The North Pacific v. KEKISTON, GrandEngland

Attempted Socialism

Attempted Socialism

Deputy Minister
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Attempted_Socialism
Discord
Kim Philby#9330
In the matter of The North Pacific v. KEKISTON, GrandEngland, the indictment is accepted by the Court. The Court is now in session.

@Attempted Socialism will serve as Moderating Justice, @Simone will serve as Standby Hearing Officer. @Lord Dominator serves as Temporary Hearing Officer in place of Pallaith.

Acting Delegate @Chipoli has appointed TlomzKrano as prosecutor.

The accused have the right to appoint their own counsel. However, as they have not yet chosen to do so, the Court has appointed Dreadton and Robespierre to serve as counsel.

Name of Complainant: St George

Name(s) of Accused: The nations of KEKISTON, GrandEngland and other conspirators.

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s): 12/08/2023

Crime: Treason and Conspiracy

Specifics of Crime(s): Planning and conspiring to commit treason against The Rejected Realms, which is punishable under TNP's legal code as quoted below:
Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. No player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Balder, Equilism, Europe, Europeia, Greater Dienstad, International Democratic Union, Lazarus, Stargate, Taijitu, The East Pacific, The Pacific, the Rejected Realms and the West Pacific.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

...

Section 1.12: Conspiracy
26. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
Click to expand...

Summary of Events: On 12/08/2023, the accused engaged publicly in planning an attempted coup of the Rejected Realms due to a change in RMB posting rules. On TNP's regional message board, the accused, who reside in TNP, also detailed what they would were their treason successful and they got control of The Rejected Realms. One of the accused, GrandEngland, also publicly called for members of TNP to support their planned coup, thereby possibly exposing those who did express support to the potential of criminal charges. Upon being informed that they were in fact potentially violating TNP law, both the accused responded with blatant disregard for the rule of law in TNP.

Evidence:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031230
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031409
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031323
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031410
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031627
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031758
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031894

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
 
Last edited:
abcd:
Uh, may I be a juror?
Click to expand...
We don't have jurors, we have Justices. If you apply for Citizenship you can run for Justice in the next Judicial election. Until then, as you are not involved in this case, I will request that you do not disturb the order of the Court.
 
The defendants have not reacted to the Court's summons. Their plea will be noted as not guilty.
As neither defendant has chosen a defense counsel it falls to the Court to appoint their defense. The Court asked @Dreadton who will serve as counsel for both defendants.
 
I accept the appointment. I will inform the Defendants of the courts appointment.
 
Your Honor,

I submit the following RMB posts in chronological order which exist both in their original form and location, thus requiring no authentication. The posts have been transcribed for your convenience with originals linked.

Exhibit 1:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031230
Kekiston:
Wonseon:
Except for TNP. This is perfection.
Click to expand...
Yknow what let's see if we can get a bunch of raiders to raid TRR
Click to expand...

Exhibit 2:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031323
GrandEngland:
Kekiston:
“Yknow what let's see if we can get a bunch of raiders to raid TRR”
Click to expand...
yea maybe we could raid and overthrow Mad Jack. Best idea ever.
Click to expand...

Exhibit 3:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031383
*Transcription only contains relevant quote, other portion of message is not relevant to this trial, however can be found in the above link if desired*
Chao Phraya River:
GrandEngland:
yea maybe we could raid and overthrow Mad Jack. Best idea ever.
Click to expand...
sounds like a good idea!
Click to expand...

Exhibit 4:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031409
Kekiston:
Chao Phraya River:
The state of some of the other regions is getting to be honestly pathetic, each region is slowly becoming literal dictatorships.
Click to expand...
I just wanna see one of the ROs get taken care of by stripping them of power and just suppress them the exact same way they did us we was perfectly fine yesterday then MJ came and went full dictator on RMB allowing ppl like that power creates future dictatorships
Click to expand...

Exhibit 5:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031410
GrandEngland: How many people (including me) that I know are approving of raiding TRR: 3 (maybe 4) Could we maybe make this number higher?
Click to expand...

Exhibit 6:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031445
*Transcription only contains relevant quote, other portion of message is not relevant to this trial, however can be found in the above link if desired*
Chao Phraya River:
GrandEngland:
How many people (including me) that I know are approving of raiding TRR: 3 (maybe 4)
Click to expand...
if im not on that list, add me. I approve of raiding any authoritarian region.
Click to expand...

Exhibit 7:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031627
GrandEngland: Like this post if you support a raid of TRR in its current state.
Click to expand...

Exhibit 8:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031758
GrandEngland:
Mad Jack is Rejected:
Fun fact, posts like this are actually illegal under TNP law.
"2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

26. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code."

Source: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6924120/
Click to expand...
Screw off and go back to your stupid home. Also, we can plan however the hell we want and whatever the hell we want.
Click to expand...

Exhibit 9:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=53031894
Kekiston:
Mad Jack is Rejected:
Fun fact, posts like this are actually illegal under TNP law.
"2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

26. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code."

Source: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6924120/
Click to expand...
Cringe + didn't ask
Click to expand...

The prosecution reserves the right to introduce additional pieces of evidence and motions during this submission period. This submission does signal that the prosecution is done submitting evidence.
 
Your Honor,

I call @St George as a witness, to provide authentication for existing evidence and to provide additional information relevant to the case.
 
TlomzKrano:
The prosecution reserves the right to introduce additional pieces of evidence and motions during this submission period. This submission does signal that the prosecution is done submitting evidence.
Click to expand...
For the record, the second sentence was a late night typo. As per established procedure, I am able to amend my formal submission anytime before the end of the submission period, thus the prosecution clarifies to say "This submission does *not* signal that the prosecution is done submitting evidence."
 
Your Honor,

The defense brings forth two motions to recuse the witness.

Our first motion is to dismiss the witness as not relevant to the matter at hand, nor is it necessary to establish the authenticity of the Regional Message Board post. (C.R. 3.5) Calling this witness serves only to unnecessarily delay the speedy resolution of this trial and to serve the witness's own personal gains. The witness can present nothing of value nor can the prosecution show, even in a light most favorable to them, that the witness has evidence not disclosed in the prosecution evidence submission.

Our second motion to recuse is based on the legal history and reliability of the witness. The witness @St George, has a history of violating his legally sworn oaths and has recently been convicted of Gross Misconduct for breaking his oath as an Executive Officer. That case, again, revolved around the Rejected Realms. To refresh the court on the matter, the witness leaked information he was privy to in his official capacity within the North Pacific to the general public. This was done to protect his position and standing in the Rejected Realms. This is not the first or only time the defendant has violated an oath. In 2019 the witness was charged with Conspiracy to commit treason, which was later plead down to Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct for contacting the NPO in order to create a fiction about his then political rival in a constested Delegates race, going as far as indicating that he would offer a treaty to the region in exchange for their help. Any testimony he gives would be tainted, and the court cannot rely on it.

The witness brings no relevant testimony to the trial. If the court were to permit him to give testimony in this trial, the court cannot rely on the testimony due to the witness's repeated violations of his legally sworn oath and violation of our laws in order to protect his standing in the Rejected Realms. Should the court review the motion in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the prosecution cannot establish that the testimony the witness may provide is relevant and necessary to the case. All these facts establish the witness is unreliable for evidentiary purposes and the testimony provided would not further the cause of justice and serves no purpose but the bias the court.

We ask the court to deny the witness on these grounds.
 
Your Honor,

If I may, the motion brought forth by the Defense is, in my most court-appropriate terminology, utterly absurd.

The complainant, @St George, is as relevant as one witness can possibly get given their presence and leadership positions, both current and former, in both The North Pacific (herein 'TNP') and The Rejected Realms (herein 'TRR'). As a witness, they will be able to provide context to the threats, the validity these threats possess as many entities wish to harm The Rejected Realms, and the importance of swiftly addressing these threats to an ally as defined in our treaty with TRR and our general obligation to protecting democracy throughout NationStates. The notion that the prosecution is only bringing this witness forward to deny the defendants a speedy trial is both insulting and ironic given the defendants have, despite multiple reminders, delayed the trial by a week to submit the motion above.

It should be noted by the court that St. George was never found guilty of Gross Misconduct in regards to The North Pacific v. St George, and the defense for St. George in that case, who is also the filer of the above motion, is well aware of this fact. Attempting to have the court hold the acceptance of plea deal against a previous defendant so as to prevent them from sharing relevant evidence as a witness is deteriorative to the integrity of our court and systemically unjust. More so, St. George has served in multiple positions of high public trust since their conviction in 2018, being elected Delegate in 2021 and Minister of Foreign Affairs under acting delegate Gorundu. The citizenry of TNP is clearly comfortable with their ability to be trusted in leadership of the entire region and outward facing positions impacting foreign policy. In each case of a sentence being handed down in regards to past convictions, they have served it amicably and without attempt of violation.

Bringing forth old cases to discredit St. George despite their continued effort to comply with any and all provisions of their sentencing, thus restoring standing with region, is insulting to the witness and a disrespectful waste of time for the court. I implore the court to deny the above motions and let the prosecution continue with the deposition.
 
Your Honor,

I am going to disregard majority of the prosecutions rebuttal, as our position is clear on the matter. However, one point I will contest is the Prosecutions position that the witness cant testify to the context and validity of the threats. The witness is not a mind reader, esp is not real. The witness cannot testify to the defendants state of mind nor to their intent. As to the witness's ability to testify to the validity of the alleged and unproven threats, to borrow from the prosecution, "in my most court-appropriate terminology, utterly absurd." Again, the witness is not a mind reader, and unless the prosecution can establish that the witness was some how involved in the planning and execution of the alleged offenses, the witness would be unable to testify to the validity of the alleged threats.
 
Your honor,

The defense is correct in stating that mind reading does not exist. Further, I would never ask a witness to attempt to read minds despite that certainly making my job easier if they ever could.

If I were to ask the witness to attempt to comment on the defendants specific state of mind, that would indeed be objectionable. However, as presented in my previous statement, I'm not asking them to do that.

As previously shown, one of the items inquired to the witness will be the validity of threats against TRR given the witness's relevant experience.

I do not intend to reveal the specific line of questioning the prosecution will use for the deposition at this time, and the defense should stop trying to fish for it using these motions.
 
I grant the prosecution's motion to call the witness.
I do so for two reasons that I will briefly outline. First, a witness potentially being untrustworthy is not enough to object to the witness being called. The defense is perfectly capable of questioning the witness or arguing that specific statements appear untrustworthy if the witness appears before the court to give a testimony. Even if the defense is right and St George is unreliable I would still have no reason to deny the prosecution calling them as a witness. However, I don't see a convincing argument for such a blanket designation. The defense has the right to cross-examine the witness and any answers they give, revealing whether the witness gives reliable testimony or not. The defense can object to specific questions, argue that specific answers are unreliable and should be disregarded, or even argue that some answers cast doubt on all of the witness' testimony in this trial, but in each instance that only comes after the witness has been called and begun their witness testimony.
Second, even if a witness can only reiterate things that are part of the public record that is not a reason to object to the witness being called. That may be a reason for the prosecution not to call that witness, and for the defense to later argue that the prosecution's star witness had nothing to say that we didn't know before. Again, even if the defense is right that I do not see it as a reason to disallow the prosecution's witness. If the questions address irrelevant issues, the defense can object; if the answers given are irrelevant, I will intervene. Likewise if the witness is asked to pontificate on the defendant's mental state or other matters the witness does not know.

The deposition itself is available here.
 
Dreadton:
To confirm, the evidence submission period is close and we are in the Argument phase of the trial?
Click to expand...
I asked both Prosecution and Defense whether you were ready to move to the arguments phase. Having not heard anything back, and not having seen any indication that Prosecution or Defense would call another witness, I want to move ahead. If I am wrong, please do say so now. Otherwise, yes, we are moving from evidence to arguments.
 
I have no objections to moving into the Argument phase and closing the evidence submission phase.
 
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.
 
Your honor,

The prosecution motions for a mistrial.

While certainly unintentional, the court failed to provide determinations on its acceptance of provided evidence by the prosecution. This evidence was provided within the proper timeframe and in accordance with traditional standards that would warrant a determination to occur. Additionally, the court failed to provide a transcription of the deposition for evidence purposes. Previous court acceptances of evidence can be found here: TNP v Ihese, TNP v StGeorge. Previous court provided transcriptions of depositions can be found here: TNP vs Ihese, TNP v StGeorge.

The above became an issue once the court closed the evidence submission period without performing either of the aforementioned tasks. Now that the evidence submission period is closed without the acceptance of any of the presented evidence, the court has improperly and irreparably harmed the Prosecution's ability to continue arguing this case.

Given the highly irregular and questionably legal nature of reopening the evidence submission period to correct this mistake, the prosecution believes the only proper route from here is to declare a mistrial without prejudice.

This is not a matter of existing evidence, but rather of the court following its own procedure and constitutional duty to ensure a fair and impartial trial. The existing procedure was not properly followed, resulting in a situation where a party has been irreversibly harmed, thus the trial must not continue. A dismissal would be a grave miscarriage of justice given the court has harmed the prosecution's case at no fault of the prosecution. To go on and punish the prosecution for a lack of evidence when the exclusion of evidence provided was purely a procedural error by the court would violate the legal foundation the court relies upon.
 
Below is the transcript of the testimony of St George:
Attempted Socialism:
The prosecution has called @St George as a witness.
I note, because of the fairly lengthy objection to calling St George as a witness, that I will aim to resolve any objections to specific questions faster.

St George, please swear the following oath as a witness:
"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Prosecutor, please ask your first question of the witness.
Click to expand...

St George:
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
St George, can you please provide a summary of your current and previous positions in both The North Pacific (TNP) and The Rejected Realms (TRR)?
Click to expand...

St George:
In the North Pacific I have been a Minister in various ministries as well as elected to the positions of Delegate, Speaker and Justice.

In the Rejected Realms I have been elected to an officer position in multiple instances. At this time, I am the current Officer of Gameside Affairs.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
Your Honor,

Its been a week since the deposition was opened and only 1 question has been asked, the prosecution took just as long to submit their required evidentiary discovery, which in turn led to the court admonsihing the defense because our motion took longer then was originally scheduled for the discovery period. We ask at this time for the court to ether close the deposition or admonish the prosecution for the unnecessary delay.
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
Apologies for my delay as some IRL obligations sprang up, occupying the majority of my time this past week.

St George, The next few questions will be asked in a battery so as to expedite the deposition. Feel free to answer in whatever order you prefer.

1. Can you provide some context to your elected position of Officer of Gameside Affairs in TRR, specifically to your function and what position (if any) it may be similar to in TNP? Feel free to expand on this however you feel is necessary to answer.

2. Given your relevant experience and current elected office in The Rejected Realms, how do threats against your regional sovereignty impact your local security, RMB environment, and general disposition as an elected official?

3. How do even seemingly casual threats against a region's sovereignty made on publicly facing message boards (RMB/Discord/IRC/etc) inspire and/or normalize further words or action against the target region, if they do at all?
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
no objections
Click to expand...

St George:
1. The Officer of Gameside Affairs is responsible for ensuring good order on the RMB and that it is a welcoming place for all members of the region - and those posting from foreign embassies. I stood explicitly on a platform of regaining the RMB after it had been ceded to transphobes and other problematic players.

2. They make things more uncomfortable, as some people can be convinced to go along with the plots, amateur as they are, and then we have to spend significant amounts of time talking this sort of thing out and suppressing their posts.

3. We take every threat seriously, due to our unique nature as the only region without a ban button, maintaining a wide array of formal and informal contacts to help protect our sovereignty and freedom. Words such as those spoken by the defendants have the potential to inspire more serious plots.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
Objection, Facts not in evidence.

The witness characterized the alledged statments of the defendants as a plot, the Witness has no first hand knowledge of what the defendants were thinking nor of their intent. We move to strike the witness's last sentence from the record.
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
The witness does not speak to the mind or intent of the defendants, but is speculating on the effects of 'words such as those spoken by' them. I acknowledge that the effect postulated isn't in evidence, but in the context of The Rejected Realm's reaction, the effect does not need to be provable for officers of The Rejected Realm to believe it is real. I will not strike the sentence, on the grounds that it speaks to the mindset of TRR officers rather than making claims of the defendant or a provable causal relationship not in evidence.
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
Thank you for detailed responses. Below you will find my next question:

1. Given your perspective as someone who has held positions of power in both TRR and TNP, could you characterize the importance of TRR allies providing support in combating threats made against TRR sovereignty? Especially should that threat be made in places that the ally, in this case being TNP, has authority/jurisdiction over?
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
Objection, relevance.

Political aspects of TNP regional activities or lack of, is not relevant to if the defendants committed a crime or not. Nor is it relevant how TRR reacts to persons allegedly committing crimes against TRR or directed to TRR, that is solely the preview of the Executive and it a matter for the court or a criminal trial
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
Objection is sustained. Prosecutor you may either explain why the question is relevant to ascertaining the defendant's guilt, rephrase your question, or move on to your next question.
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
The Prosecution withdraws the question and concludes questioning.
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
Defense counselors, your witness for cross-examination.
@Dreadton @Robespierre
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
We move to strike the witness's testimony from the record and dismiss the witness, nothing in the testimony provided, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, establishes any element or evidence to support any element of the alleged crime being prosecuted.
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
Your honor, the witness provided highly relevant information to the case - establishing the real damage the defendant caused with their actions.

If the defense wishes to strike this testimony then they should also forfeit the ability to make any arguments regarding the severity of the crime or the existence of damages the crime caused. The defense will not agree to this because that will likely be one of the main points they intend to argue, and its advantageous that this testimony be stricken.
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
The witness spoke to the underpinning assumption that the alleged crime cannot be dismissed as a mere prank. That can be relevant to ascertaining guilt. The prosecution relies in part on whether damage was done to The Rejected Realm. If The Rejected Realm is particularly vulnerable and thus must see a potential threat to them as credible even where other regions would not, that brings to mind the 'Eggshell Skull' doctrine. The witness spoke to that element, and I will not strike the testimony from the record for that reason.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
@St George

1. How many crimes have you been charged with in TNP?
2. How many crimes have you been convicted of?
3. What crimes can a person be charged with in TRR?
Click to expand...

St George:
1. I struggle to see the relevance, but I have been charged three times with crimes in TNP.
2. Again failing to see the relevance, I have never been convicted of a crime in TNP. In one case I was acquitted, in two others I took a plea deal.
3. The Rejected Realms has, due to its uniqueness as a region, no explicit crimes a person can be charged with. However, the Citizenship Council of The Rejected Realms removes the citizenship of any person deemed to be a security threat.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
We would point out to the court that a plea deal is still a conviction.

We ask the court to strike the witnesses comments on relevance, that is not an issue for him to determine. I will confer with my co-counsel to determine if there are anymore questions from our side.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
@St George

1. What where your interactions with the defendants, before and during the time period this alleged crime occurred?
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
I have to step in, with my apologies for not interrupting immediately, but I do not understand how these questions are relevant. Unless St George's previous indictments, trials, and convictions are somehow connected to their testimony in this trial, these questions are solely related to St George's personal character. St George is a witness, and not on trial. Are these previous trials and convictions related to their testimony?
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
Your honor, the court's objection is highly improper under the courts rules. The courts rules only permitted the Prosecution and Defense to enter objections, Court Rules Section 3 Subsection 3 and Subsection 7.4. The Defense allowed the error in procedure once with the Prosecution opening question as it materially did not harm our clients, but the Court breaking with its own rules in favor of the Prosecution is highly offensive. We preserve this matter for a Motion for Mistrial and if necessary an appeal of this case.

We further hold that our answer to the courts objection should not be construed as an admission that the court is correct, nor to exclude any rights for appeal for our clients.

The Prosecution opened this line of questions and it was further widened by the court in response to our previous motions. The Prosecution had the witness testify in his capacity as a Regional Officer, a position of trust, and further explain his roles in both regions. This goes to the credibility of the witness, something the court recognized in its response to the defense motion to strike the witness. The Court espoused that the witness was speaking to and behalf of the Rejected realms and how it see external potential threats. These questions both server to the credibility of the witness, his personal bias in the matter, and can further serve as a foundation to the defenses submission of mitigating circumstance should this case proceed to sentencing.
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
(Quote did not properly insert in the above message, quote is posted here for clarity on what I meant by 'quoted question')
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
When a witness is called in a trial, the Court has a duty to ensure that the witness is not abused in a way that would make future witnesses hesitant to offer their testimony. Witnesses must be confident that their personal character is not open for questioning unless that is relevant to their testimony. Whether a witness has been tried and found guilty for a crime is by default not relevant to their testimony in an unrelated trial.
Taken in isolation, the defense counsel's questions to St George about their criminal record could be seen as a personal attack on St George's personal character rather than their testimony or credibility as a witness. Had that been the case, a future witness could find themself too intimidated to take the stand, lest their personal, unrelated, history be dragged out in open court. Defense counsel is obviously permitted and often duty-bound to cross-examine the prosecution's witness on behalf of their client, insofar that it relates to the witness' participation in the trial. That would include the reliability and accuracy of their testimony, or possibly their propensity of truth-telling (For instance, a prior conviction for perjury). Thus, seeing what could have been irrelevant abuse of a witness, I chose to step in and ask Defense counsel to explain the relevance.


I wish to highlight, however, that I did not object to the questions, nor did I act in favour of the Prosecution. My authority to ask clarifying questions comes from Section 2, subsection 6. Thus I did not need to object, and given that it is the Moderating Justice who rules on objections, it would not have made sense for me to object.
The question I asked, specifically, was:

The answer I received, as quoted below, adequately establishes the relevance of rebutting potential uses of the testimony by the Prosecution, in particular when the witness speaks in their capacity as a Regional Officer. That is satisfactory as a reply to my question for clarification.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
I will restate my question for the witness

1. What where your interactions with the defendants, before and during the time period this alleged crime occurred?
Click to expand...

St George:
I'm afraid I don't fully understand the question, are you requesting all interactions I had with the defendants?
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
What were your interactions with the defendants on TNP and/or TRRs RMB Before and during the the alleged event and RMB post listed in your indictment submission?
Click to expand...

TlomzKrano:
Objection, vague

The defendants could have used various nations over their time playing NS. It would be impossible for the witness to know the identity of those who may have casually posted on either RMB if they were not using their current nation names as listed.

Additionally, the undefined scope of this question is massive. The defense should provide a specific date range they are interested in.
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
I don't think the identification of the defendants is vague; if the witness can tell that a puppet is controlled by one of the defendants, the witness must include it, or qualify it by stating that it is their belief. If the witness cannot tell, the witness will be limited to the two known nations.
I agree that the scope in time is too large; memories fade, after all. The Defense may choose to be more specific with regards to time periods, or accept that the witness answers to the best of their recollection.

Defense counsel also reminded me that they had motioned to strike the witness' comments on the relevance of previous questions. My apologies, it got lost in the paperwork. While the Defense is correct that it is not for the witness to determine, it seems to me an off-hand speculation, since the witness did answer both questions. Without any obvious prejudicial effect, I fail to see the need to strike that part of the testimony.
The Court agrees with the Defense, however, that a plea deal is still a conviction and acceptance of punishment, albeit one without an admission of guilt. The witness may maintain that they are innocent, wrongly convicted, or lacked the intent to commit a crime, but the conviction is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

St George:
My first interactions with the defendants begin when they reacted badly to changes I made to how The Rejected Realms regional message board is handled. The NationStates Terms & Conditions of Use make clear that content posted to the non-forum areas of the game must be G-Rated or equivalent. I sent a telegram (reproduced below in spoiler form with a link to an imgur screenshot) informing the region that I would, along with suppressing contentious political (real-world rather than ns) discussions, start enforcing those standards if necessary.
GrandEngland's RMB Post in response to that is pretty informative of how they took the change. KEKISTON compared it to 1984. Both left The Rejected Realms within a 48 hours of the changes being made.

My interactions with GrandEngland whilst they were in TRR took two forms, generally. I would either be explaining the policy or exposing them for sending abusive telegrams (though they've since left my inbox due to size restrictions). My interactions with KEKISTON seem to be much less, looking at the TRR RMB from the time - here I am telling them that not all political speech is appropriate for TRR's RMB and pointing out via question that a political discussion had yet to be suppressed since the new rules were enforced. My only interaction with either defendant in The North Pacific was this post. Their reply indicated the regard they hold for TNP law, I think.

I do not believe I have had any interactions with the defendants since filing the indictment against them.
Click to expand...

Dreadton:
I have no further questions
Click to expand...

Attempted Socialism:
Both Prosecution and Defense have concluded their questions for the witness. I will thus excuse the witness with thanks for their testimony.
Click to expand...
 
Both motions are denied. The proper time for submitting motions was, as per the Rules and Procedures, during the Evidence Submission phase. As the Argumentation Phase is only initiated when all outstanding motions and objections are resolved, the Defense finds itself in a catch-22: Either we are in the argumentation phase and they cannot submit the motion, or we still have an unresolved motion and thus we are still in the evidence submission phase.
Therefore, as I do not see how the Defense has been materially harmed, the issue is easily solved. The transcript has been posted and the evidence submitted by the Prosecution is accepted. Thus, with no outstanding motions to consider, we can be in the argumentation phase without any shenanigans.
 
The court has compounded its error with its ruling on the motions. We notify the court we are not ready to proceed as we will be appealing this ruling.
 
I am resigning as standby hearing officer for this case as I have been asked, and accepted, the post of Minister of World Assembly Affairs.
 
I will no longer be able to continue as Defense Council. The actions of the sitting justices in this matter have made it clear that they cannot separate their professional dislike for counsel from the fair and legal treatment of the Defendants. With the court refusing to follow the very laws they put in place, I doubt anyone could get a fair trial in the future. I wish all the best for those who must go through this Crucible. Court is no longer the place where you must be proven guilty. It is a place where your guilt is already in place, we are just here to establish how guilty you are. Efficiency above all else.
 
Your honor,

The prosecution is dropping the charges at this time, reserving the right to refile at a future time.

Thank you for your time in this matter.
 
The court has appointed me moderating justice and I note the prosecution's withdrawal of the charges. In accordance with Chapter 3, Articles 23 and 24 of the Legal Code, I am notifying @St George of this, meaning they have seven days to either request that another prosecutor be selected or withdraw the complaint.
 
Wymondham:
The court has appointed me moderating justice and I note the prosecution's withdrawal of the charges. In accordance with Chapter 3, Articles 23 and 24 of the Legal Code, I am notifying @St George of this, meaning they have seven days to either request that another prosecutor be selected or withdraw the complaint.
Click to expand...
What happens if I wait out the 7 days?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top