King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 3, 2006 20:20:42 GMT -6
If it please Your Honour, yes, I would like to amend my complaint.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 3, 2006 20:32:51 GMT -6
I thank the Cort for the opportunity to ask questions about procedure. Two only spring to mind:
1. By what mechanism can the parties to the case make motions during the course of the trial? For instance, if one party wishes to object to a line of questioning, or move that an answer be struck from the record, or in any other way speak "out of turn" — can it be done? And how?
2. The rules as published seem to leave the complainant with no way to counter defense testimony, except cross-examination of the defense witnesses. Will it be possible (should the need arise) to present rebuttal witnesses? I ask, because I can picture a case in which a defense witness testifies to things that could be demonstrated to be false, but only by the complainant's introducing the testimony of additional witnesses.
— John Woolley, UrN
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Apr 3, 2006 20:38:01 GMT -6
I have some questions here:
Does my lawyer have to be a Talossan citizen?
Can I represent myself?
Can I re-appoint legal council at my discretion?
What if the Talossan citizen I appoint has no internet access?
Why do we go by Wisconsin law when neither party is from Wisconsin? Shouldn't we go strictly by Talossan law as it would look kinda weak and unbecoming going by state laws of another nation?
Can I introduce witnesses to the case even if they aren't Talossan citizens, but deem to have a direct link between the case and my defense?
Even though I am innocent of this as I will demonstrate as Cort proceeds, what is the punishment if found guilty? Banishment or are there any other forms of punishment? This isn't the WORSE of charges that could be filed against someone in Talossa, that's why I ask -
May I cross-examine witnesses?
I hope that the Cort is fair and balanced as we proceed - I have witnessed no form of bias so far and I hope this continues throughout the case.
On a side note I'd like to say that it's quite strange that the party charging me with this crime is the one creating the Cort documents - Hmm - Well, that's all I had to ask for now - I may return if I come up with any further questions I may have - Thank you!
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Apr 3, 2006 20:45:06 GMT -6
COMPLAINANT'S QUESTIONS ACKNOWLEGED
Sir Woolley, the Cort acknowledges your wish to amend your complaint.
As to your questions, the Cort has no immediate answers but will endeavor to provide them soon.
Danihél Lauriéir Acting Senior Justice of the Cort pü Înalt
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Apr 3, 2006 20:53:46 GMT -6
Oh I forgot a question *slipped my mind*
The "evidence" I recieved by the complaining party via third party - I am sure that it's the only "evidence" allowed into Cort and that all testimony brought forth by the complaining party must be completely relevant to the case at hand? I ask this because I don't want to end up on the other end of character assassinations.
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Apr 3, 2006 21:05:12 GMT -6
RESPONSE TO SOME OF DEFENDANT'S QUESTIONS
Mr. Martüc:
Here are answers to some of your questions. Answers to your other questions will be provided by the Cort soon.
--You ask if you may represent yourself, and the answer is yes.
--You ask why Wisconsin law applies, and the answer is that both Talossan law and those provisions of Wisconsin law that are part of Talossan law apply. The reason that Wisconsin law is involved at all is because that's what Talossan law calls for. See 31RZ14 and 35RZ21. (You can find them on the Kingdom's Web site under "statutory law.")
--You ask whether witnesses need to be Talossan citizens, and the answer is that they do not need to be Talossan citizens.
--You ask if you can cross-examine witnesses, and the answer is yes, if you choose to represent yourself. If you have a lawyer, the lawyer may cross-examine witnesses.
For your information, all of the Cort documents posted in this Courtroom--the Rules of the Courtroom, the Rules of Evidence and the Hearing Rules and Procedures--were all written exclusively by the Justices of this Cort. Sir Woolley, as Wittenberg administrator with authority to pin posts, was instructed by the Cort to pin the rules so that all parties could easily access them.
He had no part in writing these rules. The Cort would have preferred them to have been pinned here by someone else to avoid arousing just the suspicion you expressed, but that was not possible. Please accept the Cort's assurance on this matter.
Signed,
Danihél Lauriéir Acting Senior Justice of the Cort pü Înalt
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Apr 3, 2006 21:30:13 GMT -6
Thank you - That really cleared some stuff up! Too bad I'm not involved in Talossan politics, I'd fight to do away with that statute! Not because it's being used against me, but because it's not healthy for a micronation with aspirations for nationhood in my personal opinion. Anyway - Vincent Manzelli asked me to ask you how can he testify for the defense? Any procedure for introducing witnesses? He emailed you inquiring about this he told me, but I suppose I will need to have him email you his testimony or something along those lines? Just wondering
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Apr 3, 2006 21:49:33 GMT -6
Hmmm I thought of something here - Wouldn't that statute be inept? Well, the laws themselves looks well in tact, but I merely point out the penalties for being found guilty of such a crime that are completely useless to implement in Talossa - So if we take the statute that includes Wisconsin law, we would HAVE to adopt the penalties as well, no? If you don't, then you are contridicting the statute because you will abide by Wisconsin laws, yet you cannot enforce the penalties of someone being found guilty of any crime in Wisconsin law besides probably the ones that allow you to fine individuals - Talossa takes the law but not the punishments, isn't that incomplete then? Or how about impossible to implement so the statute therefore becomes useless? Hmm
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Apr 4, 2006 18:59:37 GMT -6
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S QUESTIONS
Sir Woolley:
--You ask if the parties to this case may make motions during the course of the trial, and the answer is yes. The Cort will allow motions from both the complainant and the defendant. Either party may make motions to:
--Object to a line of questioning --Remind the Cort to enforce rules of decorum --Request that answers or statements be stricken from the record --Seek information or clarification from the Cort --Request the Cort's permission to undertake some action --Approach the bench (contact the justices privately—with opposite party cc'd—off board)
The parties may make such motions when they feel it is appropriate to do so. When making such a motion, the parties shall title their posts "MOTION FROM (COMPLAINANT or DEFENDANT) TO…(Include description of permissible motion)."
Both parties should remember, however, that the Cort is under no obligation to grant such objections. Furthermore, the parties are instructed to use this privilege with discretion.
--You ask if the complainant may counter defense testimony with rebuttal witnesses, and the answer that the Cort will entertain a motion to allow the complainant to present rebuttal witnesses if the Cort feels it is fair and proper to do so and if the testimony of such rebuttal witnesses is narrowly tailored to rebut specific points made by the defense witnesses. The Cort will also entertain a motion from the defendant to respond to the rebuttal witnesses if the Cort judges this fair or proper.
Signed,
Danihél Lauriéir Acting Senior Justice of the Cort pü Înalt
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 4, 2006 19:20:50 GMT -6
A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FROM THE COMPLAINANT
Thank you, My Lord. Would the Cort like me to present my amended complaint at this time (now that 9pm EDT has passed), or wait until later?
— John Woolley, UrN, complainant
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Apr 4, 2006 19:34:05 GMT -6
RESPONSE TO REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM DEFENDANT
Mr. Martüc:
--You asked if your lawyer has to be a Talossan citizen, and the answer is no.
--You asked if you can re-appoint your legal counsel at your discretion, and the answer is yes.
--You asked, "what if the Talossan citizen I appoint (as lawyer) has no internet access?" and the answer is if your lawyer can make no filings in this Courtroom, you may be found in contempt of Cort.
--You asked what is the punishment if you are found guilty, and the answer is that the Cort will—in Step 11, as described in the Hearing Rules and Procedures—outline the punishments at its disposal. According to the Organic Law, the Cort's discretion is wide in this matter. However, the Cort will listen to arguments for and against various punishments.
--You asked how you may present witnesses—including a Mr. Vincent Manzelli—to testify for the defense, and the answer is you may present quotes from any witnesses you choose in the briefs you file here and you may call them to testify here in the Courtroom (this may take place via emails to one of the Justices). Of course, if a person serves as a witness for the defense, he or she must be available for cross-examination by the complainant and for questions from the Cort. The same applies to witnesses for the complainant. --You asked whether because Talossan law tracks certain Wisconsin laws in specifying crimes, does a similar tracking of penalties apply, and the answer is no. Talossan penalties will apply. That is the intent of the laws on the books and the vision of the Organic Law.
Signed,
Danihél Lauriéir Acting Senior Justice of the Cort pü Înalt
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Apr 4, 2006 19:36:22 GMT -6
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S PROCEDURAL QUESTION
Sir Woolley:
Please proceed to present your amended complaint.
Thank you for asking.
Signed,
Danihél Lauriéir Acting Senior Justice of the Cort pü Înalt
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 4, 2006 20:37:31 GMT -6
AMENDED COMPLAINT May it please this honourable Cort: The other day, even while I was filing my original complaint (containing two counts) against Ups Antônio Martüc, S:reu Martüc was busy committing more misdemeanours, a fact the proofs of which only came to light after my initial filing. This being so, I would like at this time to add to my original charge 3,259 additional counts of violating Wisconsin statute 947.0125 (“Unlawful use of computerized communication systems”), which is incorporated into Talossan law by section 1(e) of The What the Heck Is the Civil Code of the State of Wisconsin Act (35RZ21). The relevant parts of 947.0125 are: (2) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor: (c) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act. (d) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act. (e) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system while intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the disclosure of his or her own identity. (f) While intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the disclosure of his or her identity and with intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message. 1. I will prove that on 3 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent me an email whose subject line was "Hey asshole" and in which he twice called me "dumbfuck", and ended with "Fuck You!" This charming little composition constitutes a violation of sections (c) and (d) of 947.0125. 2. I will prove that on 4 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent me an email with the message "You're a dumb bitch ass n00b. Tried to ban my ip? ha. I just enabled my proxy and I'm still able to lurkj lmao. You're a dumb n00b. faggot". (I'm not alleging that this "faggot" is part of the abuse directed at me; it might be S:reu Martüc's signature.) This email constitutes a violation of sections (c) and (d) of 947.0125. 3. I will prove that at or about 03:48 TST on 24 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent 528 emails to Joseph Walkland, a citizen of Talossa. Each of these emails was deliberately made to appear to have been sent from by me, the complainant, and thus constituted a violation of sections (e) and (f) of 947.0125. Additionally, if the Cort were to hold the message “FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” to be “obscene, lewd or profane language”, or to suggest ”any lewd or lascivious act”, then the message body of each of the 528 emails violated sections (c) and (d) as well as sections (e) and (f). 4. I will prove that at or about 11:05 TST on 24 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent 176 emails to Brad Holmes, a citizen of Talossa. Each of these emails was deliberately made to appear to have been sent by Vincent Manzelli, and thus constituted a violation of sections (e) and (f) of 947.0125. The messages themselves (“9/11 was funny”), while evidence of S:reu Martüc's being either evil or deranged, or both, are not illegal. 5. I will prove that at or about 13:13 TST on 24 March 2006, and again at or about 17:59 TST on 25 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent a total of 1203 more emails to Brad Holmes. Each of these emails was deliberately made to appear to have been sent by me, the complainant, and thus constituted a violation of sections (e) and (f) of 947.0125. The messages themselves, while illustrating S:reu Martüc’s rather pathetic (and perhaps envious) obsession with male genitalia (“DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”), are probably not illegal. 6. I will prove that at or about 15:06 TST on 24 March 2006, Ups Martüc attempted to send 780 emails to Matthew Tumulty, a citizen of Talossa. Each of these emails was deliberately made to appear to have been sent by me, the complainant, and while they were not delivered (since S:reu Tumulty’s mailbox had filled up already), S:reu Martüc clearly had a “reasonable expectation” that they would be received. The messages themselves (“DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” again, suggesting a hopeless poverty of literary imagination, or perhaps mere frustration) are probably not illegal; so the only section of 947.0125 they appear to violate is section (f). 7. I will prove that at or about 15:56 TST on 24 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent me, the complainant, 569 emails. Each of these emails was deliberately made to appear to have been sent by Joseph Walkland, and thus constituted a violation of sections (e) and (f) of 947.0125. The Subject line of each was “ASSHOLE”, and the message of each was “BLOW M3 :)”; each message therefore, as well as further illustrating S:reu Martüc’s fascinated preoccupation with male-to-male fellatio, violates sections (c) and (d) of 947.0125 as well as sections (e) and (f). 8. I will prove that at or about 18:11 TST on 24 March 2006, Ups Martüc sent at least 3 emails to Thomas Atwood, a citizen of Talossa. Each of these emails was deliberately made to appear to have been sent by me, the complainant, and thus constituted a violation of sections (e) and (f) of 947.0125. Due to the messages themselves (“FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!” again), these emails may or may not constitute violations of sections (c) and (d). It is my belief that it would be both convenient and just to try these last 3,259 counts (points 3 through 8) together with the first two counts (points 1 and 2), which I outlined in my original complaint. All 3,261 acts were committed by the same person; the crimes are all violations of the same statute; and they all form parts of the same ongoing campaign of abuse conducted by S:reu Martüc against me and other Talossan citizens. Respectfully submitted, — John Woolley, UrN, complainant God save this honourable Cort! God save the King!
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on Apr 4, 2006 20:56:54 GMT -6
CORT INVITES RESPONSE FROM DEFENDANT TO COMPLAINANT'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mr. Martüc:
We are at Step 1 of the Cort procedures.
The Cort invites you to make an argument about why the Cort should not allow this amended complaint--in whole or in part--to be accepted. If you wish, you may initially indicate whether you plan to make an argument of not. If not, the Cort will rule on whether to allow the amended complaint by this time (10:50 pm or so ET) tomorrow (Wednesday, April 5). You may, of course, file your argument--if you choose to make one--as soon as you like. Remember, you are being invited to argue only about whether the Cort should allow this amended complaint. You are not being asked to plead to any charges at this time, nor asked to mount a defense.
Danihél Lauriéir Acting Senior Justice of the Cort pü Înalt
|
|
|
Post by Ups Antônio Martüc on Apr 4, 2006 22:07:50 GMT -6
Your Honor - I wrote a three-paragraph rebuttal until I changed my mind, so I will save it for my defense if it comes to that - I reject all complaints against me for lack of "evidence" and how they could've been produced out of thin air - Unfortunately I wasn't able to review any of this "evidence". That is all. I ended up mounting a defense (somewhat), so I decided to just reject this in a more plainly fashion. To further my argument, I have recieved notice that Mr. Vincent Manzelli admitted to these email bombing complaints I see before me. He told me on Yahoo Instant Messenger (YIM) that he was the culprit - vincent_manzelli: yo i told that judge guy he get it??? gunshyslycat1: I don't think so, I haven't heard about it. vincent_manzelli: ohhhh well man look just tell them to email me at vincent_manzelli@bored.com u got that? i wont let mah main man go down for dumb shit yanno? so u still want me to be ur witness?? gunshyslycat1: Yeah, I'd appreciate that
|
|