Motion to Recall Romanoffia

Abbey

Abbey

TNPer
Right. Here goes.

Initial Disclaimer before I go any further: My activity is patchy, my health is flaky. I may not be able to defend this motion for various reasons. This is not because of a lack of feeling or commitment but because of ongoing circumstances that make that incredibly difficult.

To the meat of this, I motion for the recall of Romanoffia as Justice. He has demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule of law (as demonstrated by the following), demonstrated a lack of insight as to when it would be inappropriate to rule or get involved (Here, and here), demonstrated a desire to flout the fundamental rights of nations within the region rather than admit to a mistake, refuse to hear motions to dismiss when they could be entirely legally relevant.

His conduct throughout the current situation are not indicative of someone who is working to the region's best interests, the rule of law or even just working around the problems within the law. His actions strike more as someone who is just making it up rather than deal with the system working as it does. I'd rather a trial take 3 months and be done properly than take 3 weeks but be a bodge-job that does not remotely resemble a fair trial.

He has demonstrated a lack of insight as to what he is doing wrong and as such I doubt that he will step down, thus this motion.

I will do my best to defend this motion but I will not be putting my own health at risk in order to defend it, I simply felt that it needed to be made.
 
Abbey Anumia:
Right. Here goes.

Initial Disclaimer before I go any further: My activity is patchy, my health is flaky. I may not be able to defend this motion for various reasons. This is not because of a lack of feeling or commitment but because of ongoing circumstances that make that incredibly difficult.

To the meat of this, I motion for the recall of Romanoffia as Justice. He has demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule of law (as demonstrated by the following), demonstrated a lack of insight as to when it would be inappropriate to rule or get involved (Here, and here), demonstrated a desire to flout the fundamental rights of nations within the region rather than admit to a mistake, refuse to hear motions to dismiss when they could be entirely legally relevant.

His conduct throughout the current situation are not indicative of someone who is working to the region's best interests, the rule of law or even just working around the problems within the law. His actions strike more as someone who is just making it up rather than deal with the system working as it does. I'd rather a trial take 3 months and be done properly than take 3 weeks but be a bodge-job that does not remotely resemble a fair trial.

He has demonstrated a lack of insight as to what he is doing wrong and as such I doubt that he will step down, thus this motion.

I will do my best to defend this motion but I will not be putting my own health at risk in order to defend it, I simply felt that it needed to be made.
Click to expand...
Being useless is no disqualifier for office in TNP.

Interesting that people seems strangely reluctant to chip in on this thread.
 
I'm not going to put up with this crap any more.

The legal system in TNP is a sham.


The Case of TNP v. JAL has been dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE as it is absolutely impossible for the Court to render any decision, nor be independent of mob rule or public opinion due to the threat of recall of any justice who does not abide by mob rule.

Now, is everyone happy now? The entire Court is now meaningless as nothing resembling justice can ever be obtained if it pisses off the wrong people.

Justice is dead in TNP.

Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est.




My official opinion is that you just replace the entire Court of TNP with a Lynch Mob because that's what we in fact actually have at this point.
 
That's a bit extreme Romanoffia and I did not support this recall. But if you're going to let the public pressure get to you and resign, then you shouldn't be a Justice. It's a thankless job most of the time, but that's the sacrifice you're supposed to make.
 
Well...now I believe that this motion for recall did not automatically ignite because Roman probably missed it.

Roman, I'm sorry man, you've lost it. First, the attorneys weren't listening to you, then you were going to let them do whatever they wanted to do, and now just when things simmered down in the actual court area, because someone not affiliated with the case presents a recall motion against you, you lose it and dismiss the case.

That's really childish man. There's no other word for it. If you read through the comments before yours none were bringing out the pitchforks against you. This motion didn't get a post for close to 24 hours. Sometimes not saying anything says volumes. I think if you continue in this manner, the only recourse the RA will have is to recall you. As someone who has been the subject of multiple recalls while on the bench, a justice is a thankless job and you will face scrutiny. It's really part of the job. If that's not something you want to deal with, it would probably be better if you resign.
 
I didn't support this recall and I still don't. One of the reasons why I ignored it. Punk D is correct Roman. This is disappointing and I would advise you to consult with the other justices appropriately.
 
Let me put this clearly. I have reviewed the indictment. I have received much abuse here and on IRC from Justice Silly string before I decided to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Now before I go further and after much discussion on IRC about this case, I recuse myself from any further proceedings on TNP v. JAL. Let me explain.

After reviewing the indictment and reviewing statements made by the prosecution, I have decided that under the current indictment as written that there is insufficient evidence to continue a trial at this time.

And given the level of corruption of the trial as a result of attempts of undue influence being exerted by supporters and detractors of the defendant to which I have been subjected to, there is in my opinion as a Justice and Chief Justice no possible way this trial can be continued in a fair and constructive manner, ever.

However, despite the fact that I have dismissed the charges against JAL with prejudice (Meaning that it cannot be brought back to trial without additional and new evidence) which precedent says I can do, and logic and reason claims I can do, Justice Silly String insist to take it upon herself to open a new trial.

I contend that this is an illegal action on the part of Justice Silly String (note that I have previously recused myself in this matter after the dismissal as noted above) because it defies not only the authority of a Presiding Justice to dismiss a case but also the authority of the Chief Justice in general and in total disregard to precedent and due process, not to mention double jeopardy.

Also, Justice Silly String is totally ignoring the procedural, lawful and constitutional fact that she cannot re-try the matter because of the manner of dismissal but she also ignores the fact that it requires the AG to bring the charges again with new additional evidence that supports the initial indictment.

Justice Silly String is apparently bent upon prosecuting JAL regardless of legal procedures, the law or the constitution in an effort to usurp the authority of the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice and the Court in general and thus become judge, jury and executioner on one fell swoop.

I have been elected several times consecutively as a justice and voted to be Chief Justice. This implies a general trust that I have nothing less than the fair administration of justice in a fair and impartial manner by the people of The North Pacific. Now that trust is being questioned by Justice Silly String who apparently seems hell-bent on prosecuting someone who has been released from the charges as presented to the court on the basis that no fair trial can be had due to the pressures brought to bear on the Court as a whole.

If my decisions as Presiding Justice and Chief Justice are allowed to be ignored by a single Justice who is bent on couping the court for whatever reason, then there is no justice in this region.

It is better that the guilty go free than the innocent be wrongly convicted. That is my opinion and I will stand to it to the end.

If having a backbone and standing up for what is right regardless of the animosity one receives for taking such an honorable stance is something bad, then recall me in the name of mob rule at the expense of impartial justice.

I appeal to the RA for legal reform that keeps the Judiciary independent of the pressures of special interests and politically popular concerns.
 
What legal reform do you believe would reflect what you've asked for? removing alleged political pressures and what not?

You are giving a very mixed response here. On the one hand, you have alleged that you have ended the trial as admins would not stop the defence from trolling in the court room. On the other, you are saying there is not enough evidence to proceed?

Shouldn't that have been addressed at the beginning of the trial?

As much as I like you Roman, you're being completely ridiculous on this. You have provided no clear explanation as to why you have ended this trial. You have given several different reasons that would appear conflicting if you bring them to conclusion. If it is because the defence is trolling too much, why dismiss the case? You're giving them exactly what they want. You're allowing them to win the case and to get their client off, because you can't handle the trolling properly.

There is no couping of the court. It is your responsibility to treat your fellow justices as equals and with respect. You're taking out your frustrations with the trolling by the defence on anyone you can - SillyString, the court system, the administrators.. etc.

You're the presiding justice of that case, but the justices are elected together and render their opinions together. Did Ator ignore his fellow justices when he oversaw the trial of Haafingar and Hjaalmarch? I don't think he would have done that.

This is very disappointing and I expected better. You've had a good career on the bench and it shouldn't end on this note.
 
Roman, you were on the court that made the ruling that dismissal with prejudice is invalid. I know because I was too.

The Court's ruling then - which you unambiguously agreed with - is quite clear:

Jeopardy can only apply to matters where there has been a trial and a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. Given the opinion of the court that in the absence of a trial there was never any legal verdict, jeopardy has not attached. Accordingly, the plaintiff is free to refile charges.

Decision
Jeopardy only attaches to a case when an official and binding verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty has been delivered. Verdicts of the court are only official and binding when the trial has been conducted in a legal and constitutional way, without violating any of the defendant's rights.
Click to expand...

You are - as I have said all along - perfectly within your rights to dismiss the case. What you cannot do is dismiss the case in an illegal manner, or otherwise break the law. Dismissal is valid. Dismissal with prejudice is not.

I have made every effort to address things with you in private. I have contacted you via PM, and over IRC, and in the private court area to urge restraint and consult with your fellow justices before posting. But when you don't check in with us, when you unilaterally speak for the Court without its majority approval, when you outright violate the law, I have an obligation to the region not to let that slide. To sit back and watch under those circumstances would be a violation of my own oath as a justice.

I have not once urged you to take a particular course of action when it comes to the decisions which are your unilateral right as Moderating Justice to make. I have only stepped in when the law has been broken and you have refused to correct your course, in order to clarify the law for all involved. I do not enjoy doing so, as it undermines the Court's reputation, but the alternative - a unified court that abuses its authority - is untenable.
 
As I noted in the public gallery, I'll not again the inconsistency in Roman's post above. In one part he notes the case was dismissed "without prejudice" but later in the same post it is dismissed "with prejudice". This is also the case in his ruling within the court thread.

That needs to be clarified.

You have definitely given the defense what it wanted and any defense attorneys where you are the presiding justice now have a procedure document to get their client off. If they get under your skin, you'll dismiss the case.
 
The evidence as presented within the indictment points to a possibility of guilt. It does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that is what Discovery and the trial are for. The fact is that if the evidence that was presented could be supported otherwise then a guilty verdict could reasonably be reached by the Court. Whether it would or would not isn't the point.

The claims that insufficient evidence was submitted to support the original charge is erroneous. If all evidence, without excuse and without possible alternative interpretation, needs to be presented prior to the acceptance of an indictment by the Court then there would be no need for the Court to begin with.

The case was dismissed legally and that is that. Personal opinions as to the reason for the dismissal do not actually change the end result. Once Romanoffia clarifies his mistype of without/with in regards to prejudice then the case should be laid to rest.

If the DA wishes to readdress the charges with different evidence, that is his right.
 
This thread is not really about the trial/retrial of JAL. it is to discuss the recall of Romanoffia.

Of greatest concern to me is the sentiment expressed by Roman that the legal system in TNP is broken and cannot work. I understand his desire to fix the system, but you do not have to be Chief Justice, or a Justice at all, to do that.

The question is whether, given his conduct in the JAL trial and his meltdown at the end of the trial, he ought to be on the justice bench?
 
Roman: The Court has crap flung at it. Constantly. And it's annoying as hell. But you cannot let that get to you, or, if it does, then you need to recognise this and step back for a while. Part of the deal with trials is that the defence will do everything it can to win - that's the deal wherever you are. You had options to control the defence which didn't impinge on the right to a fair trial, which would have demonstrated an understanding of where the Court Rules came from and why the procedure for trials is the way it is.

I proposed this motion because it is becoming more abundantly clear that you cannot maintain a clear head and take courses of action that result in justice occurring fairly when put under the pressure that is put on the Court in controversial cases. If nothing else, you've demonstrated a refusal to step back when it is obviously wise, and that is one of the most concerning things, as your staying on the Court concerns me about where else you may not step back when you should.
 
Romanoffia:
The legal system in TNP is a sham... The entire Court is now meaningless as nothing resembling justice can ever be obtained if it pisses off the wrong people.

Justice is dead in TNP.

Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est.

My official opinion is that you just replace the entire Court of TNP with a Lynch Mob because that's what we in fact actually have at this point.
Click to expand...
So basically we now have a chief Justice who believes the above, but has stated repeatedly that he intends to remain as a justice, and as Chief Justice.

I am not entirely sure why he would want to do so, but I would remind the RA that the only recourse we have in this region under such circumstances is Recall. It is the only irresistible force that can move an immovable object.

It is either that or we stop having trials for the duration of this judicial cycle and wait to elect new justices. But that hardly seems fair on SillyString or Ator People.
 
If he couldn't handle public opinion, which he actively sought out and participated in, then he should have resigned. Dismissing the trial while keeping the position is unfair to the idea of Justice in The North Pacific.
 
punk D:
You have definitely given the defense what it wanted and any defense attorneys where you are the presiding justice now have a procedure document to get their client off. If they get under your skin, you'll dismiss the case.
Click to expand...
That may or may not prove to be the case, but it seems this motion was the straw that broke the camels back. If someone doesn't like the way a case is going, propose a recall. This particular recall was proposed before the Discovery portion of the trial. :eyebrow: Personally, I have my reservations about the motivations behind the recall, but meh. The damage is done.

Fleminovia:
Of greatest concern to me is the sentiment expressed by Roman that the legal system in TNP is broken and cannot work. I understand his desire to fix the system, but you do not have to be Chief Justice, or a Justice at all, to do that.
Click to expand...
This is the height of hypocrisy in my opinion. You and a few others have oft suggested the Justice system is flawed at best, and on numerous occasions have derided the decision making of the RA. The Defense teams tactics may have played a role in the dismissal, but the comments in the Public gallery thread did as well. Maybe JAL should extend a thank you to all who contributed to his victory (empty as it may be). Furthermore, personal attacks on a Justice while a case is under way, while entertaining in a schoolyard sense, is conduct unbecoming. You were the one who first hinted at the idea of a recall.
 
Not at all. I am not serving as Chief Justice of the region. As a private citizen I can have, and express, any opinions I wish. Actually, I agree with a number of the conclusions reached by Romanoffia.

But when I hold an office I put those personal opinions to one side and do the job I was elected to do, and implement the platform I stood on. I do not think anyone would claim that I do otherwise. It is like maintaining an OOC and IC divide.

One of the reasons I am hesitant about taking office in TNP is that I would have to work hard to make work a system I do not entirely believe in. trust me in this, if I felt I could not maintain that division between my personal beliefs and my professional duty, I would resign the office.
 
falapatorius:
but the comments in the Public gallery thread did as well. Maybe JAL should extend a thank you to all who contributed to his victory (empty as it may be). Furthermore, personal attacks on a Justice while a case is under way, while entertaining in a schoolyard sense, is conduct unbecoming. You were the one who first hinted at the idea of a recall.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no. That area of the forum was created as a place where commentary on trials could be conducted outside the courtroom. What Roman was doing was basically taking off his robes, entering through the back, and walking around to people in the crowd and asking "So how do you think the trial is going?". Entirely his fault. He sought out the abuse in the way he conducted himself in the commentary thread.

Here is a quote from the first page:

Romanoffia:
I do so love these peanut gallery threads. They, however, do not have any effect on how the Court will treat the matter.

That is not to say that the Court is not entertained and amused by it all.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

How interesting! And a neat refutation of your assertion!
 
What's the point of a recall when judicial elections are a month away?

Seriously, electing anyone to complete a term at this point would be a matter of a couple of weeks and not even a month, even if this were to get to a vote.

The RA, as voters can address this at the next judicial election campaign in a month and if they disapprove of Roman's conduct as a justice, assuming he runs, they'll vote for someone else.
 
I actually oppose this because Roman recognized perhaps the most important legal truth there is in TNP: one does not simply put JAL on trial. No trial of JAL will ever be anything other than disastrous, and JAL will always win.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
If he couldn't handle public opinion, which he actively sought out and participated in, then he should have resigned. Dismissing the trial while keeping the position is unfair to the idea of Justice in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
That's not the problem.

The problem is that I was being trolled by the defence team and I did not have the moderation ability to control the problem due to some fault in masking.

I tried to gain the assistance of admin moderation and they refused.

As a result, no Justice at all would have been able to maintain order.

When you cannot maintain order in the Court Room because of the nature of the forum and the whole legal system.

Hence, the whole TNP legal system is a farce because you cannot conduct any kind of orderly trial if the Defence decides to go at it like a bunch of trolls.


And thus, I will not resign. You will have to recall me. And then when you do that and you get a repeat affair of the same thing, you can recall that Justice too. In fact, you can recall every Justice every time you disagree with a decision of the Court to compound the farce that the legal system is.

I will modify the dismissal to a simple dismissal and they any other Justice can take it up again, but there will have to be a new indictment with additional evidence.
 
Rach:
That's a bit extreme Romanoffia and I did not support this recall. But if you're going to let the public pressure get to you and resign, then you shouldn't be a Justice. It's a thankless job most of the time, but that's the sacrifice you're supposed to make.
Click to expand...
I have to comment on this one.

I have issued a second dismissal with additional comments and recommendations of the Presiding Justice/Chief Justice.

The corrections reflect the addition of two specific items.

1.) The Dismissal is a simple dismissal, without prejudice although not using this term.

This specifically means that the AG is entitled under the Law to refile charges against JAL in this matter with one caveat: the new Indictment must contain additional evidence to what has already been presented in the original indictment as this dismissal is tantamount to a rejection of the Indictment or has the effect of rejection of the original indictment as written.

2.) As the Presiding Justice and Chief Justice, I have also recommended in the Dismissal that Silly String recuse herself in any future handling of this matter should the AG re-indict JAL in this specific matter.

The reasoning for this is that one of the problems with this trial is that a Junior/Associate Justice engaged in interference with the trial by over-stepping her authority as a Justice junior to the Chief Justice and deliberately helped to undermine the authority of the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice and the Court in general through said interference and insubordination. As such, it is the opinion of the Chief Justice that Silly String is procedurally and structurally biased in terms of her perceived authority as a Junior/Associate Justice.

I will also recuse myself in presiding over any future renditions of this particular TNP v. JAL and with the recusal of myself and Silly String in the event the AG chooses to refile the charges against JAL, the last Justice standing is Ator, who will be granted the authority to appoint two THOs to adjudicate the matter should it come up again to trial.



As a side note to the comment by Mall in this thread that JAL cannot be convicted and will win every time, he may indeed be correct for a number of reasons.

Anyone who knows how to game the system (which is essentially anyone with two brain cells to rub together) and chooses to do so, can do it and do it with ease, especially considering how dysfunctional the legal system is with all its conflicting rules and lack of ability to maintain order should someone choose to game the system.

Currently, our legal system requires that the defendant cooperate with the Court during trials. When a defendant refuses to cooperate, that's the end of it because there is no retribution for disruptive hehavior in the court room and this is compounded by the fact that the admins of the forum choose to encourage such behavior by not putting a lid on it in terms of reasonably assisting the Court in terms of maintaining order.

Not being one to hold back and ever be the smarmy politician who bends over backwards to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, I can tell you exactly what is wrong with the whole picture here in TNP.

About 10% of the people in TNP go about things in an utterly mean-spirited way. That 10% think that they simply must engage in the art of personal destruction of others just to get their jollies. People get targeted and piled on every time out of the sense of joy that 10% of which I speak gets from singling out and tearing their targets to pieces if they can.

What makes it worse is that the other 90% of the people who otherwise are good people then jump on the bandwagon and act like little mean-spirited sheep who go along with whatever crowd is the loudest and meanest, and they do so just to avoid being potential targets. This is what destroys this region every time it happens.

I'm sure that one day someone here will start some kind of political party with a sufficient voting block in the RA to do nothing but constantly recall every official in the government just to cause chaos and disruption because that's what mean-spirited twits do. They don't work as a team to improve the region, they work as a team to destroy it by pitting one person against another, targeting people for amusement and generally being obnoxious trolls when they can get away with it.

If that's the type of behavior you want displayed in this region, just be ready for all the good people to just leave and what will be left is only the bottom feeders in a cesspool of vicious thugs.

I've been in TNP since the beginning of TNP and I've seen a lot of garbage over the years, but it's getting worse in terms of destroying the region. Everyone finds it easier to destroy than to create and easier to abuse than to support. But that seems to be the nature of people. Be a wolf or a sheep. Our alleged 'Democracy' is turning into two wolves and sheep deciding who to eat for dinner precisely because of incivility and a general refusal to behave like thinking individuals rather than as a member of a perpetual lynch mob looking for a victim and a tree.

Remember, if you choose to pile on someone because it's the popular thing to do at the time you are giving up your own choice to think for yourself. And eventually, if keep going with the mob, you will eventually find a tree with your name on it in a most ironic sense.

So, if you want me out, then you will have to recall me because I will not resign. And then you can replace me with whatever little toady you want that will do your bidding like a good little toady.

Oh, and in the end, JAL still wins. :P
 
It seems to me that the Court ought to amend its own rules to provide for penalties for violating those court rules designed to complete a trial with reasonable dispatch, such as restricting or eliminating improperly or untimely prepared evidence, imposing limitations on defendants or their counsel if they fail to cooperate, or even issuing a summary judgment for the opposing party, and so forth. The key, of course, is to make clear what the penalties will be up front for doing so.
This is no different than what a real life court would do -- courts have bound and gagged disruptive defendants and thrown their counsel in the slammer for contempt.
Obviously we can't throw anyone in a jail, but if it is known up front that a trial would proceed while a defendant or counsel are suspended from posting in their trial thread for a period of time, and denying anything that seeks to delay a trial, I guarantee you trials will proceed.

During the discussions that led to the current constitution, I had suggested that what we needed was a four person court so that, for any one trial, one justice would preside and the other three justices would serve as an appeal panel for that particular case. This would likely reduce the number of THO that would be needed, and it would make real the right of appellate review in a criminal case without having the trial justice involved in the appeal of the case.

I still think an appellate division of the Court structured in this manner would help things a lot. Just my $.02.
 
Grosse - you'd think amended rules would be necessary but, the rules state that the chief pretty much has discretion do whatever he/she wants even if not in the rules.

That could have been used in this case.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
It seems to me that the Court ought to amend its own rules to provide for penalties for violating those court rules designed to complete a trial with reasonable dispatch, such as restricting or eliminating improperly or untimely prepared evidence, imposing limitations on defendants or their counsel if they fail to cooperate, or even issuing a summary judgment for the opposing party, and so forth. The key, of course, is to make clear what the penalties will be up front for doing so.
This is no different than what a real life court would do -- courts have bound and gagged disruptive defendants and thrown their counsel in the slammer for contempt.
Obviously we can't throw anyone in a jail, but if it is known up front that a trial would proceed while a defendant or counsel are suspended from posting in their trial thread for a period of time, and denying anything that seeks to delay a trial, I guarantee you trials will proceed.

During the discussions that led to the current constitution, I had suggested that what we needed was a four person court so that, for any one trial, one justice would preside and the other three justices would serve as an appeal panel for that particular case. This would likely reduce the number of THO that would be needed, and it would make real the right of appellate review in a criminal case without having the trial justice involved in the appeal of the case.

I still think an appellate division of the Court structured in this manner would help things a lot. Just my $.02.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree about the appellate division issue. The idea I have been promoting for years, and which no one will give fair shrift to is to allow any decision to be appealed (if there are legitimate reasons to appeal, such as new evidence after a trial is concluded, and that only the defense can appeal a decision) to an ad-hoc court consisting of randomly picked volunteers from the RA.

It would work like this:

A defendant found guilty can appeal a case to a 'jury' of 3 RA members picked at random and who accept the hearing positions (and do not have any conflicts of interest, obviously) if there is a legitimate legal or logical reason to appeal, or if new evidence surfaces at a later date.

Add to that an exception to the rule: Any person convicted of an offense that results in permanent expulsion from the region is entitled to an automatic appeal if they so choose (permanent expulsion from the region being our nearest equivalent to a capital offense).

The appeals jury must base its decisions in a sound legal fashion and can consider mitigating circumstances that possibly justify the actions of a defendant.

In this way, you don't produce an automatic conflict of interests by appealing to the very justices who rendered a guilty verdict in the first place.

We most definitely need to have the ability to find unruly and uncooperative participants in Contempt of Court and put teeth to Court imposed penalties such as moderation warnings and/or 'removing' said offender from the court room and placing their account on moderation for the duration of the penalty.

As it is right now, the Court is utterly powerless to actually enforce the laws in a meaningful fashion, especially if a convicted person can just create a new nation, a new board identity and then claim 'duality' to skirt the laws.





punk d:
Grosse - you'd think amended rules would be necessary but, the rules state that the chief pretty much has discretion do whatever he/she wants even if not in the rules.

That could have been used in this case.
Click to expand...

It was essentially used. Previous Justices have created rules on the fly where no such rules existed and without having to actually enter them as amendments to the actual rules - such as temporary rules specific to a hearing that are not applied automatically to other subsequent cases.

One of the big things in the existing court rules that needs to be changed is the general order of trial proceedings. We need to either abolish the Pre-Trial phase altogether or put it after the Discovery phase (as the Defense cannot by logic move to dismiss on the grounds of lack or or insufficient evidence before any substantial evidence is submitted).
 
Roman:
Any person convicted of an offense that results in permanent expulsion from the region is entitled to an automatic appeal if they so choose (permanent expulsion from the region being our nearest equivalent to a capital offense).
Click to expand...
Count me on board for that, with the caveat that an ad hoc Appellate Court be comprised of people that have some working knowledge of Court procedure. That may be obvious, but needed to be said.

Roman:
(as the Defense cannot by logic move to dismiss on the grounds of lack or or insufficient evidence before any substantial evidence is submitted).
Click to expand...
Call it logic, common sense, whatever.. can't disagree. Although, it could be mandated that all evidence be submitted at the start of the trial. Keeps the Prosecution honest too. Might also prevent evidence being 'edited' post-indictment. Maybe. :rofl:
 
Roman - you asked the Administrators to moderate for you. We told you that was your responsibility. If there was a fault in your masking you should have told us then. There is difference between asking us to split a thread on your behalf and telling us to deal with the trolling.
 
I'm not a fan of ad hoc judicial bodies coming out of the legislature. There isn't any way to have such a selection without it becoming overtly political as to the particular case.

Electing a fourth justice and using the framework I have envisioned would work much better since the bodies would already be there. So there wouldn't need to be any time assembling an ad hoc body.

I do agree the areas or circumstances of appeal need to be spelled out, but that can come as implementation even in the Court rules. As to the order of trial, since that is covered in the Court Rules, Roman, you only need one more justice to agree with you to amend the Court Rules. And you have about five weeks in this term to do it.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
What's the point of a recall when judicial elections are a month away?
Click to expand...
What's the point of recalling anyone, then, when elections are just a few months away from the last election? :P
Click to expand...
Wolf is correct. We are always close to an election, and recalls tend to get talked out so they lose steam.

Since this thread has gone completely off-topic, can I suggest we go to a vote and discussions about future court procedure be split elsewhere?
 
flemingovia:
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
What's the point of a recall when judicial elections are a month away?
Click to expand...
What's the point of recalling anyone, then, when elections are just a few months away from the last election? :P
Click to expand...
Wolf is correct. We are always close to an election, and recalls tend to get talked out so they lose steam.

Since this thread has gone completely off-topic, can I suggest we go to a vote and discussions about future court procedure be split elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Flem and I don't agree on a whole bunch but I can't help but agree with his point here. There is a whole bunch of discussions here clouding the issue at hand.

Roman - I'm really sad that this is how you've chosen to see this through. Up until now I have been incredibly pleased with what you have brought to the bench.

As far as extra rules go, mid trial the appropriate response is for the CJ to use his/her discretion, period. If the RA don't like that then they can bring about reform later on as they have done many, many times when they don't like what comes from the Court.

I really don't mean to offend anyone in saying this but Roman I feel as if you could have done almost ANYTHING in that trial thread and no one would have judged you as harshly as for you dismissing the case. Particularly when you tried to do so *with prejudice* which was even more out of the blue.

As for a recall, if this is really the only way of finally seeing this case properly dealt with, by all means.
 
Seeing a motion and a second, a vote on the motion is scheduled to begin in three days (2.06.2014). Discussion on the creation of an appellate jurisdiction will be split if it continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top