simply taking initiative.

Could you clarify that for me? Elsewhere I'm being told I should have acted on my own imitative and defended Tomb without any direction on his part, but here I'm being told that I can't take any action without explicit instructions to act on his behalf? Which is it?

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Personally, I think the only person who has standing according to TNP rules is Tomb himself.

And the Attorney General.

I think Tomb's lawyers would also be able to submit a R4R, since they are authorized to represent him during his criminal trial and any r4rs related to that have a direct bearing on the same. But they would likely need to be acting on his behalf, and not simply taking initiative.

Could you clarify that for me? Elsewhere I'm being told I should have acted on my own imitative and defended Tomb without any direction on his part, but here I'm being told that I can't take any action without explicit instructions to act on his behalf? Which is it?

Actually, you stated in another thread that you gave up on defending him and more or less withdrew yourself as counsel, without notification. So, I am not sure you would be permitted to submit on Tomb's behalf. That would be up to the Court to decide.

 

[Flemingovia]

I hereby recuse myself, and ask the delegate to appoint the appropriate THOs as necessary.

Can the delegate get involved in this? Eluvatar is/was a material witness in the trial, and he has interest in it.

 

[Severisen]

Edit:

A few things are murky here, and I'd like to hear from Tomb himself, or have proof that Tomb has authorized a member of his defense team to request this review. BW has no standing in this matter, and the request also does not follow the required template.

Until such a time as a member with standing, such as Tomb, or someone authorized by him on his behalf, files the request with the approrpriate template, this request is rejected.

 

[SillyString]

Could you clarify that for me? Elsewhere I'm being told I should have acted on my own imitative and defended Tomb without any direction on his part, but here I'm being told that I can't take any action without explicit instructions to act on his behalf? Which is it?

My comments you quoted are specifically in regards to an r4r that is related to an ongoing (or even concluded) criminal trial. Given our law and court ruling on standing, I think a defendant's attorney needs to be instructed to pursue an r4r in order to be able to assert standing. Even then, what they're asserting is the defendant's standing to make a request (and their right to represent the defendant in court issues relating to their defense), and not their own.

As for whether you should have jumped in and defended Tomb without his input, I really can't comment on that. Both options are problematic.

]In the opinion of the Attorney General's Office, since the submitter definitively does not have standing in this case it would be appropriate to reject it as submitted and require an affected party to submit a request in the appropriate format. In this instance, a request for review is not appropriate as it is in regards to a Court ruling in a criminal trial, not a law or legislative act.

The appropriate format would be to seek an appeal of the verdict.

I actually disagree with you here. "Government policies" are also subject to being reviewed, and actions can be subject to that as well insofar as they are implementation of policies.

In my judgement, a r4r of plembobria's decision to continue the trial in the absence of the defense would be an example of the court's policy (perhaps unwritten) to do the same. I think it can thus be challenged on those grounds.

It could also be appealed to the wider court, who could change it without needing to argue deeper legal principles, and that would probably be a better approach.

An appeal of the verdict, however, is not something our laws make provision for. Even the appeals section in the ACRs only accounts for appeals of actions or decisions given by a single justice, not trial verdicts rendered by the whole court.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Edit:

A few things are murky here, and I'd like to hear from Tomb himself, or have proof that Tomb has authorized a member of his defense team to request this review. BW has no standing in this matter, and the request also does not follow the required template.

Until such a time as a member with standing, such as Tomb, or someone authorized by him on his behalf, files the request with the approrpriate template, this request is rejected.

Justice Severisen, this request, while related to Tomb's trial, is in regards to Court rules and procedure and if that procedure has violated the Bill of Rights.

At no point have I ever stated that I am appealing or challenging the Court's verdict in Tomb's trial.

I know that I do not need to represent Tomb in order to ask the Court to review it's own policy for Bill of Right violations, so that's a moot point. However, since it seems you'd like me to resubmit my request using a template of the Court's choosing, I will do so immediately.

 

[plembobria]

What Sev means is that only Tomb and his defense are an affected party, and you are not.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Bill of Rights violations effect everyone. I'm interested to know how the Court came to the conclusion that only the "affected party's" protected Rights might have been violated by this policy, which any citizen might possibly be subject to.

This seems to be an attempt by the Court to deflect inquires away from their newly adopted policy of allowing ruling to occur without hearing opposing arguments from the accused or their representatives.

 

[SillyString]

Bill of Rights violations effect everyone. I'm interested to know how the Court came to the conclusion that only the "affected party's" protected Rights might have been violated by this policy, which any citizen might possibly be subject to.

This seems to be an attempt by the Court to deflect inquires away from their newly adopted policy of allowing ruling to occur without hearing opposing arguments from the accused or their representatives.

I'm not going to disagree with you that the ruling on standing from two years ago is massively restrictive and rather problematic, but it's more than a little disingenuous to pretend that a two year old ruling is something this particular court is inflicting on you personally.

BOR violations have the potential to affect anybody, but not all of them outright do so. A blanket ban from the Speaker on motioning to recall officials would absolutely affect all citizens and could be challenged in court by any of them. But one individual's freedom of speech being stifled does not, inherently, because it is happening, stifle everyone's free speech.

Similarly, the delegate illegally banning someone from the region does not mean everyone has been illegally banned, nor that everyone is at risk of it, and certainly not that everyone's rights against it have been violated.

Rightly or wrongly, the Court decided two years ago that BOR or other violations could only be pursued by individuals who had been directly, and not indirectly, wronged by a particular act or policy or law. They did not include the potential for such violations to occur in the future in their ruling.

And thanks to the ruling itself, it can't be directly challenged straight up by anyone except members of the AG's office.

 

[falapatorius]

In my judgement, a r4r of plembobria's decision to continue the trial in the absence of the defense would be an example of the court's policy (perhaps unwritten) to do the same. I think it can thus be challenged on those grounds.

This seems to be an attempt by the Court to deflect inquires away from their newly adopted policy of allowing ruling to occur without hearing opposing arguments from the accused or their representatives.

Is it a policy though? One instance of an action doesn't make it a policy imo. Did Justice Plembobria act of his own volition, or did the entire Court agree to proceed this way? Will it be the way the Court conducts trials of this nature in the future? If it indeed is an 'unwritten' policy (it certainly wasn't written in this case), can it be challenged?

Rightly or wrongly, the Court decided two years ago that BOR or other violations could only be pursued by individuals who had been directly, and not indirectly, wronged by a particular act or policy or law. They did not include the potential for such violations to occur in the future in their ruling.

Yes. The key word being potential.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

BOR violations have the potential to affect anybody, but not all of them outright do so. A blanket ban from the Speaker on motioning to recall officials would absolutely affect all citizens and could be challenged in court by any of them. But one individual's freedom of speech being stifled does not, inherently, because it is happening, stifle everyone's free speech.

Similarly, the delegate illegally banning someone from the region does not mean everyone has been illegally banned, nor that everyone is at risk of it, and certainly not that everyone's rights against it have been violated.

Well, this is a bit different than one's specific nation being banned from the region.

This last legal ruling has established that the Court may rule on any trial after hearing only from the Prosecution, as such all of us may be potentially effected. A Right to a Fair Trial is a passive right, of that you are correct, just like the Right to Free Speech is passive until someone tries to take it away. However, just because it's passive doesn't mean the Right isn't being actively threatened now with this decision.

The Court as ruled that they don't need to hear an argument in defense of the innocence of the accused. In doing so, the Court's ruling has opened the Pandora's box where one-sided show trials, in which no defense is afforded to the accused, are now legal. This could potentially make the NPD's infamous "5-minute trials" from 2005 now legally acceptable.

I would say that's a pretty serious violation that effects us all.

 

[Romanoffia]

Well Said, BW!

Funny trial. Only one side (the prosecution) was permitted to argue its case. The Defence was entirely silenced by redactions of 'approved' questions and apparently unsatisfactory answers by defence witnesses were appropriately 'redacted', apparently because the court didn't like the answers, I suppose?

Look Roman, this deluded fantasy of yours is rather irritating. You are somehow implying that I censored questions and answers in order to control the evidence of the case and repress the defense.

I admitted that the my handling of objections and redacting questions immediately was a bad idea, and apologized. I also admitted and that I had made a mistake and redacted a legitimate question. I also apologized there.

A forum deposition has never been done before. There was absolutely no precedent to follow for the procedure. I made mistakes and admitted to them when they were brought to my attention. My management of objections led to confusion for all of us, which is why I mistakenly redacted a legitimate question.If I could do it all over again I would managed the whole thing differently.

When you objected to my redaction of legitimate questions you should have waited for my response. Instead you resigned immediately, and that is not my fault. Stop blaming the court for your inability to handle conflict. I take full responsibility for my mismanagement, but that does not vindicate you for resigning.

Excuse me, but I am not the only person who expressed dismay at the Court's handling of this trial and the various irregularities involving adherence to standing Court Rules. It was extensively discussed on #TNP. I'm sure that someone can come up with the logs of that discussion to help you understand.

I resigned from the Defence Team after having expressed to Tomb the questionable nature of the charges against him and the apparent bias of the Court in favour of the Prosecution. I resigned because I was disgusted at the fact that the rules of the proceedings were arbitrary, capricious and entirely without any comprehensible structure or meaning.

And, I don't give a tinker's dam about whether or not I am 'vindicated' for resigning from the Defence Team. I know when a trial is nothing more than a show trial or a train wreck in the making and I know when I am wasting my time in an attempt to assure that the Defendant actually gets a fair trial.

Anyone who thinks that this trial is any more than a show trial are the deluded ones.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying - I don't hold you responsible for this mess. I hold a legal/court system that is so convoluted and overly complicated for our needs in TNP. It's amazing that even a show trial can go off without it becoming a train wreck.

So, don't blame me for your having misunderstood the Court Rules and having driven the entire affair into a ditch.

Save us all the suspense and just have the Court find Tomb guilty and run him out of town on a rail to vindicate these proceedings.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

The trial followed the Court Rules.

Please provide evidence that the trial violated the Court Rules or stop with your ridiculous ranting. Yes, there were instances where the preceding Justice may have started to veer off course but those instances were quickly corrected and did not influence the overall flow or direction of the trial.

Also, the Court already found Tomb guilty. That isn't in question here. We are not awaiting sentencing.

 

[SillyString]

The Court as ruled that they don't need to hear an argument in defense of the innocence of the accused. In doing so, the Court's ruling has opened the Pandora's box where one-sided show trials, in which no defense is afforded to the accused, are now legal. This could potentially make the NPD's infamous "5-minute trials" from 2005 now legally acceptable.

No, it didn't, and no, it can't.

You're completely ignoring a) existing law, b) required court procedures and c) prior court rulings. The Court cannot hold a five minute trial. It can continue to function even if a defense team deliberately ignores it as an attempted strategy to keep their client from being found guilty.

Whether it proceeded correctly here or not isn't really material. Tomb can challenge it if he chooses, since he is an affected party, but others cannot.

(It also doesn't matter if it's an issue that potentially affects us all - potentially affected parties don't have standing for reviews. The Court's ruling on this is quite straightforward.)

@falapatorius: Yes, I think actions are indicative of policies - even if just the individual policy of one government official when carrying out the duties of their office.