The North Pacific v. Pigeonstan

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not inclined to make any sweeping statements at this time. When we enter the evidence submission phase, each point of evidence will be considered then either allowed into evidence or made inadmissible.
 
You honor,

The People ask that the time period for evidence submission be extended. We will have our evidence list up in the next 24-48 hours. However, the People will be calling three witnesses that will need depositions. Since there are mutiple time zones that need to be accounted for 4 days is not sufficient to conduct all witness depositions.
 
The People will be introducing the following evidence and witnesses:

Evidence
Exhibit A
https://imgur.com/NMjBD3r

Exhibit B
https://imgur.com/Sr26qRz

Exhibit C
https://imgur.com/5YvNVo0

Exhibit D
https://imgur.com/l0W5RSe

Exhibit E
https://imgur.com/LiOCuN7

Exhibit F
https://imgur.com/gZhMxlz

Exhibit G
https://imgur.com/6olBIBw

Exhibit H
https://imgur.com/l5Y75IO

Exhibit I
https://imgur.com/k0y0G6g

Exhibit J
https://imgur.com/uUmbh8E

Exhibit K
https://imgur.com/yR0iO2O

Exhibit L
https://imgur.com/tMBBsRx

Exhibit M
https://imgur.com/AtPLVsZ

Exhibit N
https://imgur.com/NRTEMVT

Exhibit O
https://imgur.com/JX2Ph7m

Exhibit P
https://imgur.com/KXNK0Dg

Exhibit Q
https://imgur.com/Bc8oyQn

Exhibit R
https://imgur.com/QSJ11no

Exhibit S
https://imgur.com/qCM9Xh0

Exhibit T
https://imgur.com/qZOSqLJ

Exhibit U
https://imgur.com/6LF16Wm

Exhibit V
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192466/#post-10322343

Exhibit W
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192467/

Exhibit X
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192458/#post-10322353

Witnesses
@Sil Dorsett
@Syrixia
@Gorundu

Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, the People seek to authenticate the following evidence through Witness Testimony by Gorundu: Exhibit A and B.

Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, the People seek to authenticate the following evidence through Witness Testimony by Syrixia: Exhibit C, Exhibits L-N, Exhibits P-R

Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, the People seek to authenticate the following evidence through a Witness Statement by Sil Dorset : Exhibits S-U

Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, the People request that the Court wave authentication of Exhibits D and O. These exhibits can be viewed on the TNP General Discord and the TNP Executive Discord in their original form and are viewable publicly. Should the court require authentication of these exhibits, the People will authenticate exhibit D and O by Witness Testimony. If necessary, Exhibit O will be authenticated by Witness Statement from @Bobberino

Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, Exhibits V-X appear in their original form and do not require authentication.

All witnesses listed have direct knowledge of various facts related to the case.
 
The people beg the courts forgiveness. We need to correct this line
Dreadton:
Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, the People seek to authenticate the following evidence through Witness Testimony by Syrixia: Exhibit C, Exhibits L-N, Exhibits P-R
Click to expand...

It should read "Pursuant to Court Procedures Section 3.4, the People seek to authenticate the following evidence through Witness Testimony by Syrixia: Exhibit C, Exhibits E-N, Exhibits P-R
 
Wonderess:
@Dreadton what amount of time in your view would be sufficient?
Click to expand...

It is dependant on the courts acceptance of Exhibits D,O, V-X. I would request a minimum of three extra days. It is also dependant on how long it takes the People, the Court, and Defense Council to ask questions during the depositions. I would ask the court to remain open to the possibility of extending evidence submission further if the depositions do not wrap up before the deadline.
 
Wonderess:
I will extend the deadline tenuously to a week from now Friday July 17th at 10 PM Central Time.
Click to expand...
Your honor, with respect, the Defense strenuously objects to this extension. The Prosecution has represented the Government's interest in this case for over three weeks, and waits until now to announce that over a month is required to arrange depositions? Meanwhile, the Prosecution has made no effort whatsoever to coordinate such depositions with Defense counsel. Apparently the Prosecution was content to sit on its hands and count on the Court saving its case - the colossal mismanagement of the more than three weeks the Prosecution has had to manage the case should not be rewarded at the expense of the Defendant.

If the Prosecution is unwilling or unable to proceed in a timely manner, the Defense is more than happy to accept a dismissal of all charges.
 
If Defense council would familiarize itself with court procedures, the Prosecution cannot submit evidence or being depositions until the court enters the evidence phase. We ask the court to overrule the Defense's Motion.
 
Dreadton:
If Defense council would familiarize itself with court procedures, the Prosecution cannot submit evidence or being depositions until the court enters the evidence phase. We ask the court to overrule the Defense's Motion.
Click to expand...
The Defense is flummoxed that the Prosecution believes that it is unable to start the administrative task of commencing the coordination of scheduling until such time as the time period to submit such evidence as would need to be scheduled to be submitted begins.

As the Prosecution said:
Dreadton:
You honor,

The People ask that the time period for evidence submission be extended. We will have our evidence list up in the next 24-48 hours. However, the People will be calling three witnesses that will need depositions. Since there are mutiple time zones that need to be accounted for 4 days is not sufficient to conduct all witness depositions.
Click to expand...
The Prosecution has not made even a cursory effort to explain how they were unable to coordinate three witnesses, over the course of four day period, most of which falls on a weekend, after having three weeks to plan such depositions. Rather, it appears that the Prosecution has only just now started this task and realizes it has blundered weeks worth of time, to the detriment of the speedy resolution of this case.
 
As we stated before, the Defense Council has failed to state a valid reason why the People's request should be denied. We await the court's ruling.
 
Dreadton:
As we stated before, the Defense Council has failed to state a valid reason why the People's request should be denied. We await the court's ruling.
Click to expand...
The Defense Counsel has finished convening with the Defense Council, and notes simply in addition to our prior comments that justice delayed is justice denied. We await the Court's ruling on this matter, and thank the Court for its time.
 
This time is not just meant to give the Prosecution a leg up. This also allows the defense ample time to challenge the evidence and build up arguments against submissions. I would see that as an advantage to the defense as well. This in mind the objection is overruled and the deadline stands as is. Let it be known that extensions hereafter will be very hard to obtain given how much time is allowed.
 
Wonderess:
This time is not just meant to give the Prosecution a leg up. This also allows the defense ample time to challenge the evidence and build up arguments against submissions. I would see that as an advantage to the defense as well. This in mind the objection is overruled and the deadline stands as is. Let it be known that extensions hereafter will be very hard to obtain given how much time is allowed.
Click to expand...

In light of the Court's Stated reluctance to extend the time as necessary, we ask the court to immediately open the deposition threads for Sil Dorsett, Syrixia, and Gorundu. We also ask the court to issue an immedate rulling on our request in relation to Exhibits D and O.
 
The Defense will await the appointment of a new Moderating Justice before proceeding with any objections.

The Defense also notes that as Defense Counsel is also a Justice, Defense Counsel will be posting in their separate role as Justice to recuse with respect to this matter.
 
Following the recent election, Wonderess is no longer a Justice, leaving this trial with no moderator. In my discretion, I appoint myself as Moderating Justice.

Justice @Mall has informed me of his recusal from this case (EDIT: and has beaten me to posting here). The Court has therefore appointed @Eluvatar to be Temporary Hearing Officer for this case.

I will open threads for the depositions in the near future.
 
Last edited:
The Defense, reserving the right to object to any and all other evidence introduced by the Prosecution, objects to the inclusion of Exhibits V, W, and X. The prior Moderating Justice guaranteed to Defense Counsel that those statements would not be admissible at trial. The Defense assumes the broader Court is aware of this guarantee, but stands ready and willing to provide any additional background the Court finds necessary.
 
Mall:
The Defense, reserving the right to object to any and all other evidence introduced by the Prosecution, objects to the inclusion of Exhibits V, W, and X. The prior Moderating Justice guaranteed to Defense Counsel that those statements would not be admissible at trial. The Defense assumes the broader Court is aware of this guarantee, but stands ready and willing to provide any additional background the Court finds necessary.
Click to expand...

The Prosecution sees no such guarantee nor do we see how the Court or Defense Counsel could stop its inclusion.
 
Dreadton:
The Prosecution sees no such guarantee nor do we see how the Court or Defense Counsel could stop its inclusion.
Click to expand...
The Defense will await the Court's response rather than debate the point with the Prosecution.

The Defense will also object to the inclusion of any and all of the evidence submitted by the Prosecution to date. The Prosecution has failed to provide the Court with any indication of how the evidence is relevant. As Chapter 1, Section 3.3 of the Court Rules and Procedures clearly state:
Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

The Prosecution need not lay out its entire theory of the case against the Defendant, but some indication of what pieces of evidence go to what charge, and some baseline for understanding how they do so is fundamentally necessary in order to establish that any of the evidence is relevant.

Unless the Prosecution can demonstrate relevance, the evidence must be excluded. The Court Rules and Procedures do not allow a Moderating Justice to admit irrelevant evidence.
 
I have opened threads for the depositions of prosecution witnesses: Sil Dorsett, Syrixia, and Gorundu. I have notified each of the witnesses of their deposition, further steps to secure their attendance is for the prosecution. It seems to me that if there are to be any objections to their depositions, those objections can be taken in parallel to the conduct of them, so as not to unnecessarily extend the length of this trial.

For the benefit of the prosecution and the public, below is what I understand to be the relevant part of the discussion between the prior Moderating Justice and now counsel for the Defendant.
n8mSLfZ.png
I must admit, prior to defence counsel's objection, I was not aware of an assurance in relation to the statements. While I can well understand that defence counsel seeks to rely on the assurance, it does concern me that one appears to have been given because it seems to me that it is inconsistent with the Court's Rules on the exclusion of evidence, which requires a decision to be made after hearing both sides.

I am satisfied there is a power to exclude evidence, that is clear from Chapter 1, Section 3, rules 2 and 3. The mere fact that the statements do not require authentication does not mean they cannot be excluded, authentication is a precondition to admission and not a guarantee of it.

What I am minded to do is to hear now why the statements should or should not be excluded. I should imagine on the part of the defence that they are prefigured by what has already been submitted and what is contained in the discussion shown above, but should counsel wish to elaborate or present further reasons they may.

In relation to the broader objections to evidence, I will wait to hear from the prosecution.
 
With respect your Honor, the Defense submits that it need not provide an accounting for why the evidence in question should be excluded beyond the fact that the Court agreed to exclude it. A deal was struck - clear on its terms, and bargained without any deception or ill-will. Counsel for the Defense was appointed on terms the Court deemed fair and equitable in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the trial. To bring Counsel into the trial contingent upon a request, and then to pull that condition out from under the Defense is fundamentally unfair to the Defendant, as it undermines the Defendant's Counsel.

Should the Court decide that it is unwilling to honor its agreement with the Defense, then the Defense will require more time to outline the chain of events that led to the existence of the evidence in question in order to outline why it should not be admitted.
 
The Defense would also request that any depositions be commenced after the presiding THO has a chance to rule on the objections of Defense noted above with respect to relevance.
 
Your Honor,

We are working on our response to the defendants broad motion.

However, with the court's response and revelation of the ex parte communication between the defense counsel and @Wonderess, we have to ask if there have been any other assurances or communications between the court and the Defense on this case in which we were not a party to.

Furthermore, outside of the questionable at best, agreement between the court and the defense, the Prosecution would like to know what Defense counsels objection actually is to the inclusion of the Defendant's statements.
 
The Prosecution cannot go forward with this case. It is clear that we are being excluded by the court in matters we should be a part of. Deals are being made in the back rooms that lead us to question the impartiality of the court. We cannot be sure that there are not further deals between the court and the defense that hinder the fair application of justice. Coupled with the executives push for us to drop the case, it is not worth the region's time to pursue a case in which the defendant has already admitted his guilt but the court saw fit to ignore its own rules and abandon its duties.
 
I am withdrawing the case in light of the Prosecutor choosing to discontinue.
 
The Defense thanks the Court for its time, and appreciates the Delegate's handling of a delicate situation.
 
Dreadton:
The Prosecution cannot go forward with this case. It is clear that we are being excluded by the court in matters we should be a part of. Deals are being made in the back rooms that lead us to question the impartiality of the court. We cannot be sure that there are not further deals between the court and the defense that hinder the fair application of justice. Coupled with the executives push for us to drop the case, it is not worth the region's time to pursue a case in which the defendant has already admitted his guilt but the court saw fit to ignore its own rules and abandon its duties.
Click to expand...
Prydania:
I am withdrawing the case in light of the Prosecutor choosing to discontinue.
Click to expand...
Given that it is apparent the prosecution wishes to discontinue this case and that the complainant has withdrawn their complaint, I dismiss this case without prejudice. The Court discharges the order made here, which restrained alteration of certain posts by the Defendant and others.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top