Capitalist Producers vs. The Vocals - A court case

The Court will consider the motion for judicial disqualification. The stay on proceedings is granted until the motion is answered. The stay may be lifted or extended at the Court's discretion.

 

I would like to clarify my statement of "I can say that I am starting to lean towards the Plaintiff's favor". I meant that in regards to his motion, not his position in the case

 

Your honors, this is outrageous! Defense seeks to go judge shopping because their own witness cannot behave on the stand. Plaintiff strenuously objects to Defense motion to remove any justice from this trial. Taking them in order...

There is nothing unprofessional about a justice admonishing a recalcitrant witness. Plaintiff feels that under the circumstances, Justice Armus Republic's response was vastly restrained as the witness is clearly vexatious in nature. There is nothing preventing a justice from stating in open court they are leaning in any particular direction, especially when it comes to pending motions before the court. In fact, that can be used to put one party or the other on notice they need to improve their performance in the courtroom, as was clearly in the intention with that statement. Right now there are two motions pending before the court, one for contempt against Nation of Quebec for his behavior on the stand and another restricting the legal wrangling to Fastercat and specifically excluding Nation of Quebec from further objections.

Clearly Justice Armus Republic's statements on the matter are appropriate and, based on Drasnia's motion, fell on deaf ears.

The time for objecting to a justice hearing any case is at the beginning of the trial. Plaintiff's support for this justice during the election process is no secret. The information available today is no different then the information available on April, 10, 2016 when this matter was filed with the court. If the defense felt that Justice Armus Republic would be unduly swayed by the faith Plaintiff places in him to arrive at a fair and unbiased verdict the Defense should have spoken up before the trial began. One cannot ask for a redeal of the cards once the bets are on the table. Nor can one ask for a new judge once the trial is in progress and things take a turn for the worse.

Clearly, the only thing that has changed here is Justice Armus Republic's obvious frustration with the behavior of the witness currently on the stand.

It should also be noted Plaintiff did not seek to replace the sitting justices and in fact stipulated to his acceptance of both Nation of Quebec and Kaputer to hear the case.

Lastly, bringing in a new justice at this point would require a mistrial and starting over from scratch. This would be a monumental waste of time already invested in these proceedings. It would also give an unfair advantage to the Defense as they now have an idea where the Plaintiff is going in this matter.

With the outrageous nature of Defense's motion in mind, and reminding the court Plaintiff reserved the right to ask for sanctions on the defense in the contempt citation, at this time Plaintiff does indeed ask for sanctions against the defense in the form of restrictions on objections. In order to move these proceedings along, Plaintiff asks that unless Fastercat is replaced as counsel for the Defense, that all objections must come from Fastercat and that the Defense be put on notice that further frivolous objections may lead to a directed verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

Thank you your honors.

 

Upon re-reading my post, I found that I had already clarified my statement. "While the two presented motions are still be deliberated upon, I can say that I am starting to lean towards the Plantiff's favor." This is my original statement

 

Given Justice Armus Republic's clarification to his statement, are the Vocals satisfied to the extent that they wish to withdraw their motion, or should the Court continue to consider the matter?

 

The Plaintiff has no objections to Defense withdrawing their motion to remove Justice Armus Republic, however based on the length of time since the last time we heard from the witness currently on the stand, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions remains before the court.

 

There will be no replacing of a jurist.

Capitalist Producers and Fastercat aproach the bench please...

 

Yes your honor.

 

All pending motions to this point denied
Capitalist Producers, call your next witness please

 

Thank you your honor. At this time I would like to enter two more posts into the record. '

This is the first post:

Yes it is. It goes up and down and all around. In fact, right now the earth is not near as warm as it was in 1250 A.D. and 1100 B.C.[1][2]

But, as you pointed out, there are many questions to be answered. Penn Jillette said it best with words to the effect of:

— If global warming is real, and so far with all the garbage surrounding the research into the subject no one has really proved or disproved it.
— And if man is causing it, and so far there is even no credible evidence to that effect.
— And if we can do something to stop or slow it, you can push a truck and start it rolling down the hill, but you cannot get in front of that truck and stop it.

Then, and only then should their be laws restricting the freedoms of the people in this country. That includes the freedom to drive the car they choose, get energy produced by coal fired plants and even buy incandescent light bulbs. Until all of those conditions are met, government needs to butt out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
[2] Got to wonder how the earth got that freakin' hot without all those nasty industrial and carbon emissions. Must have been all those ancient warriors using those SUV's and tour busses to travel back and forth between their armorers and the battlefields. Or was it just that metric-boatload of horses and donkeys people were using as their primary mode of transportation?​

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=19437821

This is the Second post:

So... You provide two citations, one of which is from a single climatologist who claims he is "one of the top 10 climatologists in the world" without any evidence whatsoever, works for an independent weather station in middle of fking nowhere, Idaho, who cites BIBLICAL PROPHESY http://weather-and-bible-prophecy.myshopify.com/ and has also said the government is secretly spraying us with chemicals. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tag/cliff-harris/

Maybe you should do some research before you cite someone else's research?

The other is your own snide comment. Good work. I'm amazed you aren't working for NASA as a climatologist.​

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=19438195

It should be noted that as of this entry, Nation of Quebec "disliked" the first post and "loved" the second post. You may scroll back on the RMB for 15 days af os this entry to witness those postings.

It was my intention to ask Nation of Quebec to explain his "love" and "dislike" for each of these posts and then rate them on a scale of one to ten for their level of respect. Plaintiff's intention was to put particular focus on this portion of the second post: "works for an independent weather station in middle of fking nowhere," The point to all of these questions is to highlight the clear double standard Nation of Quebec, a Vocal with veto power over RMB posts, employs when evaluating various posts on the board.

This line of questioning, the witness's responses, the witness's lack of response to difficult questions and his out right defiance of this court and it's procedures go right to the heart of why the purely subjective standard, "respectful" cannot be evenly and fairly enforced across the all posts.

Moving on now, Plaintiff calls The Clampdown of Kaputer to the stand.

 

Fire away. Quick notice though I am currently on my busiest part of the year, where I won't actually be in one country for more than 4 days for a few weeks. So my replies may take a day at most if not a tad more.

 

Plaintiff is deeply sympathetic to keeping up while traveling and is more than willing to stipulate to Kaputer's being on the road. There will be no objections to delayed answers.

In light of those circumstances and to make it easier on the witness, rather then do a straight Q&A routine, I'm going to change up my original trial plan somewhat.

Would you please explain to the court where the lines lay between humor, sarcasm, heated debate and respectful posting. When doing so, please explain to the court where each crosses the line, if that line moves and if so, what makes that line move.

 

**The plaintiff rises and addresses the court.**

Got a call from DC. As soon as my soccer game is over, I have to go to Orlando. We are talking driving all night and most of tomorrow. Once there I do not know what my availability will be due to flooded cell sites and just plain work. I will keep everyone advised once things shake out.

 

The Plaintiff is available again.

 

Kaputer please answer the question

 

The CID and I have been discussing this very question and we both agree to a point along these lines:
(1)
Humor:
Nation 1 says: - I believe my wife is putting poison in my coffee.
Nation 2 says: - I know your wife... drink your coffee.

Sarcasm:
Nation 1 says: - I believe my wife is putting poison in my coffee.
Nation 2 says: - She may needs something stronger...

Heated debate:
Nation 1 says: - I believe my wife is putting poison in my coffee.
Nation 2 says: - Do you know why? Because you cheated on her! What kind of person are you? That is a despicable action from your part! If I were your brother in law I will punch you in the face!!!

Unrespectful posting:
Nation 1 says: - I believe my wife is putting poison in my coffee.
Nation 2 says: - Accusing your wife without evidence??? Seems you are a comunist! Leftys like you are the worst scum in the world and usually believe everybody is against them!! Go to the doctor, you probably have brain damage... Do I hear a reply? (**Crickets...**). Uh-huh... That's what I thought. You actually do have brain damage... which explains 95% of the posts you've made here. It all makes sense now. Ladies and Gentlemen, look at this marvelous clown!!!

(2)
Only the last post of the above crossed the "respectful posting" line, as it goes directly against the other person, contains insults to him, and involves "all X are Y" type of arguments.

(3)
Although that line does not moves, its not the same for everyone: the ones in the government (like members of SC and Vocals) must also tryto held a higher standard by not even going as far as entering in a heated debate (sometimes its not possible). Less of all, saying something that goes against against the "respectful posting" rule. And truly less of all, saying something that goes against the "respectful posting" rule after you have been warned by the Mods and the Founder (several times).

 

Allow me to enter the following thread from the regional RMB into evidence. (Irrelevant posts have been left out.) This thread begins on this RMB page:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region_rmb/region=capitalist_paradise?start=8925

Femdom empire public relations
3 years 8 days ago

Why are members of your region attacking The Feminist Region, a region under the protection of the Femdom Empire?

I'm looking at this member: Abajabba

Our two regions have never had quarrel before. I expect an answer for that nation's offense.


The Jurassic Republic of Oceasia
3 years 8 days ago

What's going on here? I hope the invading nations are acting independently, and not by orders.


Femdom empire public relations
3 years 8 days ago

That's what I'd like to figure out.


The Jurassic Republic of Oceasia
3 years 8 days ago

Gonna check the forums to figure it out


Femdom empire public relations
3 years 8 days ago

Please do.

Capitalitz
3 years 8 days ago

Now, I only just got here, but I think this is rather common sense:

If a region of over 600 nations had it 'out' for a certain region, why in the world would they send only one member to try and take it down? Isn't it much more likely that some raider decided to keep his WA puppet in a large, inconspicuous region?

Seriously. There's 600+ nations here. That's like asking the President why an American tourist stabbed a guy in Toronto.


Femdom empire public relations
3 years 8 days ago

So, what? You're saying that if an American tourist stabs a guy in Toronto, and then flees back to America, the crime doesn't count?

I beg to differ. If I worked for the Toronto DA's office (which is sort of a good analogy for what I'm doing here), then I'd want the criminal brought to justice.

So how's your progress on that, anyway?


Dwasnia
3 years 8 days ago

> Femdom empire public relations said:

Why are members of your region attacking The Feminist Region, a region under the protection of the Femdom Empire?

I'm looking at this member: Abajabba

Our two regions have never had quarrel before. I expect an answer for that nation's offense.


The nation in question (Abajabba, is acting independently. Capitalist Paradise does not endorse raiding! If you want proof, go back to our post history about 2-3 days ago. Some nations wanted to start raiding and they were shot down, so to speak. CP does not raid. We are strictly neutral.


Femdom empire public relations
3 years 8 days ago

That's good to know, thank you.

So I take it you'll cease harboring the offender and banject him from this region, correct?


New cathedra
3 years 8 days ago

I believe that is a matter for our courts to decide...?


Afforess
3 years 8 days ago

I sent this telegram as a response. Hopefully it clears up this matter:

Esteemed nation of Femdom Empire Public Relations,

The Capitalist Paradise is a strictly neutral region without any offensive force. I understand a native from the Capitalist Paradise independently participated in an assault against your fair region. That is unfortunate. The moment he left the Capitalist Paradise, he was no longer a member, and our laws no longer applied to him. Unless he intentionally misrepresented his actions as being an official view of the entire Capitalist Paradise and her government, I see no legal recourse. Such is the nature of neutral regions.

I realize this may not be a satisfactory solution. In order to prevent a similar future faux pas, I urge you to contact our minister of foreign affairs, The Grand Duchy of Acario, regarding a treaty that might prevent unlawful actions from our members in your domain.

Respectfully,
Minister of the Interior,
Afforess

Post by Gunshows suppressed by Kaputer.

Gunshows
3 years 8 days ago

Hey, as long as you're here, make me a sammich.​

With this thread in mind and referencing back to your previous testimony, can you explain your reasoning behind deleting the post by Gunshows. Please explain how the post fails the humor and/or sarcasm test you set.

 

Your Honors, Defense objects to the question. It's unreasonable to expect my clients to recall anecdotal evidence and their circumstances from over 3 years ago. Besides, the evidence is irrelevant to the case at hand.

 

Objection is overruled. If your clients do not remember this specific exchange from 3 years ago, they can testify as such. As for the relevance, the question at hand seems to be a follow-up from the previous question which was answered without an objection.