|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
| Criminal Trial CTC1: TEP Vs. East Shlibobia; Trial Portions B-E: Trial | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:47:51 PM (4,109 Views) | |
| Reziel | May 17 2007, 03:11:18 AM Post #31 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
Thank you, Gnidrah. The Prosecution has no further questions. However, the Prosecution expressly request to be granted the chance to re-cross the eyewitness, should the Defense decide to cross-examine him. |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 17 2007, 07:42:10 PM Post #32 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, The Defence does indeed wish to cross. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 18 2007, 09:50:28 AM Post #33 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, As the first part of my cross-examination of Gnidrah, I would like to ask the following question: 1. Gnidrah, how often is the RSM run? |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Gnidrah | May 18 2007, 01:03:19 PM Post #34 |
|
Former Delegate
|
1. ...once a day. |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 18 2007, 04:12:39 PM Post #35 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, This is the next part of my cross-examination.
|
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Gnidrah | May 19 2007, 03:39:50 PM Post #36 |
|
Former Delegate
|
|
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 20 2007, 01:55:14 PM Post #37 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, I do have one further question for the witness. Gnidrah, under section 4(1) of the RERA, my client could have been sent a warning telegram at any time after he exceeded 60% of the endorsement cap. The endorsement cap is now, and was at the time my client was ejected and banned, 75 endorsements. 60% of 75 is 45. My client's endorsement count varied from a high of 52 endorsements to a low of 49 endorsements for the entire week prior to his being ejected and banned. So, for the entire week prior to my client's being ejected and banned, you could have sent him a warning telegram for exceeding 60% of the endorsement cap, thus informing him not only of the endorsement cap, but of the possible consequences. Why did you not do so? |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Reziel | May 20 2007, 02:50:17 PM Post #38 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
Objection, Your Honour. Gnidrah is being asked a question he has already answered to: namely, here, point 2. This should be intended to be a cross-examination, not a replication of the exam. Moreover, I'd like to stress the Defense is fully aware the Delegate had the chance to send such a TG without being forced to do it. With all due respect, this process is against East Shlibobia, not against Gnidrah: questioning discretional choices of the Delegate won't take us anywhere. |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 20 2007, 03:34:43 PM Post #39 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, Gnidrah was asked why he did not send a warning telegram to my client on or about the time of his ejection and banning. This last question of mine is definitely not a question he has already answered, and therefore not a replication of the original questioning. I'm referring to a different time frame. Section 4(1) of the RERA states:
I'm well aware that the choice to send the warning telegram is a discretionary one. Hence my bolding the word "may". However, when the Prosecution asked:
It would appear that the Prosecution, through his use of the phrase "and thus disciplined" also believed that this is something that he would have expected the Delegate to do. He also opened up this line of questioning for me to take on cross-examination through his original question. Furthermore, Gnidrah stated, in the link so thoughtfully provided by the Prosecution:
The implication of this reply is that had the Delegate believed that there was enough time, he would, in fact, have sent the telegram. Once again, the Prosecution opened up the opportunity for me to request a response in cross by having his witness answer the original question. Based on the information Gnidrah provided in his last answer, it appears that had there been time, he would have sent a telegram. My question stands, Your Honour. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | May 21 2007, 05:56:26 AM Post #40 |
|
Number One Drone
|
I'll allow the question out of frank curiosity. But tread lightly, Kang. I'll not have you accusing the Delegate of misconduct in my court without due evidence. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 21 2007, 05:58:35 AM Post #41 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Thank you, Your Honour. I have no intention of doing so. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | May 21 2007, 10:51:40 AM Post #42 |
|
Number One Drone
|
So, then, Gnidrah, if you'll please answer the defense counselor's question, which was:
|
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Gnidrah | May 26 2007, 11:22:54 PM Post #43 |
|
Former Delegate
|
I did not feel it necessary, at the time, because the number of endorsements the defendant had and sought prior to the day of his ejection were not a threat to regional security, and because the endorsement cap is posted publicly in several areas, including the region's world factbook entry. It was only on the day of his ejection that he became an alleged threat to regional security, due to the overwhelming amount of endorsements sought by the defendant; that is, a number greater than my own endorsement count, at the time. At that point, there was presumably no time to send a telegram and await a response. |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 27 2007, 12:22:11 PM Post #44 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Thank you, Gnidrah. Your Honour, I have only one more set of questions for this witness. Gnidrah, during the week prior, the highest percentage of endorsements held by my client as compared to the number of nations my client endorsed was 57%. All of the rest of the percentages are lower. Even if we round that up to 70%, and assume that 70% of the 149 nations my client endorsed were all to endorse him the next day, that would have given him approximately 160 endorsements (159.3 endorsements to be exact). In your experience sending out telegrams, which you are able to do as Delegate, requesting and NOT REQUIRING that nations endorse you, have you ever had a 70% return in one day? If no, what in your experience, made you think that my client would be so fortunate? |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Gnidrah | May 28 2007, 04:12:17 PM Post #45 |
|
Former Delegate
|
I'm not certain if, in my experience, I've had a 70% return in one day. It is possible, I suppose, just as it is possible that your client could have achieved a 100% return in one day. It's not about luck or mathematics; it's about what could have happened. And I was not willing to wait and see what "could have" happened, as I believe that would have been irresponsible of me to do. |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 28 2007, 08:46:29 PM Post #46 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, With all due respect to the witness, he has not answered my questions. The first required a "yes" or "no" response. Instead, I've received an answer tantamount to saying, "To the best of my recollection, I have no recollection." The second question is not about what could have happened. The witness has attempted to change the question and turn it on my client. It is ridiculous to charge my client or anyone else with the the charge of "what might have been". We're not dealing with the movie "Minority Report" here. May I respectfully request that the witness be directed to give direct answers to my questions, without speculating as to "what ifs"? |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Reziel | May 29 2007, 05:04:50 AM Post #47 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
This time I have to object, Your Honour. First of all, I want to respectfully remember that, despite the Defense’s attempts, this is not a lawsuit against Gnidrah, nor a lawsuit against the Delegacy nor a lawsuit against the Arresting Officer who has ejected and banned East Shlibobia. That said, Gnidrah’s answers appear to be in line with the questions asked. First of all, despite the Defense’s critics, an eyewitness has full right to answer “I do not remember”. Secondly, Gnidrah’s answer has not been an “I do not remember” question: on the contrary, it has been an extremely realistic answer. A plain ‘yes’ or ‘no’, as the Defense seems to have hoped, would have needed a day-by-day check on both the amount of requests sent and of the endorsers’ names. Something which goes far beyond human possibilities. As for the second complaint, I strongly object to it, and I request the comment to be erased from the records. First of all, there is no need to turn anything against the Defendant, as this whole process is against him. Secondly, the Defense has asked Gnidrah an extremely generic question: considering we’re not here to discuss about the reasons for anyone to be more or less fortunate (which would be pretty hard to define), Gnidrah has explained the reasons which have convinced him to go on with the immediate banning. And, with all due respect to the Defense’s fondness of cinema, despite what the Defense says, the whole RERA, in all its three versions, handles “what might be” situations, as it’s exactly its purpose. |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 29 2007, 05:44:52 AM Post #48 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, At no point in time have I attempted to turn this into a lawsuit against Gnidrah, the Delegate or the arresting officer, despite the Prosecutor's statements to the contrary. What I have tried to show is that speculation is NOT proof. Had the witness simply answered, "I do not remember", I would have accepted that answer. My second clearly specified that in the event his answer was "NO", the second question was to be answered. If the witness did not remember, the second question should not have been answered at all. The second question was also phrased, "what in your experience". Nothing in the witness' answer is based on his experience. His answer is based on speculation only. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that mathematical probability DOES come into play here despite the witness' statement to the contrary. And, with all due respect to the Prosecutor, with each revision of the RERA, we have tried to eliminate the "what might be" situations. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Reziel | May 29 2007, 05:55:44 AM Post #49 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
(*sighs*) I apologize IN ADVANCE to all the mathematicians of TEP... but mathematical probability IS speculation, at least to a point. Your Honour, the Defense is saying: "the chances for it to happen were extremely low, and the event was almost impossible". The delegate is answering "despite improbable, it WAS a chance. I didn't want to take the risk". Personally, i do understand the Defence's point... but that's it: a point. Just like the Delegate's. Who has acted accordingly to it... something he was FULLY entitled to do, considering the chances given him by RERA.
on this, i respectfully disagree. The newest version of RERA, the one en force at present time, namely talks about 'attempt'... which is exactly the willingness to INCLUDE "what might be" situations. |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 29 2007, 06:50:12 AM Post #50 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, it would appear that it is now my turn to sigh. The Prosecution and I will have to agree to disagree. I have nothing further to say on the matter. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | May 29 2007, 01:05:04 PM Post #51 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Frankly, at this point, I believe the matter to be moot. You've made your point, Kang, though you'll obviously need to sum it up and tie it to your main argument in your closing statement. Might we move on, then? Do you have any further questions for the witness, defense counselor? |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | May 29 2007, 01:09:27 PM Post #52 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
No, Your Honour. I have no further questions for this witness. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | May 29 2007, 01:54:16 PM Post #53 |
|
Number One Drone
|
So be it. Does the prosecution wish to re-examine the witness? |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Reziel | May 30 2007, 02:07:54 AM Post #54 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
No, Your Honour. |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Jun 9 2007, 12:21:57 AM Post #55 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Sorry, missed this post as well, damnit. Excellent. In that case, the witness may step down with the thanks of the court. The prosecution may feel free to call its next witness. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Reziel | Jun 9 2007, 11:45:00 AM Post #56 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
Thank you, Your Honour. The Court intends to call the defendant. OOC: WHO is the one charged to notify ES his own summoning in court? |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Jun 9 2007, 01:27:45 PM Post #57 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Before anyone contacts anyone, does the defense make any objection? |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Jun 11 2007, 12:46:27 AM Post #58 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Taking that as a no, at this time, I'd ask the defense to contact the defendant and ask him to appear here at trial to testify. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | Jun 11 2007, 04:32:28 AM Post #59 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, Knowing that I had no right to object to my client being questioned by the Prosecution, I did not do so. And, although he is being called as a witness for the state, and that normally it should be Prosecution's responsibility to contact their own witnesses, I will be more than happy to do so. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| Kangarawa | Jun 13 2007, 05:58:02 AM Post #60 |
|
Maker of Coffee
|
Your Honour, I notified East Shlibobia by TG that he was being asked to appear as a witness for the Prosecution yesterday at approximately 4 p.m. EST. I have asked him to respond in this thread. |
![]() ![]() If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Judiciary Exhibit · Next Topic » |







3:25 AM Jul 11