Deposition of Mcmasterdonia

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
This thread shall be used for witness deposition of @mcmasterdonia.

Per the Court Rules and Procedures:

1. The witness must make the following oath before questioning can begin; "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

2. Any Justice may moderate this deposition.

3. Questioning will proceed in the following order until both sides have exhausted their questions:
a. Defense may ask their questions and any follow-ups
b. Prosecution will have the opportunity to object to the asked questions.
c. Moderating Justice will rule on any objections.
d. Witness will answer the questions, if no objections or they are overruled.
e. Prosecution may ask their questions and any follow-ups.
f. Defense will have the opportunity to object to the asked questions.
g. Moderating Justice will rule on any objections.
h. Witness will answer the questions, if no objections or they are overruled.
i. Return to a, if needed.

4. At conclusion of questioning, the Moderating Justice shall publish the official record of the deposition in the trial thread.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

Since I apparently forgot to add this in the procedure order, questions may be answered by the Witness prior to any objections occurring or being upheld/denied by the Moderating Justice. Answered questions with upheld objections will be omitted from the official deposition record.

As the Witness was called by the Defense, they have first question @Deropia @SillyString
 
Thank you for attending, @mcmasterdonia, the Defence appreciates your testimony.

Is it true that Artemizistan is the same as Castelia, and was providing information to the government of The North Pacific that allowed the plot by the Confederacy of Corrupt Dictatios (CCD) to be uncovered?
 
Could you please describe for the Court the quality and quantity of information provided by Artemizistan on the CCD and their attempt to infiltrate TNP?
 
Deropia:
Could you please describe for the Court the quality and quantity of information provided by Artemizistan on the CCD and their attempt to infiltrate TNP?
Click to expand...
Castelia aka Artemizistan provided all of the screenshots that have been submitted to the Court as evidence in this case and in the matter against Ikea Rike. Castelia is the reason we have this case before the Court of The North Pacific at all. While Castelia was only briefly involved in the operations against The North Pacific, their access to the information was continued over the course of the year. As such, as part of a sanctioned intelligence operation authorised by me as Delegate of The North Pacific, Castelia was able to provide us with a full picture of Operation 84 and the various actors involved, including insights into the involvement of Ikea Rike, United Massachusetts and Jocospor

The quantity of the information was very significant as shown through the 39 screenshots provided and the detailed report we were able to provide to our community and to the world at large. While the Government had its suspicions about the operations and in particular were keeping an eye on the operative "Ikea Rike", it would have been difficult for us to confirm the extent of this operation without the assistance of Castelia. This indictment against Castelia was only presented as a necessary step to protect his cover. With United Massachusetts and the Chuck available to testify, I decided to prosecute Castelia in order to maintain his cover and allow him to remain in CCD for weeks in order to monitor the deteriorating situation in the Confederation.
 
Thank you for your answers.

@mcmasterdonia, as the Commander-in-Chief of our intelligence services, do you consider the work done by Artemizistan to be as a member of The North Pacifics intelligence service on an officially sanctioned intelligence mission, under the auspices of Section 1.10?
Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Section 1.10. Exceptions
26. Exceptions for treason, espionage or proxying may be given to members of the military and intelligence services with the consent of the Delegate and the appropriate Minister when on officially sanctioned missions for the purposes of preserving regional security.
Click to expand...
 
As a note, Mcmaster's answer to the first question of 'Correct' has been reverted back to the original answer of 'Yes' and requests the Witness not edit their posts again, as the Prosecution, Defense, and Defendant can not.
 
Last edited:
Deropia:
Thank you for your answers.

@mcmasterdonia, as the Commander-in-Chief of our intelligence services, do you consider the work done by Artemizistan to be as a member of The North Pacifics intelligence service on an officially sanctioned intelligence mission, under the auspices of Section 1.10?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Lady Raven Wing:
Lady Raven Wing:
As a note, Mcmaster's answer to the first question of 'Correct' has been reverted back to the original answer of 'Yes' and requests the Witness not edit their posts again, as the Prosecution, Defense, and Defendant can not.
Click to expand...

Duly noted & I apologise for that.
Click to expand...
 
As the Defense seems to have exhausted their current line of questioning, the floor is free for any questions from the Prosecution (and as always, any objections to already asked questions).
 
Thank you, your honour;
I would like to apologize for the time taken before.

@mcmasterdonia , you have stated before that you would consider the defendant as part of the exception given to the crimes of Treason and Espionage. However, they were not an official agent of the region. Could you please explain your positions on this?
Thank you.
 
Gladly. As seen in Section 1.10 of the Legal Code, the delegate has the power to grant an exception on the crimes of Treason and Espionage (and proxying, but such crime isn't being discussed at this case) to the members of the army or intelligence services of the region.
The Defense have asked you to confirm if such reason is met, that they were on an official mission to preserve the regional security, and you have agreed, as seen in the post made on February 3rd.
Could you kindly explain on why would you consider them in a mission or as part of the intelligence services of the region?
 
Vivanco:
Gladly. As seen in Section 1.10 of the Legal Code, the delegate has the power to grant an exception on the crimes of Treason and Espionage (and proxying, but such crime isn't being discussed at this case) to the members of the army or intelligence services of the region.
The Defense have asked you to confirm if such reason is met, that they were on an official mission to preserve the regional security, and you have agreed, as seen in the post made on February 3rd.
Could you kindly explain on why would you consider them in a mission or as part of the intelligence services of the region?
Click to expand...

I believe I answered this in the post I made on February 3rd. I consider them to be acting as part of a sanctioned intelligence operation through their actions that led to the collation of information submitted to you as evidence both against Castelia himself, against IKEA Rike and against United Massachusetts, as well as their subsequent monitoring of CCD following the release of our report on CCD’s operations to the public. Literally the only reason this trial is happening at all is because of the need to keep up appearances. I have no idea why this trial is continuing.
 
Your honor, in light of the fact that the attorney general has dropped the charges against our client without allowing us to definitively establish their innocence, I would like to request that this deposition be included in the official trial record, per the normal rules of evidence.

Such an inclusion would provide some measure of protection against future espionage or treason charges that might be brought against our client.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top