[Deposition] TNP v. KEKISTON, GrandEngland; Witness: St George

Attempted Socialism

Attempted Socialism

Deputy Minister
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Attempted_Socialism
Discord
Kim Philby#9330
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.
 
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
 
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)?
 
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...
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
@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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Dreadton:
@St George

1. How many crimes have you been charged with in TNP?
2. How many crimes have you been convicted of?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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:
Are these previous trials and convictions related to their testimony?
Click to expand...
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.
Dreadton:
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...
 
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?
 
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...
I'm afraid I don't fully understand the question, are you requesting all interactions I had with the defendants?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
I'll have an answer to the question tomorrow, given the late hour. It may take time for a comprehensive answer but I'll have something definitely.
 
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...
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.
Howdy Rejects!

I’m Mad Jack, the new Officer of Gameside Affairs and I’m going to keep this short, because no one reads long telegrams anyway. I was recently elected on this platform (https://rejectedrealms.com/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=10033274). I’m going to start implementing elements of this platform from today.

What does this mean for the average Reject? For most of you, nothing. For most users of the RMB, nothing will change with regards to how you’re treated. For a significant number of you, however, a lot will change.

Starting from now, I will be enforcing several new standards on the RMB. They include:
  • Contentious political topics may be suppressed and directed to the NS forum. That is where they can be discussed.
  • Anything that does not conform to a G standard rating under the MPA film rating system or U under the BBFC rating system is eligible to be suppressed. Doesn’t mean it will be, but it can be. If it is, I’ll explain why if asked, but the Terms & Conditions of Use for NationStates (page=legal) implicitly say that gameside postings must be suitable for all ages.
Further standards will be developed as time goes on. For too long the RMB has been ceded to those who only post in order to spread hatred. That will stop. There will be no more retreat.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this telegram or reach out on the RMB or TRR’s discord.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top