[Private] KEKISTON, GrandEngland indictment

Attempted Socialism

Attempted Socialism

Deputy Minister
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Attempted_Socialism
Discord
Kim Philby#9330
St George presented an indictment.
forum.thenorthpacific.org

Court Filings

This indictment is under consideration. Pursuant to Court Rule 3.1; the Court orders the preservation of the Evidence presented in this filing. No party may modify or destroy the evidence and it must remain in its current form.
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org

I'm not sure what to think... It feels like shooting sparrows with cannons, but the evidence presented is prima facie credible enough to support the charge.
 
I see a conspiracy to treason charge but do we have to accept the treason charge? I'm not seeing evidence of or claims as to actions taken to further this plot.
 
We don't have to accept the treason charge, we can reject it for substantive reasons (which a lack of a prima facie case would be). But I would prefer to leave it up to a prosecutor to drop the charge if the prosecution can't show actions towards the plot.
 
I could see the plausible argument that calling for others to support their coup constitutes action, but generally I am in agreement with AS that it’s reasonable enough that we can leave it to a prosecutor to determine whether they actually have the evidence to make that case.
 
No acknowledgement of the indictment from the indicted nations, so no defense to work with so far. I will send them a last TG but otherwise their plea will be noted as "not guilty", and the Court has to assign their defense counsel. If you have suggestions I would love to hear it. Myself I lean towards asking Dreadton.
 
I forgot to post the schedule in here, my apologies. It's a bit tight without much room for delays in the end, but prosecutor especially couldn't get started before US labor day.
Current schedule of the trial:
Pleas - Already covered unless the defendants show up.
Evidence Submission (Motions and text evidence) - September 5-9
Evidence Submission (Reviewing motions, submissions, and any depositions) - September 10-15
Arguments - September 16-21
Deliberation - September 22-28
 
I hope we don't need a full week for deliberation, but I guess it's neat allow it in case we do need it.

We'll schedule time for sentencing should we need to, afterward?
 
Agreed on the full week, it's a bit of elasticity, if by worst case we need it. Either that or if we can deliberate quickly, we can use the time for sentencing if that's where we land during deliberations.
 
@Lord Dominator @Eluvatar
As you can see, the defense and prosecution have each submitted their motions concerning calling St George as a witness. I was informed that the defense would object, and had given them some leeway in the timing, but the objection doesn't look to be worth the wait; neither avenue of the objection is convincing. Even if both had been convincing I still don't see them as clear reasons to deny the prosecution a witness. If the witness is tainted, the defense can make that argument and suggest we distrust the witness' testimony. If the witness only speaks to things that are part of the public record, the prosecution has simply made poor use of their witness.
Am I missing something here that explains why the defense is so concerned about this particular witness?

My strong inclination is to rule in favour of the prosecution and let them call their witness. If you disagree please do let me know.
 
I am inclined to agree in general - the credibility of a witness may questioned to the point it is reasonably argued that their testimony is useless, but one must reasonably hear the testimony first in order to determine if the witness is given useful testimony. Similarly, that it may be entirely redundant has yet to be determined indeed.
 
Allow Dreadton to object to specific questions. I don't think they've made a good case for St George being irrelevant and whether he's trustworthy or not is for the fact finder to judge. He can certainly argue that he's untrustworthy in his arguments.
 
I have moved the thread into the private chambers as we are now a full Court. The case before us is seriously over time, though. Despite several proddings from me to the defense and prosecutor at various times we are still only at the first question in the prosecution's deposition. My sense is that it will not go faster with more prodding. At this point I can see two options: Either accept this very long delay and allow the trial to continue at a snail's pace, or set a deadline for when we invoke section 3.4(23):
23. If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, request another prosecutor be selected or withdraw the complaint.
Click to expand...
I hope you have some insight that can resolve the schedule, but otherwise I would like to hear opinions on the two options.
 
Attempted Socialism:
I have moved the thread into the private chambers as we are now a full Court. The case before us is seriously over time, though. Despite several proddings from me to the defense and prosecutor at various times we are still only at the first question in the prosecution's deposition. My sense is that it will not go faster with more prodding. At this point I can see two options: Either accept this very long delay and allow the trial to continue at a snail's pace, or set a deadline for when we invoke section 3.4(23):

I hope you have some insight that can resolve the schedule, but otherwise I would like to hear opinions on the two options.
Click to expand...
I am very much in favour of the latter option. Justice delayed is justice denied, and to allow this to continue at such a meandering pace would make a mockery of the principle of swift, fair, justice. The deposition stage was meant to end 2 weeks ago, and deliberation today; to simply set a deadline 2 weeks from now would, to me, set a back precedent that delays of this nature are in some way acceptable. Therefore, to give the prosecution a chance to get their ducks in a row, whilst making clear that this sort of conduct is simply unacceptable, I would set a deadline for the prosecution's side of the deposition to be finished and answered by sometime on Saturday.
 
Last edited:
Wymondham:
I am very much in favour of the latter option. Justice delayed is justice denied, and to allow this to continue at such a meandering pace would make a mockery of the principle of swift, fair, justice. The deposition stage was meant to end 2 weeks ago, and deliberation today; to simply set a deadline 2 weeks from now would, to me, set a back precedent that delays of this nature are in some way acceptable. Therefore, to give the prosecution a chance to get their ducks in a row, whilst making clear that this sort of conduct is simply unacceptable, I would set a deadline for the prosecution's side of the deposition to be finished and answered by sometime on Saturday.
Click to expand...
Just to be sure we're on the same page, you suggest the Saturday deadline solely for the prosecution's deposition? So we give the witness over to the defense on Sunday?
Tlomz has also told me privately the RL reasons for their slow walk the last two weeks, which I find pretty legitimate. That's not to say we were on track two weeks ago, but the even longer delay is due to -- to use the legal term of art -- an act of God.
 
Attempted Socialism:
Just to be sure we're on the same page, you suggest the Saturday deadline solely for the prosecution's deposition? So we give the witness over to the defense on Sunday?
Tlomz has also told me privately the RL reasons for their slow walk the last two weeks, which I find pretty legitimate. That's not to say we were on track two weeks ago, but the even longer delay is due to -- to use the legal term of art -- an act of God.
Click to expand...
That's fair, I suppose my question then becomes, how far behind were we two weeks ago? And how can we claw at least that small delay back?
 
Wymondham:
That's fair, I suppose my question then becomes, how far behind were we two weeks ago? And how can we claw at least that small delay back?
Click to expand...
We were around a week behind schedule in the sense that we should be wrapping up deposition, but had barely begun it. I have prodded Tlomz, who has assured me that they will move faster with the deposition, which I believe Tlomz has shown, and as you can see Dreadton has made the defense's objections speedily. Additionally, Tlomz is/will be putting out feelers to other Bar members to join the prosecution in case RL intervenes again. I think the delay due to acts of God has to be accepted, but the other delay can be minimised.
 
Sigh. Okay. I don't see any relevance to how many times St George has been convicted, and I am tempted to strike the first two questions Dreadton posed from the record (since they have both been answered, I can't instruct the witness to disregard). St George's prior convictions are only relevant if they show a distinct propensity for dishonesty, in particular lying under oath. It has to be linked to the validity of their testimony for it to be relevant to them as a witness. I welcome your input on this, but my inclination is to ask Dreadton to show the relevance of the question to the witness' reliability and thus the testimony given.
 
Attempted Socialism:
Sigh. Okay. I don't see any relevance to how many times St George has been convicted, and I am tempted to strike the first two questions Dreadton posed from the record (since they have both been answered, I can't instruct the witness to disregard). St George's prior convictions are only relevant if they show a distinct propensity for dishonesty, in particular lying under oath. It has to be linked to the validity of their testimony for it to be relevant to them as a witness. I welcome your input on this, but my inclination is to ask Dreadton to show the relevance of the question to the witness' reliability and thus the testimony given.
Click to expand...
Aye, if dreadton is going to query St George's prior convictions it needs to be for some sort of purpose around St George's existing testimony or maybe to push some sort of argument about the indictment as a whole. Right now neither is occuring and so in my opinion Dreadton needs to make some sort of point with the testimony or it needs to be stricken.
 
The deposition isn't the venue for the counsel to make a point, it's a venue to obtain testimony, surely.

Further, I think in cross-examination questioning the credibility of the witness is pretty appropriate.

What am I missing?
 
Eluvatar:
The deposition isn't the venue for the counsel to make a point, it's a venue to obtain testimony, surely.

Further, I think in cross-examination questioning the credibility of the witness is pretty appropriate.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
I don't see it as questioning the credibility of the witness. "Have you been convicted" on its own is far closer to character assassination than that, at least in my eyes. If Dreadton had followed up those questions with something like "were any of the crimes for breaking your oath" (general trustworthiness) or "were any of the crimes for perjury" (specific trustworthiness in trials and testimony) they would be addressing the tendency for the witness to be worthy or unworthy of trust. However, I do find Dreadton's reply to provide at least a tenuous relation between the questions and the testimony given. I don't get where they're going with it exactly, but it's important that the defense counsel isn't just lobbing a personal attack on the witness. They made that justification, and I will allow the deposition to go on without striking anything.
 
This... feels like a genuine dick move. I missed the transcript -- that's on me. But the corrective is to remind me to post the transcript, not go off on this crusade. I also don't see how the RMB posts are excluded under the rules of evidence. But where this becomes a dick move is that Dreadton and I (Alongside Tlomz and Robespierre) were in communication on Discord, as you can see in this copy of the conversation:
[16:00]Dreadton: @Kim Philby both sides have no objectios to moving into the next phase
[16:03]Dreadton: i want to have this in the courts hands before end of the month so i can SG for z day
[16:04]Kim Philby: Yeah, I'm sorry I have been less responsive. Starting work alongside my health issues means that my time and energy are under more pressure than usual. But I don't believe I need to restate that we are in arguments phase; unless it was unclear with my previous post and clarification. I'm happy to do it if it was unclear, though.
And I saw that Tlomz will post arguments this week. We are pretty far behind deadline, so I can only appeal to you to get it posted as soon as possible. There's a Judicial election coming up which puts something of a hard deadline on the current Court's ability to oversee the trial.
[16:05]Kim Philby: So if at all possible I would want the Court to be able to begin deliberation before the 23rd.
[16:06]Dreadton: i would ask for a restatment that we are in the argument phase
[16:06]Dreadton: i dont want someone to come back later and say hehe you screwed up here see you in court
[16:07]Kim Philby: Sure thing. Will post in 2.
[16:59]Dreadton: we move to dismiss https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197453/#post-10614021
Click to expand...

So... I'm quite tempted to just post the transcript and dismiss the motion without further comment, but Dreadton is right (technically) that I made the mistake of not having the transcript done by the end of evidence submission. Any input is most welcome.

Dreadton:
We move to dismiss the case with prejudice due to lack of evidence, in accordance with "On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials."

Once the court move into the arguement phase and closed evidence submissions, no further evidence can be submited to the court. With the courts failure to state what evidence is properly before the court, as required by "On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trials" and the courts failure to submit an offical transcript of St Georges deposition, they are inadmissable as evidence and cannot be used as a bases of any arguement and deliberation.

"On the Authentication of Images in Criminal Trails" established that the court must state what evidence is properly before it in order for the court to make determinations and deliberations. It has been the practice of the court since that ruling to affirmatively post in the Case thread, what evidence is accepted and on what grounds. We refer the court to the following examples, "TNP v. Ihese" "TNP v St George (2020)" "TNP v Nubt" and "TNP v St George (2023)" In Ihese and St George (2020) the court clearly ruled and stated what evidence was accepted and under what rule in the Criminal Procedure it was accepted under. In Nubt and St George (2023) under the plea agreements, it was clearly stated that the evidence was accepted and valid under the cited ruling. The court in this case did not make that determination. The courts failure to accept the evidence as proper under the rules triggers the ruling cited, thus the alledge evidence presented as part of the indictment is not proper and before the court and cannot be used in arguements and deliberations.

Further more, the court failed to include an offical transcript of the deposition of St George in the Case thread. This is required under Section 3.7 of the Court Procedures. It states that the Moderating Justice WILL publish an official record version of the deposition. This includes striking any statements removed by the court due to a motion. We refer the court to the submission in "TNP v St George (2020)" The courts failure to do so here also triggers the above cited ruling. The deposition cannot be used as evidence, dilberations, and determinations.

Since the alledged evidence and deposition was not properly before the court, there is no evidence that the court can use to make a determination on the alledge guilt of the defendants. The court must dismiss the case for lack of evidence, and as this trial as already started and has completed several stages, the defendants cannot be recharged on this mattter in accordance with B.O.R Section 6.
Click to expand...
 
Attempted Socialism:
This... feels like a genuine dick move. I missed the transcript -- that's on me. But the corrective is to remind me to post the transcript, not go off on this crusade. I also don't see how the RMB posts are excluded under the rules of evidence. But where this becomes a dick move is that Dreadton and I (Alongside Tlomz and Robespierre) were in communication on Discord, as you can see in this copy of the conversation:


So... I'm quite tempted to just post the transcript and dismiss the motion without further comment, but Dreadton is right (technically) that I made the mistake of not having the transcript done by the end of evidence submission. Any input is most welcome.
Click to expand...
Very much in agreement with you on this AS. This sort of overly litigious nonsense and 'gotcha!' approach is something which I have very little truck for.
 
Just post the transcript in the trial, redacted as needed, and tell them you deny the motions.

As a note
Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
Click to expand...
Motions belong in Argumentation no more than Evidence does.
 
Attempted Socialism:
This... feels like a genuine dick move. I missed the transcript -- that's on me. But the corrective is to remind me to post the transcript, not go off on this crusade. I also don't see how the RMB posts are excluded under the rules of evidence. But where this becomes a dick move is that Dreadton and I (Alongside Tlomz and Robespierre) were in communication on Discord, as you can see in this copy of the conversation:


So... I'm quite tempted to just post the transcript and dismiss the motion without further comment, but Dreadton is right (technically) that I made the mistake of not having the transcript done by the end of evidence submission. Any input is most welcome.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, did the conversation with Dreadton happen via a discord Group Chat or via a channel in the TNP discord that is viewable only to the Moderating Justice and Prosecutors and Defence?
 
Discord Group Chat with me, prosecutor, and defense. Group forum PMs is also an option if you prefer. As long as you don't have private communication with either party, you're good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top