Case #000: Houseman vs Harrington

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:If anyone else in the forum does not realize that I am channeling the prosecution, whose job is to make Honor out of a liar by disputing everything she says, then speak up and I will slow down a tad.

It is the prosecution job to ascertain the truth and seek justice, which does NOT mean "make Honor out of a liar by disputing everything she says". It would help if you knew the law better, since basically "lying by omission" is NOT true lying at all (despite what your parents may have told you).

PS: have you given up on Houseman?

The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law.

penny wrote:If anyone else in the forum does not realize that I am channeling the prosecution, whose job is to make Honor out of a liar by disputing everything she says, then speak up and I will slow down a tad.

tlb wrote:It is the prosecution job to ascertain the truth and seek justice, which does NOT mean "make Honor out of a liar by disputing everything she says". It would help if you knew the law better, since basically "lying by omission" is NOT true lying at all (despite what your parents may have told you).

penny wrote:Lying by omission IS a lie in matters of this severity. It makes you look guilty. But in Honor's case it is closer to outright lying, than by omission, when she is asked a direct question. Which she was asked a direct question, by the text Jonathan posted. I will get around to that.

Wrong. Young filed the case and Honor's team would be the defense. Young's team would be the prosecution and their job is to prove Young's case and convict Honor.

The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law.

penny wrote:If anyone else in the forum does not realize that I am channeling the prosecution, whose job is to make Honor out of a liar by disputing everything she says, then speak up and I will slow down a tad.

tlb wrote:It is the prosecution job to ascertain the truth and seek justice, which does NOT mean "make Honor out of a liar by disputing everything she says". It would help if you knew the law better, since basically "lying by omission" is NOT true lying at all (despite what your parents may have told you).

penny wrote:Lying by omission IS a lie in matters of this severity. It makes you look guilty. But in Honor's case it is closer to outright lying, than by omission, when she is asked a direct question. Which she was asked a direct question, by the text Jonathan posted. I will get around to that.

Wrong. Young filed the case and Honor's team would be the defense. Young's team would be the prosecution and their job is to prove Young's case and convict Honor.

The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law.

tlb wrote:In a criminal case against Honor, Young would only be a witness and his team would definitely NOT be the prosecution (perhaps you are thinking of a civil action, not a criminal one). So don't tell me how well you know the law, maybe your sister should post instead of you.

It is true that an official pleaded with Honor to make a statement, but she did not. Since she said nothing she did not and could not have lied. She did not even "lie by omission" (not a crime), since she said nothing at all.

PS: will you swear that you have had a full conversation with your sister about: A) whether saying nothing really counts as "lying by omission" and B) whether "lying by omission" is even a crime.

PPS: Looking guilty is also not a crime.

penny wrote:Lying by omission IS a lie in matters of this severity. It makes you look guilty. But in Honor's case it is closer to outright lying, than by omission, when she is asked a direct question. Which she was asked a direct question, by the text Jonathan posted.

penny wrote: Why are we arguing about something silly? Are you objecting to me calling the DA the prosecutor?

DA = Prosecution.

Technically, the DA can hire private lawyers. The DA retains the lead role, but it is still possible. But why does it matter? The DA IS the prosecution team!

tlb wrote:

penny wrote: Why are we arguing about something silly? Are you objecting to me calling the DA the prosecutor?

DA = Prosecution.

Technically, the DA can hire private lawyers. The DA retains the lead role, but it is still possible. But why does it matter? The DA IS the prosecution team!

No, we are not arguing about you "calling the DA the prosecutor". Instead we seem to be arguing about you calling Young's team the prosecution, when Young and his whole team are nothing more than witnesses. If the prosecution team is Young's team, then there is a miscarriage of justice and the results would be thrown out on appeal.

We seem to be arguing about your "understanding" of the law and silly is not a strong enough word for it.

Theemile wrote:
Nimitz had also been drugged by a Cronney so we wouldn't follow Honor to the Showers- surely a blood test, if taken soon enough after the event would back this up. In which case it's a big pile of conspiracy and conclusion to attack Honor.

Theemile wrote:Nimitz had also been drugged by a Cronney so we wouldn't follow Honor to the Showers- surely a blood test, if taken soon enough after the event would back this up. In which case it's a big pile of conspiracy and conclusion to attack Honor.

Fox2! wrote:Evidence of drugging a tree cat in futherance of a sexual assault would surely have gotten the attention of She Who Not Even the North Hollow files would have deterred.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:1. Why entities in the HV will not commit EE violations.

Because that brings EVERYONE down on you. What's the point of winning against your enemy if you're not there afterwards to benefit from it?

2. Why people don't simply turn down challenges to duel. Come on! Who should give a shit about what somebody thinks of them for not choosing to draw on Clint Eastwood. Even if you are a gunslinger yourself. But if you are not, why throw your life away simply because people will “talk.” So???

I am not asking for a rehash of that idiotic hard to swallow huge pill of an explanation. Spare me! Because nobody is going to get me to swallow a pill claiming that someone who is as afraid as Pavel Young is of dying, or even Reginald Houseman, would give a ratsass about what will be written in the faxes.

Please read Toll of Honor. There are sections that explain both Paul Tankersley and Pavel Young's viewpoints on why they both thought they had to go through with the challenge once accepted. Since it's a spoiler (or not, since this was really already described in FoD), I won't discuss it here.

It doesn't matter what you'd do in their condition. You and I are not in their shoes. It only matters what they thought the consequences would be for them and, in Paul's case, other people he cared about.

Regardless, in Houseman's case, none of it should even come close to applying because he is working in an official capacity for the government. He is a civilian working in an official capacity for the government. Of anyone, he should have the official protection of the government. Civilians work for the government in official capacities all of the time. It is a common occurrence. Can you imagine the top engineer at Lockheed Martin being backhanded by the biggest, toughest Admiral in the Navy while on an important trip to South Korea?*

The fact that he's working for the government does not absolve him from having done stupid and illegal things. He did try to emit an illegal order.

Yes, he could have sued Honor for assault, but then she gets to present her case to explain her frame of mind at the time, and his career dies with it. I don't think it's worth it.

Moreover, his allies wouldn't let him because they knew he had overstepped his bounds. He was far more useful for him as a victim than disgraced.

It is wrong guys. Plain old wrong. Not to mention, illegal. The principle of civilian control of the military places ultimate authority over U.S. armed services in the hands of civilian leadership, with civilian responsibility and control of the military balanced between the executive and legislative branches of the government. —internet

If a member of any branch of the military is allowed to assault a civilian, then what we have is total anarchy. What's worse is that Houseman is a politician! A society can ill afford to have its military busting civilian heads. Or politician’s heads. And certainly not politicians who are temporarily civilian-turned diplomats! If Houseman was out of order because he broke a direct order given by the Queen, then he should have been arrested. Not assaulted. At any rate, Houseman should not have to worry about having to challenge Harrington to a duel to get justice. The court system should provide that. This case IS NOT a personal matter. As it was with Young and Paul.

Who says any member of the military is allowed to assault a civilian? No one is arguing Honor had the right to do what she did. She was reprimanded for it.