Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: The arteries of Taijitu run not with blood, but with kittens!

Author Topic: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia  (Read 17531 times)

Offline Durnia

  • Full of Imperial Mattyness
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #135 on: November 18, 2007, 08:27:21 PM »
Quote
I believe the defense has a right to a forum trial.

Why? On what basis does this right exist?
Nobody of importance.

Offline Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #136 on: November 18, 2007, 08:28:56 PM »
Quote
I believe the defense has a right to a forum trial. There's no law that says it has to be on irc.
That and the few people willing to be his counsel don't have access, or will find it hard to get it.

Offline kor

  • Fluffy, Pink Boytoy
  • *
  • Posts: 4678
  • O HAI THAR!
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #137 on: November 18, 2007, 08:31:17 PM »
You are mistaken. He had council that had access to IRC, but he decided to switch the people.



Offline Durnia

  • Full of Imperial Mattyness
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #138 on: November 18, 2007, 08:31:49 PM »
No, you have just switched from saying it is a right, to that there is no law against it.

Quote
That and the few people willing to be his counsel don't have access

I believe Gov has removed a number of people who could have been his counsel. Also, if he is sufficiently disliked that he finds it difficult to find a counsel, he could always request that one be appointed for him.
Nobody of importance.

Offline Govindia

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • My Primary LJ
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #139 on: November 18, 2007, 08:38:12 PM »
BAsed on Govindia's latest post in the trial thread, it seems to me that this is a rather arse-about-face way of running a trial.

I would have thought that the court would schedule the trial, and the defendant would need to appoint counsel who could attend the trial at the time and the place set by the court, not say "I'm sorry, my defence team cannot be on IRC, so the trial will have to be on the forum...

It has been known for ages that the trial would be on IRC. Why has he appointed counsel who cannot attend the trial, unless the aim is to delay or derail?

No, it wasn't.  it was first discussed as IRC vs. forum.  You can't have a fair trial by forcing me to go on IRC when my defence councel cannot be able to attend for very legitimate reasons.  It is not stated in the law that the trial HAS to be on IRC.
United States of Arvengovi - Citizenship obtained 8 Aug. 2007!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassador to The Exodus (14 Aug. 2007 - 14 Oct. 2007)

Offline Templarios

  • *
  • Posts: 880
    • My Nation
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #140 on: November 18, 2007, 11:00:54 PM »
Quote
I believe the defense has a right to a forum trial.

Why? On what basis does this right exist?

Lets switch the question - on what basis does it have to be a on IRC? What right do they have?
*Disclaimer*
In my above post, I did not intend to offend or upset anyone. If you were so, I deeply apologise.

Citzen since 08.10.07 ¦ Senator since 08.12.07 ¦ Second Speaker pro-Temp.

My Nations Stats  ¦ Standing Order - Views Only ¦ Knight's International Church Bank

Wiki Page

Offline Romanar

  • *
  • Posts: 519
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #141 on: November 19, 2007, 12:29:31 AM »
Quote
I believe the defense has a right to a forum trial.

Why? On what basis does this right exist?

The defendant certainly has the right to a trial, and his defense can't access IRC.  That leaves at least three choices:

1. Drop the charges
2. Delay until Gov has a team that CAN access IRC (so much for speedy trials)
3. Have a forum trial.

My personal preference would be #3, not that my opinion is particularly relevant.

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #142 on: November 19, 2007, 03:35:30 AM »
It doesn't take that long to find a defense team...

Seriously, the Bench and the Government are ready, and have been ready, to conduct a trial.  A majority of the Justices are in favor of holding the trial on IRC, and this has been known for at least a week by both the Government and the Defendant.  And, unless I am quite mistaken, it is for the Bench to decide what its procedures for conducting a trial will be.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline Flemingovia

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • Official Taijitu Minister of Apathy
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #143 on: November 19, 2007, 07:32:50 AM »
Quote
The defendant certainly has the right to a trial, and his defense can't access IRC.  That leaves at least three choices:

1. Drop the charges
2. Delay until Gov has a team that CAN access IRC (so much for speedy trials)
3. Have a forum trial.

I can think of at least three other options:

4. Govindia represents himself. I mean, this is hardly the OJ Simpson trial, why does Govindia need a "team".

5. since Govindia is unable to appoint counsel who can attend the court hearings, the court appoint counsel for him.

6. The court accepts that it's chain is being jerked, and it sets a time and place for the trial, informs the defendant and goes ahead. If the defendent or his counsel cannot make it, the trial continues in absentia, and everyone accepts that the court bent over backwards to accommodate Govindia, but a line had to be drawn somewhere.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 07:41:02 AM by Flemingovia »

Offline Tacolicious

  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Tacoman
  • *
  • Posts: 4898
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #144 on: November 19, 2007, 09:49:27 AM »
Quote
The defendant certainly has the right to a trial, and his defense can't access IRC.  That leaves at least three choices:

1. Drop the charges
2. Delay until Gov has a team that CAN access IRC (so much for speedy trials)
3. Have a forum trial.

I can think of at least three other options:

4. Govindia represents himself. I mean, this is hardly the OJ Simpson trial, why does Govindia need a "team".

5. since Govindia is unable to appoint counsel who can attend the court hearings, the court appoint counsel for him.

6. The court accepts that it's chain is being jerked, and it sets a time and place for the trial, informs the defendant and goes ahead. If the defendent or his counsel cannot make it, the trial continues in absentia, and everyone accepts that the court bent over backwards to accommodate Govindia, but a line had to be drawn somewhere.

I like option 6 personally
http://www.nationstates.net/wheresoever

"Reality is an illusion albeit a persistant one"
"Wisest is he who knows he is not wise"
"Nothing is fun when you have to do it, that's why you don't see a lot of old whores giggling over sex"


Delicious Comrade of the most Awesome Party

Offline Govindia

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • My Primary LJ
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #145 on: November 19, 2007, 10:54:01 AM »
a speedy trial can be done on the forum as well, and reduce clutter as opposed to IRC trials.

Denying my councel the right to represent me would show bias against the defence.

I have made it emphatically clear here, in case people can't realise, what happened to my past councel and why Prag and OT had to drop.  I didn't force them to do anything.  I also explained how I have been through most of Oct. without internet access at home for valid reasons.

There is nothing wrong with a forum trial, unless someone is afraid of public transparency, or a fair trial, or something else.....
United States of Arvengovi - Citizenship obtained 8 Aug. 2007!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassador to The Exodus (14 Aug. 2007 - 14 Oct. 2007)

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #146 on: November 19, 2007, 03:33:25 PM »
Quote
a speedy trial can be done on the forum as well, and reduce clutter as opposed to IRC trials.
With all due respect, it cannot.  The continued bickering over trial setting is proof of this.

Quote
Denying my councel the right to represent me would show bias against the defence.
I fail to see this.  In RL, if a council does not make it to the trial along with the defendant, then either that council is replaced (especially if that council is court appointed in the first place) or the trial is postponed.  So far, the Court has been postponing the trial indefinately, and while there are not as yet serious discussions among the Justices as to appointing a defense team for you, the thought has been circling my brain for some days now.

Quote
I have made it emphatically clear here, in case people can't realise, what happened to my past councel and why Prag and OT had to drop.  I didn't force them to do anything.  I also explained how I have been through most of Oct. without internet access at home for valid reasons.
If you spent October without internet access at home, you wouldn't have been able to access the forum from home either.  This is not an argument in favor of a forum trial; this is an argument to prove that you need council.  And you do.  Whether or not you need these specific council, Templarios and Osmafune, is the issue in dispute.  I believe, and from the looks of things, the other Justices agree, that you can be just as well-represented by others.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with a forum trial, unless someone is afraid of public transparency, or a fair trial, or something else.....
I know it's my job to read and to know the Constitution, but really, if you're going to make a Constitutional argument, please know what it says and how the Court has interpreted what it says in the past.  The Court has said that the clause mandating disclosure of trial transcripts applies only when the trial is complete, and does not say that the court proceedings must be open to the public as they occur.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline Tweedy

  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #147 on: November 19, 2007, 04:12:54 PM »
That's not flaming. Stop overreacting. He's stating his opinion.

I consider it flaming - look how he addressed the topic.  Complete disregard for civility or decency, and an automatic assumption that I'm guilty, before the trial even starts.

Where have I heard all this before? :shrug:

Offline Myroria

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #148 on: November 19, 2007, 05:53:51 PM »
Quote
4. Govindia represents himself. I mean, this is hardly the OJ Simpson trial, why does Govindia need a "team".

This is the one thing I don't agree with. He needs at least someone with experience to represent him in court, and I personally see no problem with him having a "team" so long as it is not excessive.

But I do fail to see how the Court is being as biased as Gov thinks it is. In general, Taijitu is unfortunately extremely biased against Gov, but the Court is being very liberal about following your requests. It just asks in return that you do the trial on IRC, and yes, you can clearly access IRC if you can access the forum.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 05:58:35 PM by Libertarian Monarchy of Myroria »
"I assure you -- I will be quite content to be a mere mortal again, dedicated to my own amusements."

Offline Templarios

  • *
  • Posts: 880
    • My Nation
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #149 on: November 19, 2007, 06:58:40 PM »
Just a note, the defense is still waiting for access to the 'evidence' that started this all off... it has yet to be seen
*Disclaimer*
In my above post, I did not intend to offend or upset anyone. If you were so, I deeply apologise.

Citzen since 08.10.07 ¦ Senator since 08.12.07 ¦ Second Speaker pro-Temp.

My Nations Stats  ¦ Standing Order - Views Only ¦ Knight's International Church Bank

Wiki Page