Criminal Trial CTC1: TEP Vs. East Shlibobia

I hereby call to order Criminal Trial CTC1: The East Pacific versus East Shlibobia. The defendant is charged with one count of violating Chapter 3, Section 7, Subsection 3 of the Revised Endorsement Restriction Act and one count of violating Chapter 2, Section 2, Subsection 1. The defendant has plead not guilty to all of the before mentioned charges.

At this time, the court is prepared to hear the prosecution’s opening statement. The prosecution may feel free to begin whenever it is ready.

Your Honor,

I am sorry that I have not stated my opening arguments, but I am waiting to be contacted by Gindrah, on a question of mine. I am sure that it will not take too much longer, but if I do not get a response within two days, then I will start my opening with or without.

Your Honour, the prosecution will have its opening statement prepared by the end of the week.

So be it.

Your Honour,

It has now been a week since the Prosecution indicated that it would have its opening statement prepared.

My client was ejected and banned Feb. 20/07. While there have been unavoidable delays, and my client has been most understanding, may I respectfully enquire how much longer the current delay will be ?

Your Honour,

In recognition of the fact that I truly do come by my member title of “Wicked Witch of the East” honestly, might I ask for a response to the question I posed on April 26, 2007?

I’m afraid I don’t have an answer, counselor. I, too, was told an opening statement would be posted several weeks ago. I’m still waiting for that statement from the prosecution…and I’d love to see it ASAP.

That said, I’m afraid there is no current EP law requiring a speedy trial (something that you, as a magister, Kang, might want to see fixed), so, truly, I can do nothing to force the state to post.

Completely OOC:

— Begin quote from ____

(sighs)

Your Honour,

It appears that I may have to shock the Prosecution into action …

https://www.gaspard.ca/images/xl/robepackage.jpg

(slowly slips out of her black toga, and just as slowly starts unbuttoning her waistcoat as the - YouTube starts to play …)

— End quote

IC:

Your Honour,

With all due respect to the Prosecution, this is becoming somewhat of a sham …

Though I wouldn’t necessarily call this a sham, I do share your disappointment in the lack of response by the prosecution.

Now, as stated, there is no law providing for a speedy trial. Which is something I’d love to see fixed via the Magisterial Assembly. But until it is, this court will need to ensure it’s fair operation (if not the rights of the citizens coming before it).

Taking this into account, I am hereby setting a deadline for the posting of an opening statement by the prosecution. If, within one week of this post, the prosecution does not present an opening statement, I will consider the prosecution’s opening statement to be nothing. As the prosecution will have no argument, I will thereby dismiss their case outright, as per my powers under Section 1.3.1 of the East Pacific Charter, and declare the delegate’s banning of the defendant null and void.

— Begin quote from ____

The Regional Court is empowered to make rulings on the actions of the delegate as executor of this charter, and to support them or declare them void, in which case they may instruct the delegate to repeal such actions.

— End quote

Prosecution’s Opening Statement
Since before the Delegate took office, there has been a standing policy on the act of endorsement-swapping and, more recently, the amount of endorsements each nation in the region is allowed to obtain, here in the East Pacific. While we are not here to discuss the amount of endorsements the defendant had before being removed and banned from the region, it is important to note that, given the amount of endorsements sought, the defendant could have very easily and quickly broken the endorsement cap of 75, were it not for the immediate removal of the nation from the region upon the detection of the crime of endorsement-swapping.

As to the charges being brought against the defendant, the Government is charging the defendant with Endorsement Swapping and seeking to unlawfully gain the position of Delegate, which are both crimes punishable by a permanent ban from the region. Within a 24-hour period, the defendant went from 99 sought endorsements to 248; a two-and-a-half percent increase that put the defendant in a position to 12 endorsements more than that of the Delegate’s, which, at the time, was just 236. This lead the Government to react swiftly, and take necessary action against the defendant, to ensure the security of the delegacy and the region.

It is because of the nature of these crimes that the Government asks that the Regional Court uphold the Delegate’s action and keep the ban against the defendant in effect. If the punishment for the defendant’s actions is overturned, the Regional Court would be sending a message to the defendant and others in the region or elsewhere, that “it’s okay to seek a number of endorsements higher than that of the endorsement cap, or even of the Delegate’s endorsement count. If you get caught, you’ll get a slap on the wrist, and be told not to do it again, giving you plenty of opportunity to avoid detection and reach your goal the next time around.” Instead, we need to send a clear message that endorsement swappers, breakers of the region’s endorsement cap, and those who seek to overthrow the delegacy will not be tolerated in the East Pacific.

[hr]
Your honour: in light of the Attorney General’s unexpected resignation, the Delegate asks that the prosecution’s opening statement be submitted on behalf of the Solicitor General, who will be taking over the prosecution’s case against the defendant. Furthermore, it is requested that your honour consider the recent events, and allow an extension for the preparation of the Solicitor General to take over the case. Thank you, your honour.

Your Honour,

I will not object to the Delegate submitting the opening statement on behalf of the Solicitor General, and will accept it without prejudice.

I do, however, STRENUOUSLY object to any further extensions at this, the 11th hour.

The Attorney General was appointed February 27th. The pre-trial Hearing began Feb. 28, 2007, while the trial began April 12, 2007. On April 18th, the Attorney General stated:

— Begin quote from ____

Your Honor,

I am sorry that I have not stated my opening arguments, but I am waiting to be contacted by Gindrah, on a question of mine. I am sure that it will not take too much longer, but if I do not get a response within two days, then I will start my opening with or without.

— End quote

The Delegate responded the following day:

— Begin quote from ____

Your Honour, the prosecution will have its opening statement prepared by the end of the week.

— End quote

I am only too well aware that TEP has no legislation currently in place to ensure an expeditious trial for its member Nations, thus protecting them from long and protracted trials in which witnesses CTE.

The Solicitor General, along with the entire region, has been able to read the proceedings up to this point in time. There has been more than enough time to do so seeing as the proceedings began February 28th.

I would ask that any further extensions be denied.

Mr. Delegate, I’m afraid I must agree with the defense on this matter. The solicitor general has had ample time to study this matter already. Frankly, there is no excuse for a person in that high of a position in the Justice Department not to be completely up to date on all major case matters.

More importantly, this case has already been put off for far too long. Especially taking into account the fact that the defense is calling on regular EP Residents (who could go inactive at a moment’s notice) to testify.

The state has had it’s time. I won’t stand for further delay. I’m sorry, but your request is denied.

The defense may proceed with their opening statement when ready.

— Begin quote from ____

Your honour: in light of the Attorney General’s unexpected resignation, the Delegate asks that the prosecution’s opening statement be submitted on behalf of the Solicitor General, who will be taking over the prosecution’s case against the defendant. Furthermore, it is requested that your honour consider the recent events, and allow an extension for the preparation of the Solicitor General to take over the case. Thank you, your honour.

— End quote

Your Honour,

Despite the fact your ruling makes this statement unnecessary, I’d like to ask both you and the Defense to consider the Delegate’s quoted request as not filed, as the Solicitor General does not need any further delay.
On the contrary, the Solicitor General wants to apologize to both the Court and the Defense (including both the Barrister and the Defendant him/herself) for what has happened up until now, hoping such episodes won’t repeat in the future.

Proceeding-wise, the Solicitor General steps in recognizing the former statements, observations and argumentations of the former Prosecution panel as his own.

Thanks for your time.

Your Honour,

Here in the East Pacific, Nations are protected by their rights and responsibilities as set out in the Charter along with the body of law supporting that document.

One of the true beauties of a body of law is that it is an objective entity. It must be objective in order to protect the rights of the accused and prevent the accuser from appearing as though they are on a witch-hunt. In a Courtroom, the burden of proof falls on the Prosecution; proof, not speculation is required under law. Proof, not statements about what might have happened should certain things have come to pass. Proof, not assumptions regarding intentions.

Our body of law, the Charter and supporting laws of the East Pacific, were not put in place to make examples of those Nations who break the laws. In the opening statement of the Prosecution, Gnidrah states:

— Begin quote from ____

If the punishment for the defendant’s actions is overturned, the Regional Court would be sending a message to the defendant and others in the region or elsewhere, that “it’s okay to seek a number of endorsements higher than that of the endorsement cap, or even of the Delegate’s endorsement count. If you get caught, you’ll get a slap on the wrist, and be told not to do it again, giving you plenty of opportunity to avoid detection and reach your goal the next time around.” Instead, we need to send a clear message that endorsement swappers, breakers of the region’s endorsement cap, and those who seek to overthrow the delegacy will not be tolerated in the East Pacific.

— End quote

The onus is on the Prosecution to prove that the charges against my client are tenable. Whether or not the charges are overturned depends entirely on whether or not the Prosecution is able to meet that burden of proof. “Sending a clear message” to other Nations should have no place in these proceedings. To even suggest such implies that the Prosecution wishes to make an example of my client in order to deter other alleged law-breakers. Gnidrah states here that this message must be sent to “breakers of the region’s endorsement cap”. My client is not charged with such. He never broke the endorsement cap. The fact that the phrase is even in the Prosecution’s opening statement lends further credence to the supposition that the Prosecution wishes my client to be used as an example.

The Defence intends to show that the Prosecution has no evidence to support any of the charges laid against my client.

Thank you, counselor.

Reziel, it is good that you are ready to proceed. Because we are proceeding. At this time, the floor is open for the prosecution to call witnesses and present evidence supporting its case.

Your Honour,
the Prosecution wants to submit the complete list of the eyewitnesses to be examined:
[ul]
[li]Gnidrah, both as Delegate of The East Pacific and as arresting officer
[li]East Shlibobia, as Defendant
[li]Kangarawa, as Grand Vizier of The East Pacific
[/li][/ul]
As for evidence, at present moment the Prosecution refers only to the graphs already presented to both the Court and the Defense, and referring to which a ‘not-publicly-posting’ agreement had been reached.

Your Honour,

Will I need to procure another Barrister to cross-examine myself while acting as a “witness” for the Prosecution?

EDIT: Dezzland, who is also a member of the EP Bar Association, has agreed to step in and cross-examine should it be necessary, so I will withdraw my question.

Great. The Scopes trial all over again.

I’ll allow this, but with two rules. First off, Kangarawa may only be questioned in regards to her work as Grand Vizier. Any question about her work as the defendant’s attorney will be thrown out by me whether it’s objected to or not. Frankly, I have to wonder about a conflict of interest, but, that’s a matter for an appeals court to hear.

Secondly, this isn’t to become a back and forth between the two of you. I’m fine with Kang testifying as to her personal opinions (to a point) and as to her work as Grand Vizier. But the second it becomes anything more then that, it’s over.

If this is understood, we may proceed.

Your Honour,

For the record, I had no idea I was being called as a witness, nor do I have any idea as to why. If I’m permitted to object to certain witnesses, I most certainly object to my being called as I can see no reason my position as Grand Vizier has any bearing on this case!

Response, Prosecutor?