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

News: Let's promote the adoption of the Revolutionary Calendar to advance the scientific timekeeping of the region!

Author Topic: Taijitu v. Govindia  (Read 16253 times)

Offline PoD Gunner

  • Praefectus praetorio.
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1935
  • Egrota Egrota Egrota!!!
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #60 on: December 18, 2007, 05:37:23 PM »
As you, esteemed colleague, have reacted right away to my posts, I expect I am within my rights to do the same. As far as I am concerned, present away *just hope we will not be here on Christmas Eve*...

Your Honors,

This is merely time stalling. I ask of you to set a clear time-table for this, five days have already been lost because, although nobody "interrupted", nothing happened. Are we gonna wait around until next year to have some other random NS players tell us that the defendant is a good person, although they: a) do not know him b) are not familiar with his doings c) the regions he has caused big trouble in and have rejected him have all been wrong and it's just he was misunderstood and d) have no intel info whatsoever on him, but yet warmly recommend us as a region to award him our full trust and gratitude for having chosen our poor region to bless with his presence and help us grow to be a better community??!!!
Co-Founder of Taijitu
Former Delegate of The Lexicon (by mistake), The Rejected Realms (par force) and Taijitu (elected)
*Home of GMT* / www.nationstates.net/nation=red_kagran


Offline Allama

  • *
  • Posts: 6878
    • LibraryThing
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #61 on: December 18, 2007, 07:49:43 PM »
If what you are saying is for the defense to make their argument now, we may continue.

Defense counsel, I believe that the balls in your court.

Honorable Court, we have yet to finish presenting our evidence and yet the Prosecution is still posting away.

May we have time to present all our evidence without interruption?

With all due respect, the Defense was permitted to respond to the Prosecution's posts during his case presentation and I believe it would be highly unjust to deny him the same privilege.


Since there is no provision in the Laws or Constitution for a grand jury or any similar procedure, it is appropriate that the Prosecution present its specific charges here.  Furthermore, the Government is perfectly within its rights to bring to trial a Citizen who has violated any portion of the Constitution, Laws, or any Oaths he might have taken; no rule states that a trial must have one charge and one charge only.

Continue

PoD Gunner, please state all charges being brought against Govindia in your next post.  You may bring more than one to the proverbial table, as has been said, but we should know what they are circa immediately fort he sake of fairness and clarity.


*laughs* You should be a Journalist. As I said, I believe not both your counsels have been hit by snowstorms, I am not gonna argue about Osafune's situation (although he was on-line less than 12 and again 3 hours ago and the snow-storms have ceased for about three days now) as I am not aware of it, all I was doing was pointing out how dangerous your habits of crying out "The Wolf! The Wolf" are, for as I was also kept away by RL for a far shorter period some were already crying out in the torments of terror that the schedule of the trial should be respected. You have a history of inventing excuses and I for one will not overlook that. It just looks like the other day, Osafune had other areas of interest to post into. I would rather  be willing to accept that the defense is not ready than hear such excuses and than also be lectured on decency and courtesy by a soon-to-be universal pariah of the international community.

On a second note, unless you have forgotten you are a defendant in this trial and asking the Prosecution to do anything or not to, is not one of your privileges, please try to remember who you are and act accordingly. As far as I see, you could make those statements yourself, since your defense team seems incapacitated to do so by the weather outside.

I would also petition the Court to ask the defendant to remove from his forum Signature the indication of his past representative function of the region, as Ambassador of Taijitu to the region Exodus, I believe he has not only been removed from that position, but I also think that it is a mockery of this region.

I ask the Justices to please ask the prosecution from making any statements that are inflammatoriy, derogatory, insulting, or flaming in nature.  My defence team nor myself have made any comments of such a nature since this initial warning was put in place by Justice Allama and supported by the other two Justices, and the prosecution's refusal to act civil and show decorum in this case is a clear sign of contempt.

Furthermore, let it be shown that I am still a citizen, and as such am innocent until proven guilty.  There is nothing in the law that states that I cannot continue to function as an ambassador to The Exodus.  I have not been removed from this position, and to say that I can't be an ambassador is again insulting and derogatory and irrelevant to the case at hand.

It is not this court's place to censor signatures, but it is our place to enforce proper conduct in this area.  Here is a list of samples of inappropriate activity, for the record.  I hate that this needs to be done, but that's where we seem to stand:

- Laughing
- Name-calling
- Sarcasm
- Whining

This list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive, so please use your best judgment in all future posts or face expulsion from the trial.  Contempt is a serious issue to bring up and one I'd rather avoid, so let's not make that necessary.

Additionally, most of what PoD Gunner was saying was relevant; quite a bit of fuss was kicked up about his RL delay and now such a situation is happening with the Defense.  The difference, however, is that you have more than one couselor and yourself available to present evidence and/or testimonies when one or two of the others is absent.  One of your counselors losing power is unfortunate and understandable, but he is not the only one who posts for the Defense and thus I personally find the excuse lacking.

Anyhow, let us progress this trial beyond finger-pointing to reasoned case arguments.


I ask of you to set a clear time-table for this, five days have already been lost because, although nobody "interrupted", nothing happened.

As the original time table has been, shall we say, less than followed through by anyone involved, I will confer with my fellow Justices on the posting of a new, more accurate one.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 07:55:01 PM by Allama »

Offline Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2007, 09:03:13 PM »
Quote
This is merely time stalling. I ask of you to set a clear time-table for this, five days have already been lost because, although nobody "interrupted", nothing happened.
Quote
Post Scriptum: We wonder what due time is, since this trial should be over by now...
I guess that depends on your interpretation of when the trial actually started. Previously it was agreed that the prosecution would present their case in three days, then the defense would get their chance to do so in three days. You asked for an extra day, and both the prosecution and defense have been granted a fourth day. By my interpretation of things, the trial began on the 12th when you present your opening statement. It is now the 18th. By the original time line we all agreed on, we still have two days including today.

So please, don't accuse us of time-stalling. We haven't done anything to stall the proceeding of the trial.

Quote
they even wonder why there had been no trial until Govindia had appealed the ban (!!!).
Correction: We wonder why Gov was banned a whole month after TAO came to Limitless Events to say that he had been copying info. We already know why there was no trial until Gov appealed the ban, as Ithania clearly pointed out the reason for that.

Quote
St Oz has tracked Govindia's movements in the forums (yes, that is possible) and has found him trying to access restricted areas.
Perhaps you could clarify just how one would try and access a forum one cannot even see on the forum?

Quote
To the first piece of evidence: again, an odd manner of trying to ignore the proof brought before the Court - the defense brings us a statement from another region speaking about the events in TWP, which are of relevance to this case, when we have presented the statement of TAO himself.
Correction: We presented a statement from a leader and citizen of TWP.

Quote
Let us move on to Ithania's testimony: (again, a player from NS England actually and not a native TWPer, makes one wonder...)
What does this matter? She clearly stated that most of her activity is at TWP. Ithania is a citizen in TWP and currently holds a leadership position. Limitless Event's UN nation isn't in Taijitu, should that make his testimony doubtful?

Quote
< 13meri > Many things. He always seemed to be complaining about one thing or another going on in Taijitu.
How does this relate? Several people here have complained about things going on in our very own region. This trial, separation of powers, the TRR event, the fact that Meri is the current Speaker, etc.

Quote
< 13meri > At the time that we began discussing the subject, and i believe to this day, he has refused to disclose the location or identity of his UN.
If this is true, then how, may I ask, was Govindia ever granted citizenship in the first place? To be granted citizenship, one must disclose their UN nation.

Quote
Taijituan Kensatsu-Kan Taijitu's line of defense against the worst scum of the NS Universe
Isn't harassment one of the charges placed on Gov here? And yet, you have no problem committing the same crime... Double standards for the win.





Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #63 on: December 18, 2007, 10:15:42 PM »
As stated earlier by Justice Allama, signatures are not appropriate subjects of discussion unless they relate to the actual charges involved.  Please continue.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline The G Rebellion

  • Your favourite Taiji.
  • Founders
  • *
  • Posts: 952
  • TGR
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #64 on: December 18, 2007, 11:40:11 PM »
"Isn't harassment one of the charges placed on Gov here? And yet, you have no problem committing the same crime... Double standards for the win."

It does not reference Govindia and as such, you have read that meaning into it.

Defense counsel, return to making your case. The court can see the same posts you can and if/when something comes up that is inappropriate, the court will deal with it.




Offline Gulliver

  • Data Dog
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5284
  • Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #65 on: December 19, 2007, 01:37:47 AM »
I apologize for butting in so rudely, but I do believe that if we are to remain on schedule we should be at the closing statements of either side by now.

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #66 on: December 19, 2007, 01:47:25 AM »
The Justices are considering extending the trial, though only under extenuating circumstances (such as incapacitation of a Justice's computer or a replacement of a counsel) will we extend the deadline beyond Dec. 31.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline PoD Gunner

  • Praefectus praetorio.
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1935
  • Egrota Egrota Egrota!!!
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #67 on: December 19, 2007, 08:51:29 AM »
Quote
guess that depends on your interpretation of when the trial actually started. Previously it was agreed that the prosecution would present their case in three days, then the defense would get their chance to do so in three days. You asked for an extra day, and both the prosecution and defense have been granted a fourth day. By my interpretation of things, the trial began on the 12th when you present your opening statement. It is now the 18th. By the original time line we all agreed on, we still have two days including today.

So please, don't accuse us of time-stalling. We haven't done anything to stall the proceeding of the trial.

I would ask the defense-team to please re-do their maths.

Quote
Correction: We wonder why Gov was banned a whole month after TAO came to Limitless Events to say that he had been copying info. We already know why there was no trial until Gov appealed the ban, as Ithania clearly pointed out the reason for that.

I would ask the defense-team to please re-check their calendar and the actual flow of events. We kindly inform the defense team that THERE CAN BE NO TRIAL until the one in case appeals the ban (I do believe you insisted we call it a "forum restriction" but we will try to be flexible).

Quote
Perhaps you could clarify just how one would try and access a forum one cannot even see on the forum?
It is the same way that somebody can log-in using subversive methods although being banned. Forums can be broken into, and some boards can (or better to say could) be seen but not accessed without a password.

Quote
What does this matter? She clearly stated that most of her activity is at TWP. Ithania is a citizen in TWP and currently holds a leadership position. Limitless Event's UN nation isn't in Taijitu, should that make his testimony doubtful?
It matters because you have tried to boost what the witness said by presenting her as something she is not. You have brought a TWPer with foreign origins and invented diverse official capacities for her *she corrected you herself, look at your own interview* in order to match a statement given by the out most TWP authority.

What Meridianland's statement is concerned, please look at the relevant bits. I have bolded them, but will repost it just for your eyes, colored to match the festive season we are in:
Quote
< 13meri > I asked him if he was working for Taijitu, he said no, he was working for another region.  I told him I could not trust his motives in the region, then.

Quote
Isn't harassment one of the charges placed on Gov here? And yet, you have no problem committing the same crime... Double standards for the win.
Oh, I thank his Honor TGR for clearing that up.

Your Honors,

I am ready to make my closing statement. The defense has been able to do nothing except stall, fabricate witnesses and statements and hasn't even had the ability to hide those short-comings. The defendant has offered them but limp witnesses, and they were not even aware of the fact that those witnesses were in fact of another caliber for this trial than they had expected them to be. The ultimate proof - they have brought a player from the Equilism to testify before us on the defendant's character (!!!). If technical proof be required about the defendant sharing information and giving away logs without expressed permission of the involved, it shall be provided. Now please, let us end this masquerade before Christmas.

I am sorry if I have went over the line but 1) as the defense was complaining about the lack of body-language in this game we have tried to compensate and sometimes smile, laugh or shake our head. No contempt before the Court there. What the sarcasm is concerned, I apologize for saying this, but a somewhat witty spirit cannot help but use *what I hope has been* refined sarcasm and irony before such actions and attempts at patching up a boat with holes in it the size of a cannon-ball. I consider those means to be at my disposal and never once have I used such means of expressions with the Court, but was clearly aimed at the defense's statements and attempts, and the defendant's complete lack of understanding for the trial procedures and utter lack of respect for anyone involved. A trial is a messy business for all involved, and if the defense was expecting me to bring them flowers and take them out for lunch...well, had I done that, I believe that the Taijituan Government would have been rather displeased with my methods.

Let us not forget that this was an administrative action of the region, performed by one of the two forum owners, supported by the sitting delegate, seconded by the other owner and founding father of Taijitu, and cheered by all founders and the overwhelming majority of members of this region. You may hang on technicalities, try to resort to reading strange things into weak statements, but what this player has done to our region is the worst we have had since Taijitu was founded.

To end with,
just allow me to remind us all of the rather amusing situation that has caused this trial to extend up to now: at first the defendant claimed he had no Internet access - he was spotted countless times on-line - he re-iterated, saying he had no access to IRC  - again he chatted for hours in other channels and was spotted - then he needed time to look for a counsel - found none - and asked more time to look for TWO counselors, then for THREE!!! He finally settled for two. Snow and blizzards have affected them. I am sorry but this is beginning to sound like "Ten Little Indians" and yet the Court indulges that kind of tactics. And in all this time, the defendant is crying out that he is opressed, misunderstood, they all hate him over in Taijitu, he has no rights etc etc. All together they form a defense team of three players, who are now seeking to gain some more time, as they have not managed to produce anything worth looking at.

Please note that I do not intend to waste my only peaceful time of year arguing over facts we all know. I am willing to make my closing statement at latest the 21st of December, the Friday before Christmas. I hope I will also have the time to join you all *perhaps with a minor exception* for a glass, before going home for the holidays.
Thank You.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 09:10:37 AM by PoD Gunner »
Co-Founder of Taijitu
Former Delegate of The Lexicon (by mistake), The Rejected Realms (par force) and Taijitu (elected)
*Home of GMT* / www.nationstates.net/nation=red_kagran


Offline Templarios

  • *
  • Posts: 880
    • My Nation
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #68 on: December 19, 2007, 09:13:47 AM »
Your Honour,

We have still yet to see the evidence that it seems everyone else has seen which was the cause of banning. We have seen everyone views on how nice/nasty Gov is but not the evidence behind it.

Please could we have access to this evidence which has yet to be included in  the trial.

Thank you.

Is that on the irc or on the forum?
Posted on: November 14, 2007, 04:07:04 AM
On behalf of Gov, i ask that the evidence that was cited as the reason Gov was banned be made available to Gov and his defense team.

If it is in #court on esper.net then I believe it is on IRC.

Your motion will be considered.

Has it been considered yet?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 09:16:02 AM by Templarios »
*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 PoD Gunner

  • Praefectus praetorio.
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1935
  • Egrota Egrota Egrota!!!
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #69 on: December 19, 2007, 10:14:03 AM »
Quote
We have seen everyone views on how nice/nasty Gov is but not the evidence behind it.
I am sorry to have to intervene yet again. What we have seen are not views. Testimonies have been cited that clearly state that Govindia has performed illegal actions and has admitted to operating in the name of foreign interests. This is the 4th of 5th time that the defense is interpreting the evidence in a light-headed manner and frankly they should be allowed to do so only with the "views" they themselves have managed to bring before The Court.
Testimonies of administrators, Intel officers and delegates are not views but experts' statements. They have not spoken about Govindia being nice or nasty, but about his actions. The Prosecution does not agree that IP addresses and personal info be made available to the defense, because, considering the manner that they have chosen to conduct this trial and their expressed views on the security and well-being of the region they themselves are a part of, we have no guarantee that such sensitive information is safe and that the defendant will not have the chance to use such data in order to harass the people involved that have not agreed to be a part of this trial, precisely because of that danger.
If the defense chooses to dismiss the actions of the very administration that looks after this region, it is their right.
Co-Founder of Taijitu
Former Delegate of The Lexicon (by mistake), The Rejected Realms (par force) and Taijitu (elected)
*Home of GMT* / www.nationstates.net/nation=red_kagran


Offline Templarios

  • *
  • Posts: 880
    • My Nation
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #70 on: December 19, 2007, 11:08:14 AM »
The Prosecution does not agree that IP addresses and personal info be made available to the defense, because, considering the manner that they have chosen to conduct this trial and their expressed views on the security and well-being of the region they themselves are a part of, we have no guarantee that such sensitive information is safe and that the defendant will not have the chance to use such data in order to harass the people involved that have not agreed to be a part of this trial, precisely because of that danger.

Sorry to be blunt, but are you saying that just by our association with Gov, you consider the defense team not trust-worthy?
*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 PoD Gunner

  • Praefectus praetorio.
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1935
  • Egrota Egrota Egrota!!!
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #71 on: December 19, 2007, 11:37:37 AM »
Nothing to be sorry about, I like blunt. No, that is not what I am saying.

What I did say in my last post though, is that being as it is, I am not willing to release personal data for you or Osamafune to see, nor I am willing to release it for other eyes than the Judges and the administration *but others are not in question here, so that is why I referred only to you*.
Your association with Govindia is a supplementary element of that, but I am just being weary over administrative duties. The fact that you are desperate for such evidence and are ignoring and dismissing as not worth looking at, all statements of recognized experts, Intel officers and officials that work FOR Taijitu or have our interests at heart, and are not even bothering to read their statements or acknowledge their sayings, is something that has surprised me and as such, in my capacity as Prosecutor but also Administrator, I will proceed with caution. You will be shown as much as I can show you. Evidence concerning private data I will not share but with the Judges.
Co-Founder of Taijitu
Former Delegate of The Lexicon (by mistake), The Rejected Realms (par force) and Taijitu (elected)
*Home of GMT* / www.nationstates.net/nation=red_kagran


Offline Govindia

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • My Primary LJ
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #72 on: December 19, 2007, 11:56:52 AM »
Nothing to be sorry about, I like blunt. No, that is not what I am saying.

What I did say in my last post though, is that being as it is, I am not willing to release personal data for you or Osamafune to see, nor I am willing to release it for other eyes than the Judges and the administration *but others are not in question here, so that is why I referred only to you*.
Your association with Govindia is a supplementary element of that, but I am just being weary over administrative duties. The fact that you are desperate for such evidence and are ignoring and dismissing as not worth looking at, all statements of recognized experts, Intel officers and officials that work FOR Taijitu or have our interests at heart, and are not even bothering to read their statements or acknowledge their sayings, is something that has surprised me and as such, in my capacity as Prosecutor but also Administrator, I will proceed with caution. You will be shown as much as I can show you. Evidence concerning private data I will not share but with the Judges.

In summary then, you are telling us the prosecution, because of its perceived bias and possible hatred of the defendant, is not willing to give the defendant a fair trial, which includes showing all evidence that it privately shows the court?

I'm sorry but I must wholeheartedly disagree with that line of thinking.  Any and all evidence that we have brought forth has been public and not been privately presented to the court.  In order for this trial to be a fair one, we must receive all the evidence that the prosecution has in this trial as well.  To withhold evidence to the other side contradicts the notion of a fair trial because the defence is not being given equal access to all the evidence presented.  We are a democratic region, and to claim a fair trial while not willing to give the defence full access to the evidence, just as the defence has given the prosecution full access to their evidence, is contradictory.

If the prosecution is unwilling to share such evidence with the defence team, and only with the Justices, then the defence team will have no choice but to make a motion to suppress any and all such evidence from use in this trial because we will not be able to adequately provide counsel to the defendant as the prosecution is deliberately withholding evidence to the Defence.
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 #73 on: December 19, 2007, 12:00:43 PM »
Nothing to be sorry about, I like blunt. No, that is not what I am saying.

What I did say in my last post though, is that being as it is, I am not willing to release personal data for you or Osamafune to see, nor I am willing to release it for other eyes than the Judges and the administration *but others are not in question here, so that is why I referred only to you*.
Your association with Govindia is a supplementary element of that, but I am just being weary over administrative duties. The fact that you are desperate for such evidence and are ignoring and dismissing as not worth looking at, all statements of recognized experts, Intel officers and officials that work FOR Taijitu or have our interests at heart, and are not even bothering to read their statements or acknowledge their sayings, is something that has surprised me and as such, in my capacity as Prosecutor but also Administrator, I will proceed with caution. You will be shown as much as I can show you. Evidence concerning private data I will not share but with the Judges.

In summary then, you are telling us the prosecution, because of its perceived bias and possible hatred of the defendant, is not willing to give the defendant a fair trial, which includes showing all evidence that it privately shows the court?

I'm sorry but I must wholeheartedly disagree with that line of thinking.  Any and all evidence that we have brought forth has been public and not been privately presented to the court.  In order for this trial to be a fair one, we must receive all the evidence that the prosecution has in this trial as well.  To withhold evidence to the other side contradicts the notion of a fair trial because the defence is not being given equal access to all the evidence presented.  We are a democratic region, and to claim a fair trial while not willing to give the defence full access to the evidence, just as the defence has given the prosecution full access to their evidence, is contradictory.

If the prosecution is unwilling to share such evidence with the defence team, and only with the Justices, then the defence team will have no choice but to make a motion to suppress any and all such evidence from use in this trial because we will not be able to adequately provide counsel to the defendant as the prosecution is deliberately withholding evidence to the Defence.

I agree with my client here that how are we able to defend our client if we are unable to see the evidence?
*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 Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: Taijitu v. Govindia
« Reply #74 on: December 19, 2007, 12:24:25 PM »
Naturally, I agree as well.