The People v. Jamski - Case No. 2151-01

[Jamski]

I stil plea not guilty to everything they throw at me.

-Jam

[Mead]

PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT RULES ON HONG HU'S APPLICATION

We, THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT (Magistrate Octavian, Magistrate Mead, and Magistrate Vander),

Commend Comrade Hong Hu on her civic mindedness.

We note however, this is not a civil lawsuit between two citizens; this is a criminal trial where the people are prosecuting the alleged crimes of a citizen. If you seek to act as the People's Prosecutor or as a Special Assistant People's Prosecutor, and the CCC appoints you to conduct or assist the CCC in the prosecution of the case, we will permit you to present evidence and call witnesses. It is within the CCC's discretion to appoint you as a Special Assistant Prosecutor to present the aspects of the case that you seek to have presented.

We Rule,

That if you are to make an appearance in this case you must be acting in an official capacity, not as a private citizen. Your Application to Intervene as a private citizen, dated Jan 6, 2004 is denied.

There are only two parties in this case we are judging; the People and Comrade Jamski; we do not want a private prosecution.

If you do not seek to obtain the appointment as a member of the Prosecution (or if the CCC decides not to appoint you) you may still, at the end of the findings phase, as well at the end of the sentencing phase (if there is a conviction on any of the charges) file a friend of the court brief. As you are well aware, in those briefs you should only argue facts that have been admitted into evidence. If, for whatever reason, you are not a member of the Prosecution, the Court may, but is not required to, in the interests of justice consider your briefs.

THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Jamski]

Can HongHu be called as a witness by the prosecution perhaps?

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Comrade HongHu respectfully accept the Court's ruling and states that she will not appeal. Comrade HongHu also states that she does not seek to act as the People's Prosecutor or as a Special Assistant People's Prosecutor since her interest is different from the prosecution. She will be glad to give testimonies when called upon by the court, not necessarily for the prosecution side.

[Jamski]

I could like to call Comrade HongHu as a witness for the defense.

-Jam

[Voltaire]

The People’s Procurator begs the pardon of the court for miscommunications between our two agencies. The charges upon which Comrade Jamksi was arrested are not the same charges with which the People’s Procurator has deemed fit he be held accountable for. At the time of the arrest we lacked sufficient evidence and information on the activities of Citizen Jamski, but in the interests of the People we had his arrested on what evidence we had. The new charges brought about against Citizen Jamski reflect the new evidence and information obtained by the People’s Procurator.

-People’s Procurator

[Mead]

The Defendant, One Citizen Jamski, is Arraigned

We, THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT (Magistrate Octavian, Magistrate Mead, and Magistrate Vander),

Recognize Hong Hu's decision not to make an appearance. As we noted before, Hong Hu is free to submit friend of the court brief(s) at the end of the findings phase, and if there is a finding of guilty on any of the charges, sentencing phase of this trial.

Recognize that Voltaire, whom we will hereafter also be referred to as to as the Prosecutor in this Courtroom, as it appears he will be conducting the Prosecution personally, has chosen to proceed with the ten charges he filed on 06-01-2004 04:16.

1. Instigating a public disturbance resulting in internal strife;
2. Seizing by force offices of PRAVDA, disseminating anti-government propaganda;
3. Countermanding the will of the government;
4. Leaking internal matters to other factions;
5. Working against the best interests of the People of the Human Hive;
6. Violating the spirit of the previous Constitution;
7. Instigating and engaging in anti-governmental activities resulting in obstruction to the work of the government;
8. Using threats against the government and the People of the Human Hive;
9. Disseminating unsubstantiated and unconfirmed alleged diplomatic communications hindering proper diplomatic functions of the foreign service branch of the administration; &
10. Treason against the state.

Recognize that the Defendant initially entered mixed pleas on 06-01-2004 08:30, however on 07-01-2004 03:30 entered

I stil [sic] plea not guilty to everything they throw at me.

-Jam

a plea of Not Guilty to all the charged offenses.

We allow the Defendant to amend his pleas to Not Guilty.

We Rule,

that we will allow the Prosecution to move forward on the prosecution of the charged offenses. We note, that this Court is uncertain whether all the alleged offenses alleged constitute crimes punishable by law. We will allow the Prosecution to not only prove that the Defendant did what is alleged above, but also if the Defendant did do what he is charged with, that such conduct is a crime. We observe that several of the Charges appear, at first glance, more likely to be criminal behavior, if proven, than others. This means that we may find that several of the offenses that the Defendant is alleged to committed are not crimes. We will permit evidence and argument by both the Prosecution and Defense.

THE DEFENDANT IS NOW ARRAIGNED.

THIS TRIAL IS COMMENCED.

JEOPARDY HAS NOW ATTACHED.

The Prosecution will post its Opening Statement no later than 2359 GMT 11 Jan 2004.

Both the Prosecution and Defense will post their expected witness list, notifying both the Court and opposing consul of the witnesses it intends to call, no later than 13 GMT Jan 2004. The lists should not be overly broad. Leave to add witnesses after the deadline will be granted only with good cause shown. No party will take any action to hinder access (for interviews/depositions) to another parties witness. The Court, of course in the interests of justice, at any and all times, retains the ability to subpoena and call forth any witnesses it feels are required to testify.

The Defense will post its Opening Statement, after the Prosecution posts its opening statement, no later than 2359 GMT 12 Jan 2004.

No later than 2359 GMT 15 Jan 2004 the Prosecution will begin its case.
The prosecution will make it exhibits using Arabic numerals as Prosecution 1, Prosecution 2, and so on. The Defense will mark its exhibits as Defense 1, Defense 2 and so on.

The Prosecution may submit exhibits for admission into evidence and may call witnesses.

Unfortunately, this Court believes that this courtroom does not have the capabilities of Real Life Chat, such as MSN. Not all the members of the court have access to MSN. If any of the parties has knowledge of how real time testimony can be accomplished, the Court would welcome being informed.

Without this capability, the party calling the witness will Post their questions for direct exam. The witness will then answer. If the opposing consul objects to a question thy may post an objection. Note, that if the objection is not made before the witness answers, the objection may be moot. (This may allow somewhat real time testimony). Cross exam will follow in the same manner.

This will require the Court (at least one of the Judges), the witness, and the parties being on line, on Apolyton, at the same time. The Court will work with the parties in scheduling testimony.

Once the Prosecution is finished. It will be the Defense's turn.

Once the Defense is done we will allow closing arguments by both sides and Comrade Hong Hu.

Then the Court will deliberate and return with our findings or guilt or innocence on the charged offenses.

If there are any findings of guilt on any of the charged offenses we will enter the sentencing phase.

If we need a sentencing phase, it will proceed in much the same format as the findings phase, and the Court will give further instruction at that time.

THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Jamski]

Objection - prosecutor is also the plaintiff

-Jam

[Snowflake]

we will allow closing arguments by both sides and Comrade Hong Hu.

/me appreciates the Court's kind considerations.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Jamski
Objection - prosecutor is also the plaintiff

-Jam

We, THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT (Magistrate Octavian, Magistrate Mead, and Magistrate Vander),

Overrule the Defendant's Objection.

The Prosecutor is representing the State in this trial. The Prosecutor is not a plantiff.


THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Vander]

Plaintiff is for civil matters, not criminal.

[Jamski]

I know. I don't think I did anything criminal. This is Voltaire vs Jamski not the State vs Jamski.

*mass uproar and confusion*

-Jam

[Voltaire]

In the case of the objection of the defendant the People’s Procurator does see merit. As such it would be best if Chairman Voltaire were not to act as prosecutor for the case, we humbly request that the court allow the prosecution time to find a suitable replacement.

[Vander]

Originally posted by Jamski
I know. I don't think I did anything criminal. This is Voltaire vs Jamski not the State vs Jamski.

*mass uproar and confusion*

-Jam

It does not matter if you think that you have not done anything wrong. The state is charging you with the crimes aforementioned. Therefore, this is a criminal case, State v. Jamski. It does not matter who brought the charges up. What matters is that the state has taken the case and is charging you as a criminal.

[Jamski]

Damm.

Ok, carry on.

-Jam