New Kenya Trial

Great Bights Mum

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
Pierconium is in the house.

*passes popcorn*

On it's face, this case looks like a slam-dunk for the AG's office. But I would never underestimate Flem's ability to devise an ingenious defense strategy. Stay tuned.
 
Great Bights Mum:
But I would never underestimate Flem's ability to devise an ingenious defense strategy. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Imho this trial is a perfect display of Flem at his Flemmiest.
 
Syrixia:
Great Bights Mum:
But I would never underestimate Flem's ability to devise an ingenious defense strategy. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...
Imho this trial is a perfect display of Flem at his Flemmiest.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Based on his last post it would seem his defense is likely to centre around the government's inaction moreso than the charges themselves.
 
the defence is present and active. the prosecution .... not so much.

I have heard of defendants absconding, but never prosecutors.
 
I only just clocked that this isn't a new trial, but that the defendant is called New Kenya.
 
I'm having a moment here. The defense attorney has just stated
On looking in the War Room I saw that Asta has given detailed opinion to the Security Council on precisely how the evidence ought to be redacted before presentation in court.
Click to expand...
It's a one-sentence clusterduck.

First, let's have a show of hands - anyone else see the War Room? No? Because it's private. Normally, a defense attorney would not have access to the information contained therein. New Kenya is so lucky to have found himself such extraordinarily resourceful representation.

Second, while Silly is the AG and on the SC, she does strive to maintain those roles as separate from one another. As such, it is ok for her to advise the SC to redact her own comments in the thread in question. Also, calling for editing of any information of a sensitive or personal nature is perfectly acceptable. Going beyond that gets us into a really fuzzy area. It's important to maintain some boundaries, especially when the defendant's best hope is to have the proceedings declared a mistrial.

Finally, should the SC decide to edit comments I made in that thread, I will be happy to repeat them here or in the court. My remarks were neither groundbreaking nor particularly colorful. :2c:
 
First of all, I only looked in the War Room when i was permitted to do so by Lord Ravenclaw, the person in charge of the SC. His exact words were: "You have my permission to view the War Room and the thread on New Kenya."

It was me who pointed out to him that the prosecution also needed access to the evidence, and he said to me that Sillystring had access.

He then linked me directly to the post where SillyString suggests that the evidence is doctored.

She did this AFTER the court had ordered the release of "any and all" posts. She was, in short, suggesting a contravention of a court order.

Please don't play the dualism card. Earlier in that same thread SillyString said that she ought not to comment because she was Attorney General. She was well aware of the conflict of interest. What we had in effect was the ATtrorney General and prosecuting Attorney in the trial suggesting ways in which evidence which the presiding justice had ordered should be revealed in full might be redacted.

Yes. there was a clusterduck. But it was not the defence who made it.

And yes, we are now in mistrial territory. When the prosecutor attempts to tamper with evidence in any jurisdiction i know the charges would be thrown out.
 
In my opinion both sides over-stepped their bounds. As reluctant as I am to criticize the actions of those I admire and respect, I have to call shenanigans.

Silly did suggest my comments be edited, even though I had previously green-lighted their release. Since my statements pertained to regional security issues, I assumed she was wearing her SC hat when she made her suggestion. I really can't see how anything I said can help or hinder the arguments on either side of the courtroom. It's not like I had any super-secret evidence that could clear New Kenya's name. However, as the AG, Silly has to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. Like I said, stay out of those fuzzy areas.

Flem has seen the War Room thread prior to this. I can't prove it, but I know what I know.
 
Nice tactic. Sillystring does something wrong so you seek to throw shit around in the hope it randomly lands on others too.

I have been in the war room many times. Some months ago Lord Ravenclaw said that i was welcome to view the place (he said my experience and knowledge would be welcome). From time to time I have looked in.

What i have NOT done since this trial has started is to look at any threads relevant to the trial which i have no right to access. I only looked at the NK threads when Lord Ravenclaw gave me permission to do so.

I have sought to be scrupulous. If you think otherwise, ask Eluvatar. in the course of a discussion between us on Discord he linked me to a post in a [private] thread. When I saw the thread title I immediately closed the thread, asked Elu not to link me to threads I should not be viewing. ASk him - he will verify the truth of that.

I do not personally believe, although i have no proof, that SillyString meant anything criminal by what she did. But she ought to have the decency to put her hand up to a mistake.
 
For what it's worth, any offer I may have made regarding the War Room to Flemingovia would have ceased to have been valid once I left the Delegacy.

The Security Council has a requirement to ensure that information which comments on possible methods used by would-be coupers and usurpers and how best to go about putting their plan into action is not published. The Security Council is therefore obligated by virtue of their position to redact any such information from any publications, court mandated evidence release or otherwise.

Flemingovia was granted permission by me to access the thread relating to New Kenya, which I linked to. I also explained that the Security Council was redacting certain sensitive information before submitting the thread as mandated by the Court, in line with the above.

The Attorney General does not have access to the War Room by virtue of their position. Any comments in a War Room thread are by members of the Security Council or those with explicit invitation from the Security Council to take part in their proceedings of which, the Attorney General is not one of them.
 
I apologise. I assumed that the offer you made while you were delegate was still in effect, since you are now Vice Delegate and in charge of the SC. Once this trial is over I will not make further viewings of the SC areas of the forum uninvited.

as far as the conversation went between us regarding access and evidence, what you say is not quite how i read the logs of our conversation. You said that a redation was taking place (Although you did not mention the attorney general's involvement at that time); I reminded you that the court had ordered the full disclosure; you said you gave me permission to read the war room and the thread on New Kenya; I reminded you that prosecution would also need access; you said that Asta (sic) could read it.

them's the facts.

Finally, i never claimed that the Attorney Geneal had access to the SC by virtue of her position. However, she does not stop being attorney general and, currently, lead prosecutor when she walks through the doors. There is a long held principle of recusal and recognition of conflct of interest in TNP, and that is what SillyString should have done in this case. It is, after all, what Gracius Maximus has done.
 
Eluvatar's last few posts have dangerous implications for the integrity of our judicial system. Particularly this totally arbitrary set of rules he introduced with the express purpose of blocking the defense's evidence submission:

You may PM me the evidence you would like to submit. Please include arguments for the inclusion of each post or sentence which either (A) one or more Security Council members would prefer redacted or (B) come from the separate Security Council topic regarding disclosure of the original topic which you would like included. Please also PM the Vice Delegate the same PM you send me, verbatim.
Click to expand...
I have very serious concerns about this. It would effectively allow even one member of the Security Council to veto the admission of evidence and/or filibuster the submission of evidence for the defense by creating hours upon hours of busy work for the defense attorney, along with the extra risk of having the evidence thrown out if there is even the slightest error in copying all that work yet again when sending it to the VD.

This means that for security-related crimes, it would become very difficult for a defendant to even understand the charges against them or the investigation which led to an indictment. It would shield the SC from legal scrutiny, and ultimately destroy the concept of a fair trial.

Bear in mind that this is for information that Eluvatar himself had ordered released for the express purpose of gathering evidence:

So ordered: The Security Council will promptly release its records regarding The Swedish Republic of New Kenya.
Click to expand...
Then he rejects its submission as evidence and invents some terrific roadblocks with less than a day remaining in the evidence submission phase?

The final insult comes when Flem asks the justice to reverse these ludicrous new requirements, and Eluvatar replies that he cannot, because he can't make up new rules on the fly. Even though that's exactly what he did. While trying to block evidence that he himself had ordered be allowed into court.

Does anyone care to explain to me how exactly this is anything short of a mistrial? This isn't even touching on Flem's point that the prosecutor is on the SC, which only makes Eluvatar's requirement even more open to exploitation.

Is this how justice is normally dispensed in a democratic system?
 
I believe the Justice was arguing that allowing evidence that can not be shared publicly would potentially prejudice the defendant since he would not be able to see all of the evidence against him. The principle of transparency is important for a democratic justice system.

Also, to be fair to the AG, a Deputy was handling the case and unfortunately went AWOL. That is an unfortunate event that left her in a bad position. When she made the initial comments she was not prosecuting the case and was speaking as a member of the SC.

I do not necessarily agree with all the decisions being made but I don't believe malice or ill-intent has been a factor.
 
Well, i just read through this entire trial and i just need to say, well done Flem. Hope to see a case finally get through to it's completion.
 
As I just said to someone that reached out to me over the comments in the released SC posts, I find it somewhat irritating that after over a decade since the NPD, during which time I have helped shape multiple aspects of the government here in TNP, served multiple terms on the Court, been on the Security Council, served as Minister of Defense, and quite possibly have been the most successful AG in TNP's long history, that some members of the SC would so openly disparage my commitment to the law here in TNP.

Oh well, at least I am remembered as a potentially formidable opponent.
 
I was bored of this trial within hours of it starting. I have never cared for lengthy periods for evidence submission etc - I like to get things gone fast (my record is about six hours from start to finish, I think).
 
St George:
As some with experience in TNP's justice system, I am not.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly have experience of the justice system :lol:

But my impression was that things were all active here. Active defence, active justice, active prosecutor. But apparently that doesn't matter at all! Seems like an open and shut case.. apparently not.
 
Evidence submission is very important, and also takes the most time, as well it should. Generally speaking, the rest of the trial combined does and ought to take less time than the time for submitting evidence.
 
Reading the trial again, I also feel that Eluvatar is speaking Eluvataran at such a level that only fluent speakers of a near fluent level can interpret. But then again, it is 1.15 am right now.
 
I do not know what the hell is going on, to be honest. The prosecution seems to do nothing for the whole evidence period then rush shit through at the last minute, when there is no chance of proper scrutiny or challenge.

it would not matter so much, but the Attorney General has seen fit to charge a newbie with very little clue about the game with the most serious charges that our legal system can bring. Charges that carry a mandatory sentence of expulsion. Given how much leeway we have shown other players in the past, this is overkill to the point of brutality.

Someone up on such charges deserves not only the best defence, but the best prosecution, and the best and most scrupulous conduct of the trial. So far we have had prosecutors interfering with defence evidence. prosecutors going awol, the possibility that an oath sworn to validate an deposition will be taken, by extension, to validate a witness statement and a witness statement submitted by PM hours after the close of evidence submission.

Oh, and now it appears an extra day for evidence submission has appeared on the court schedule, despite the presiding justice ruling that no further extensions would be granted, and allowing an appeal to that effect.

Do I sound pissed off? I should, because I am. I am not saying NK is without fault - he is a bit of an idiot who, like a lot of newbies shot his mouth off before he understood jack shit about the game. But he does not deserve what is happening to him here. And I am, frankly, for the first time in ages ashamed of TNP.
 
I wouldn't necessarily call contacting the leader of another region and offering to subjugate our region to them a 'newbie' error by someone that has no clue about the game. You know better than that. Or at least I would have thought you to not be so naive.

Also, some of your arguments are not sound logically or legally. Pierconium provided an oath. Our law does not require subsequent oaths. If anything, as far as that aspect is concerned, the prosecution should be concerned that the Presiding Justice ignored the logic of the law to allow your objection.
 
Let's just say the law is silent on whether an oath given for a deposition also covers a witness statement or not.

As far as newbie or not, I think the whole approach he took, as well as asking Aliesyr what form of government the Pacific has REEKS of newbie.
 
flemingovia:
Let's just say the law is silent on whether an oath given for a deposition also covers a witness statement or not.

As far as newbie or not, I think the whole approach he took, as well as asking Aliesyr what form of government the Pacific has REEKS of newbie.
Click to expand...
There are many veterans in NS that have a fundamental failing of the form of government found in the Pacific. I am constantly amazed.
 
if you have evidence that NK is not new, perhaps you should have submitted that to the Atorney general along with the telegrams.

All the dialogue I have had with him suggests that he is not an experienced player.
 
flemingovia:
if you have evidence that NK is not new, perhaps you should have submitted that to the Atorney general along with the telegrams.

All the dialogue I have had with him suggests that he is not an experienced player.
Click to expand...
I am not concerned with your opinion based on your conversations. The point still stands. Any nation wishing to commit treason only needs to claim to be a new nation in order to get away with it based on the precedent set with this trial. It also will likely cause those that they are seeking to collaborate with less willing to share that information because it is now apparent that TNP doesn't take it seriously. So why should others?
 
I think most people concluded on reflection that the treason charge was unwarranted and excessive, and that some form of a conspiracy charge was more appropriate. This is certainly what the defence argued, as we should.
 
If you say so. I personally would consider offering up 500+ endorsements (which the nation had at the time of the events) as material support, but I guess that's just me. (Also, not sure where you got 'most people' from but okay.)

Still doesn't change my point. All anyone needs to do to commit treason in TNP is claim to be a new nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top