[Groudon]

Hmm...

Very well-explained.  The defense may begin its cross-examination.

[Bilan]

(Bonus Content)

In the trial in question, I was in the public galleries.  I observed during the course of the trial that both the prosecution and the defense were directly in control of the judge, as evidenced here:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34845#msg34845
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34846#msg34846


The attorneys in question will doubtless claim that their influence over the judge was limited to trivial matters; however that is irrelevant.  That they held any influence over the judge - meant to be the impartial, unbiased source of authority in the courtroom - is abominable.

This is all fine and well, but as you can clearly see there was no real influence over the judge at all.



In the absence of a real judge both parties simply input their own comments via the Judge.

There is also the fact that any real Judge would not have been able to react at the times in those posts, and would have had to wait until the end of the post in order to do so.



All this means is that the use of the Judge was simply extraneous, to simply split up key points in the argument and was used for no gain at all from either sides perspective.



How do you respond to this, Mr Gresham!?

[douglas]

This is all fine and well, but as you can clearly see there was no real influence over the judge at all.

In the absence of a real judge both parties simply input their own comments via the Judge.

Do I really have to point out the obvious contradiction here?

There is also the fact that any real Judge would not have been able to react at the times in those posts, and would have had to wait until the end of the post in order to do so.

All this means is that the use of the Judge was simply extraneous, to simply split up key points in the argument and was used for no gain at all from either sides perspective.

Your motivations for manipulating the judge do not excuse the fact you did so.  It is for your honour to decide the repercussions of these actions, and whether the degree of influence exterted and these good intentions mitigate the circumstances; this question was in fact the reason I ordered this inquiry.

[Bilan]

...!

[Groudon]

Your motivations for manipulating the judge do not excuse the fact you did so.  It is for your honour to decide the repercussions of these actions, and whether the degree of influence exterted and these good intentions mitigate the circumstances; this question was in fact the reason I ordered this inquiry.

Although both parties did, in fact, assume the role of the judge, I do not see how calling a recess, then reengaging in court proceedings does anything to affect the outcome.  In addition, Mr. Gasmask makes a good point.  Given the method of communication on these forums, it indeed would be impossible for any real judge to jump in mid-post.  I can understand the reasons behind both parties' actions.

Would the defense like to add anything else before we move on?

[Bilan]

Thank you Your Honour.



I have nothing more to raise to this point, but perhaps Mr 242's attorney does?

[Rick_242]

Subsequent protests were made by both attorneys after the court had been adjourned.  None were connected to the actual case, and I had already made clear this opportunity would exist for them to explain their actions, and frankly I could have found both in contempt for this behaviour.

This is a record of all the posts you've made. Would you be kind enough to point out where this opportunity to explain our actions was mentioned?

http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34855#msg34855
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34875#msg34875
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34880#msg34880
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34883#msg34883
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34888#msg34888
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34890#msg34890
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg35003#msg35003
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg35007#msg35007

[Bilan]

Sorry to interrupt, Mr Justice I believe it was?



I'm afraid that I believe this current trial is the aforementioned chance to explain.

[Rick_242]

I'm afraid that is the problem. Let's review shall we?

Court is adjourned!  Bailiffs, please remove the attorneys from this court.

We were about to be held in contempt of court. If he was really going to give us a chance to explain why would he hold us in contempt of court? Which brings us to our next point.

I therefore order a full judicial enquiry into the affair with the involvement of Mr.s 242 and Gasmask to be probed, at which point we will see if this whole affair was as a result of incompetence or genuine corruption - the latter, of course, will result in full criminal proceedings being brought.

He had no intention of listening to our story because he had decided that we were already guilty.

Even if he did say that he was going to give us a chance to explain our stories it doesn't matter because he had no intention of actually listening to us because he had already decided we were guilty. Had he remained judge this trial would be over which raises the question of who really is corrupt. The defendants or the witness himself?

[Bilan]

Taking this into account it is quite clear that further testimony is required from the witness to explain all of this.

Ah, and also

Wait, wasn't I the defence's assistant?!

My apologies for not explaining earlier, Ms Serene, but both I and Mr 242 are the defendants in the current case and are defending each other. Mr 242 is ill and as such Mr Justice is defending in his stead.



You are still my assistant but as the Defence's Stand is fully occupied I must ask that you view this trial from elsewhere in the courtroom, my humblest apologies.

Your thoughts on requesting further testimony, Your Honour?

[Groudon]

The witness's past actions appear to have been brought to the court's attention.  Very well.  Will the witness please testify regarding his explanation to the above statements, please.

[douglas]

I'm afraid that is the problem. Let's review shall we?

Court is adjourned!  Bailiffs, please remove the attorneys from this court.

We were about to be held in contempt of court. If he was really going to give us a chance to explain why would he hold us in contempt of court? Which brings us to our next point.

You were held in contempt, but no penalty imposed.  Given that, there was every scope for the revocation of this.  I have already explained the reasoning for bringing the farcical proceedings to a prompt end.  Your honour will also note that Mr 242 was not, in fact, held in contempt for exerting control over the judge; rather for baseless attacks against myself in a desperate attempt to cover up his own misdeeds - http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870 -  as well as the spoilers.

I therefore order a full judicial enquiry into the affair with the involvement of Mr.s 242 and Gasmask to be probed, at which point we will see if this whole affair was as a result of incompetence or genuine corruption - the latter, of course, will result in full criminal proceedings being brought.

He had no intention of listening to our story because he had decided that we were already guilty.

"The latter", in this case, was referring to "genuine corruption" as opposed to "incompetence".  I fail to see how inferring that the finding that you intentionally corrupted the court would result in criminal proceedings can be equated with an assumption of guilt.  It was merely a statement of the likely outcome were guilt ascertained.  Is Mr 242 really trying to claim that criminal proceedings would not follow a finding of corruption?

Even if he did say that he was going to give us a chance to explain our stories it doesn't matter because he had no intention of actually listening to us because he had already decided we were guilty.

See above.  Also why would it matter what I had decided?  You will note I ordered an independent judge to preside over this hearing; hardly the action of one intending to pursue an open-and-shut, you're-already-guilty-this-is-a-formality case.

Had he remained judge this trial would be over which raises the question of who really is corrupt. The defendants or the witness himself?

That trial is over.  The trial had everything to do with the allegations that Mr Gasmask was incapable of work, and the decision to reach a verdict and adjourn is irrelevant to the question of possible corruption.  I separated the two issues and ensured independent review of the judicial issues arising from the case.  Again, were I corrupt, there are numerous actions I could have taken to prevent a fair and just review of the situation - I did the opposite.

I have conducted myself in the interests of fairness and honesty in all matters pertaining to this nonsense.  Does your honour genuinely believe the same can be said of Mr 242?  I once again direct the court's attention to this:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870

Mr Gasmask may have manipulated the judge in a manner in which your honour does not believe warrants further repercussions, but this is a clear example of Mr 242 abusing his influence over the judge for his own personal ends.

[Bilan]

While I am highly grateful at the Court's decision to not pursue the matter of corruption any further in my direction, I am afraid I must object to the heightened accusations against Mr 242!



As has already been established, neither side used the role of the Judge for anything beyond trivial stringing points together.



As such if I am to go unpunished I believe that so should Mr 242!

[Selphos]

I believe it's too late for me to assume the previously-requested role of the Prosecution, is it not? From my point of view, it looks like Mr. Gresham is filling that role.

* Pidgey waits for doug's denial of this statement.

[douglas]

I am only too happy to oblige Mr Pidgey:

Very well.  To begin, the court requests Mr. Gresham to please take the stand.

[Selphos]

Doug I mean that you appear to be both a witness and the prosecution >_>

Besides, since when is the prosecution immune to being accused?

[P.P.A.]

My apologies for not explaining earlier, Ms Serene, but both I and Mr 242 are the defendants in the current case and are defending each other. Mr 242 is ill and as such Mr Justice is defending in his stead.

You are still my assistant but as the Defence's Stand is fully occupied I must ask that you view this trial from elsewhere in the courtroom, my humblest apologies.

Ah, all right. I shall still try to support the defence when I see fit though.

* P.P.A. sits down in the 16-bit corner of the courtroom.

Doug I mean that you appear to be both a witness and the prosecution >_>

Besides, since when is the prosecution immune to being accused?

Mr. Gresham also assumed himself the role of the judge, as seen here: http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34883#msg34883 and here: http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34888#msg34888


Yet he's accusing Mr. Gasmask's and Mr. 242's practise of temporarily assuming the role of the judge for personally gain while in truth they only used the judge's person for trivial matters or to organize the flow of the trial.


Whereas Mr. Gresham himself clearly abused the judge's position which he unjustifiably took with the sole intent of supporting his point in the argument he started, which he followed up with attempting to adjourn the court without any given reason!

[Groudon]

Ms. Serene has a point.  Mr. Gresham did, in fact, use the judge's position to a much greater extent than either Mr. Gasmask or Mr. 242.  The court requests an explanation from Mr. Gresham as to why he decided to use the judge's position to a greater extent than either of the attorneys.

[Bilan]

Excellent work Serene.

[P.P.A.]

Hehehe~

[douglas]

Ms. Serene has a point.  Mr. Gresham did, in fact, use the judge's position to a much greater extent than either Mr. Gasmask or Mr. 242.  The court requests an explanation from Mr. Gresham as to why he decided to use the judge's position to a greater extent than either of the attorneys.

My objection, if you remember, was to the fact that the judge should be independent of both the prosecution and the defense.  The only reason we were discussing the extent to which Mr Gasmask and Mr 242 used the judge's powers is because they should not have had them, and we were trying to establish 1) their motivations for illicitly obtaining the judge's power, and 2) the extent of their abuse thereof.

Whereas Mr. Gresham himself clearly abused the judge's position which he unjustifiably took with the sole intent of supporting his point in the argument he started, which he followed up with attempting to adjourn the court without any given reason!

Unjustifiably took?  I was asked to find a judge by both sides!  And I gave a reason to adjorn the court, if you remember: the matter at hand, RPG's ability or lack thereof to do work, was settled.  Further, I did not in fact use judicial powers to back up my own feelings - I ordered an enquiry to discover the truth of the situation.  I would have abused my powers had I ordered them both shot for it.

I would like for the third time to draw the court's attention to http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870 - the argument that the judge was used solely to keep the flow of the trial is nullified by this evidence, and I believe this should be addressed rather than going over the same points which I have already addressed again and again.

[Bilan]

Mr. Gresham you have made a critical error in your observation.



If the Court would look at this evidence from a different angle and think outside the box, as it were.

http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870

The witness is claiming that Mr 242 used the judge in order to further his own argument, by making key points with the Judge and bridging statements via himself.

However, let us switch around the two parties involved here.

Thank you very much. Although, there is something that is bothering me.



What is it Mr 242?



Mr. Gresham didn't support his claim even though he knew this was a court of law. Wouldn't that make him the one not capable of working rather than the defendant?



W-What!? I-Impossible!

What is the defence's view on this?

After examining the statements in this manner one thing becomes quite clear.





It is entirely irrelevant as to the manner of which that statement was made as Mr 242 was clearly not using the Judge solely for his own merit. He could've furthered the argument just as efficiently via himself.



Your thoughts, Your Honour?

[douglas]

And then it would have been clear that it was his opinion being expressed rather than any sort of manipulation of the system.

Also, for the love of Rolken* get some webspace RPG, MegaUpload is epic fail :(






(this is where being an atheist sucks, nobody to curse)

[Bilan]

Then I ask that Your Honour examine the above and conclude whether or not Mr 242 was indeed manipulating the system as the witness has stated, or if he was simply expressing his opinion on the matter through a different medium.

[P.P.A.]

Unjustifiably took?  I was asked to find a judge by both sides!  And I gave a reason to adjorn the court, if you remember: the matter at hand, RPG's ability or lack thereof to do work, was settled.  Further, I did not in fact use judicial powers to back up my own feelings - I ordered an enquiry to discover the truth of the situation.  I would have abused my powers had I ordered them both shot for it.

Mr. Gresham was asked to find an independent judge, however as he was already previously involved in the trial he clearly couldn't have been "independent" any more:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34875#msg34875
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34877#msg34877
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34878#msg34878
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34880#msg34880

Furthermore his behaviour as a judge was intolerably rude and clearly proved that he was incapable of assuming the role of such an important role in the court.

Right, you want a judge?  I'll give you a fecking judge.  Welcome to the court of Doug bitches!

http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34883#msg34883


This all supports that at no point it was justifiable that Mr. Graham assumed the judge's role for himself!

[douglas]

I am not Mr Graham.  Clearly Ms Serene has no grasp whatsoever on the matters at hand <_<  Furthermore, I was independent in the matter at hand - RPG's ability to work - and took pains to ensure the matter to which I was not impartial was the subject of this independent inquiry.  My rudeness is irrelevant to the matter at hand - that of whether or not Mr Gasmask or Mr 242 deliberately corrupted the system for their own ends.

Your Honour, I feel there is little else to be said, and unless Mr 242 has anything further to add I think we'd all like to hear your ruling on this matter before this trial also descends into a farce of mudslinging and irrelevancy.

[P.P.A.]

Mr. Graham

Yes?


Oops, I meant to say "Mr. Gresham" of course. Sorry.

[Groudon]

I do believe everything that needs to be said has already come out into the open.

After looking over the evidence again, I did, in fact, notice one thing.  The way that Mr. 242 was assuming the judge seemed like it had some manipulation in it the way the parties were placed.  Although Mr. Gasmask did point out that if you switch the parties around, it would make more sense, that is not the initial post, which is key for this matter.  Unless Mr. 242 has anything to add, I am ready to declare my verdict.

[Selphos]

Also you guys are forgetting that if the prosecution were to make a statement like that then he wouldn't be doing his job as a prosecutor. >_>

[Rick_242]

My rudeness is irrelevant to the matter at hand - that of whether or not Mr Gasmask or Mr 242 deliberately corrupted the system for their own ends.

That's the problem, the systems were not corrupted to their our own ends. The recess did not do anything except prolong the trial. You can't call that corruption. The other post:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870,

in no way shows any corruption. Allow me to explain. The trial at that time was whether or not Johan Gasmask could be capable of doing any work. The Prosecution at the time was supposed to prove Mr. Gasmask guilty of not being able to do any work. However, the trial shifted from proving Mr. Gasmask guilty to this leaving the Prosecution unable to get his guilty verdict. The shift was due to the post mentioned above. If the Prosecution really was using the judge for his own corrupted ends then...



He would not have made that post!