Criminal Trial CTC1: TEP Vs. East Shlibobia

Before the trial begins, several issues must be put aside. This thread is designed for that purpose.

  1. By the end of today, the Prosecution needs to have PMed any evidence they plan to present at trial to the defense. Should the prosecution attempt to admit into evidence anything not given to the Defense, the trial shall be halted (for as long as necesary) to allow the defense to examine this evidence. Defense Counsel, I’ll ask that you inform me as soon as you receive the before-mentioned PM. Additionally, I’d like you to forward that PM to me, that we have an official record of your receiving it (and of what is in the PM). As a note, the defense need not present any of their evidence to the prosecution.

  2. The exception to the last statement being if the defense is planning to make an affirmative defense. Since the only affirmative defense possible in TEP is an argument that the crime was committed in service of the state, I highly doubt this is an issue. But I’ll need you to officially state that it is not, Defense Counsel, before moving on to trial.

  3. ASAP, I’d like both the Prosecution and Defense to post, on this thread, their witness list (as in, the list of those witnesses they are planning to call). If either the defense or prosecution attempts to call someone not on the list during trial, the trial will be paused (for as long as necesary) to allow the other side time to prepare a cross-examination.

  4. If the defense wishes to make an objection to any evidence the state is intending to use, I’ll need you to post your intention to make such objection immediately, Defense Counsel, that a seperate thread may be created to hear arguments on the matter(s).

  5. If either the state or defense has any other matters they wish brought to my attention before the trial’s beginning, this is the place and the time.

I’d like to get the trial started by next Monday, at the latest, guys. So let’s keep this moving.

Thank you for point 1, Your Honour. This is quite obviously NOT the endo-swapping case, along with something else, that the charges led me to believe we were dealing with.

Your Honour and Madam Defense Counsel, I have sent the desired evidence to Kangarawa via PM. Furthermore I only have one witness to be called on in this case:

— Begin quote from ____

Gnidrah

— End quote

Well, if that’s the case, Kang, I cannot wait to see (during trial) what this is actually all about. By your statement, I’m assuming you got the state’s evidence via PM…I would ask that you immediately forward that PM to me for records keeping sake.

EM, thank you for your prompt response; your witness list is accepted on the assumption that the defense will have no problem with the regional delegate/arresting officer testifying at trial.

Alright. At this point, the defense has notified me of their receiving the prosecution’s evidence. We are ready to proceed to trial, save one point: Kangarawa, what witnesses do you intend to call?

Your Honour,

My apologies for not responding sooner, but as I suspect you are aware, I was unavoidably offline for the last seven days.

Based on the evidence which was forwarded to me by the Attorney General, I would like to file a request to re-open the doors. I agreed to close the doors in the first place because I was told we were dealing with an issue of regional security.

In my opinion, based on the evidence forwarded, we are not dealing with an issue of regional security.

Furthermore, based on the evidence presented, and the fact that I have been presented with ALL of the evidence as directed by you, Your Honour, I most certainly do object to the Delegate/Arresting Officer testifying. The evidence, as presented, needs no further clarification. It’s completely straightforward.

Shrug The court has plenty of time. If the Prosecution wishes for the arresting officer to back up the evidence with his statement…so be it. Besides, I’ll be expecting a full explanation of that evidence, and I feel that witness would be the best person to give it. Objection overruled.

As for the matter of a closed trial…would the Prosecution please present an argument as to why this trial needs be closed in the name of ‘regional security’? I’m afraid, like the defense counsel, I do not see the reasoning.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Erm, could I get a response from the state, please?

Your Honor, the evidence in question, is not for the public to view. The evidence is held under secrecy in the interest of regional security. Since the evidence is held under secrecy for upholding regional security, that information needs to be held in closed chambers. I cannot stress the point that, that information is highly important to keeping regional security. For that purpose, we need to protect the region in interest of our security by keeping this trial in closed chambers.

— Begin quote from ____

Your Honor, the evidence in question, is not for the public to view. The evidence is held under secrecy in the interest of regional security. Since the evidence is held under secrecy for upholding regional security, that information needs to be held in closed chambers. I cannot stress the point that, that information is highly important to keeping regional security. For that purpose, we need to protect the region in interest of our security by keeping this trial in closed chambers.

— End quote

Your Honour,

With all due respect, the Prosecution has not answered the question as to why this is an issue of regional security. He has simply stated, and restated that it is.

I have to agree with the defense on this one, Prosecutor. You’ll need to explain why keeping this trial a secret is an issue of regional security, not just tell me that it is.

Very well your Honor. The evidence presented are results from a regional scanning mechanism. A criminal member of the general public could view such evidence, see what results are yielded in such scans, or recognize the source of the scanning mechanism, and develop methods by which to circumvent the mechanism, to avoid detection. We cannot allow someone to breach our regional security by using our own scanning mechanism against us; therefore it is imperative to keep this trial in closed chambers.

— Begin quote from ____

Very well your Honor. The evidence presented are results from a regional scanning mechanism. A criminal member of the general public could view such evidence, see what results are yielded in such scans, or recognize the source of the scanning mechanism, and develop methods by which to circumvent the mechanism, to avoid detection. We cannot allow someone to breach our regional security by using our own scanning mechanism against us; therefore it is imperative to keep this trial in closed chambers.

— End quote

Your Honour,

The existence of the regional scanning mechanism is not a well-kept secret. There have been numerous discussions about it on AIM, and if I’m not mistaken, even a thread here on the forum about it at one point prior to Kang’s resignation from the UN in June 2006.

Unfortunately, I’m not enough of a computer expert to know whether or not a “criminal member of the general public could view such evidence, see what results are yielded in such scans, or recognize the source of the scanning mechanism, and develop methods by which to circumvent the mechanism, to avoid detection”.

I would like to request that the designer of the script be asked to provide expert testimony as to how likely it is that our own scanning mechanism could be used against us. I have to assume that the Delegate knows who the designer is. My own recollection is that it was used by 1 Infinite Loop, but I cannot remember whether or not he stated that he wrote the script himself.

Your Honor, the scanning mechanism has in the past been mentioned, but never discussed in detailed, much less viewed by anyone other than the Delegate. And as a note it’s not the same script used by 1 Infinite Loop. The designer of the currently used script is unknown to the Delegate.

— Begin quote from ____

Your Honor, the scanning mechanism has in the past been mentioned, but never discussed in detailed, much less viewed by anyone other than the Delegate. And as a note it’s not the same script used by 1 Infinite Loop. The designer of the currently used script is unknown to the Delegate.

— End quote

My apologies to the Prosecution. I made the assumption that it was the same script, and we all know the saying regarding those who assume … (*hits self on head *)

Your Honour,

Given the previous statement made by the Prosecution, we still have no way of knowing whether or not someone could look at the data presented, recognise the source of the scanning mechanism and develop a method of tricking the script.

I indicated in my last statement that I was not a computer expert. I’m not. I am, however, well-versed in programming in a variety of languages, hold a degree in Computer Science and taught programming for years.

As a result, programmer that I am, I am still having considerable difficulty with the issue of regional security.

Your Honor, the judicial branch needs to respect the wishes of the executive branch’s concern for regional security. If we keep on arguing the issue, then we will truly get nowhere. We’ve wasted too much time on this insignificant part of the pretrial proceedings, and need to get moving so the fast and speedy trial for the defendant to gets underway.

— Begin quote from ____

Your Honor, the judicial branch needs to respect the wishes of the executive branch’s concern for regional security. If we keep on arguing the issue, then we will truly get nowhere. We’ve wasted too much time on this insignificant part of the pretrial proceedings, and need to get moving so the fast and speedy trial for the defendant to gets underway.

— End quote

Your Honour,

My apologies, but I’m afraid that I don’t regard this as an “insignificant part of the pretrial proceedings”.

I believe that my client is entitled to an open trial unless we truly do have an issue of regional security. Holding a trial behind closed doors if regional security is NOT an issue would be comparable to running our own “Star Chamber”, where secret trials were the norm. This isn’t the way of TEP.

First off, let me note that it is preposterous to believe that the Delegate’s Regional Endorsement Tracker (RET) is a secret of any kind. I’ve known of the program for over a year, had discussions with numerous persons (from inside and outside TEP) about it on AIM, and furthermore participated in a discussion of said system in an open forum about said program. The only person who might learn of the existence of the tracker via this trial is someone new to NationStates; and someone new to NationStates is not going to be a risk to regional security.

Secondly, I’d like to point out that it would be nearly impossible for someone to determine a way to avoid the RET through the evidence being provided. No link is to the site that hosts the RET is being given and no explanation of the exact workings of the RET is being provided (to my knowledge). Rather, the State is simply admitting into evidence four screen shots of info sheets provided by the RET. Quite frankly, I see no way any person could use said screen shots to create a system of defeating the RET.

Based on this, I am hereby ruling against the state, and bringing this trial thread (as well as all future trial threads for this case) into the open. If the state still feels that the evidence, if released, will prove a threat to regional security, they can feel free to edit the evidence in such a way as to decrease that threat (so long as they do not attempt to alter how the evidence relates to the defendant’s guilt).

If there are no further matters, I am prepared to proceed to trial. Do either the prosecution or defense have any further issues to bring before the court pre-trial?

[POST REMOVED FOR CONTENT; APOLOGIES TO THE COURT AND THE REGION]