Search results

I don't feel a pressing need to comply with your constraints at all. I don't believe you are able to issue them, and regardless of if you are or not, I know you're incapable of enforcing them.

Let's find out. I motion this to an immediate vote.

I have not been entirely clear here and that may be the source of your hostility. It is understandable and entirely my fault. The ultimate issue here is that I do not believe my client can get a fair trial in TNP. You have said yourself that the other justices have a bias(the "he has the best...

I'd like to motion for an extension of pre-trial motions as my client's work schedule has precluded his full participation in his own defense. An additional three days would be appreciated, as he should have more available free time this weekend.

I would like to appeal the presiding justice's dismissals to the wider court, as the presiding justice seems to be incapable of making a ruling that is not based on his own petty presumptions of guilt and bias against my client. The fact that the presiding justice is not impartial is indeed...

In the interests of justice, I'd like to make a motion that the presiding justice recuse himself from this trial. It has become clear that the presiding justice is incapable of presiding over this case in an impartial manner, due to my client's and his extensive history. Furthermore, as...

Twice now motions to dismiss for lack of evidence have been brought and twice now they've been denied without explanation. He takes the time to address the OTHER motions in our original posts, but not the lack of evidence arguments... which are the crux of the argument... What kind of judge is...

If it is in the prosecutor's possession it should've been part of the original indictment. As it stands the indictment was deemed good enough to get us to this stage of the trial. The strength of the prosecution's evidence in the initial indictment is what gets us to the discovery phase, not...

I'm going to note now that the prosecution failed to take into account that he presented evidence that was not immutable when he had the opportunity to screenshot the evidence he wanted to preserve. And beyond that has failed to address the majority of my OTHER points.

That's still alright. I can propose these as many times as I want. Though obviously I'd wait a while(as I don't wanna be a nuisance) if I saw this one fail by a large margin. Maintaining membership is a fairly simple matter.

First of all, I'd like to point out that the prosecution is outlining facts that are not, as of yet in evidence. He may not submit further evidence yet nor should his claims of further evidence be given any sort of significance. The prosecution had the opportunity to provide screenshots rather...

We're baaaack. Last time around I think I was a little hasty(and even I voted against the overturn in the hopes the courts would come up with a solution). But now I think is the appropriate time for this. So. Let's do this again. Section 2.8 of the legal code says this: I hereby propose to...

We'll see. I think my motion was pretty clear. So we'll know if they decline it out of hand if the court is hostile to my client or not. Personally I think this case is VERY weak. I'm sorta surprised they even accepted the indictment. Hell the evidence isn't even labeled right. Two of the pieces...

The defense motions for the charges to be dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence. Let us examine the four pieces of evidence in "support" of the charges as they currently stand. First of all we'd be remiss if we didn't examine the treason charge. This is relating to my client's supposed...

I heartily approve.

The problem is when discussing SC resolution(especially Liberations) in too much detail... it becomes a GP piece and not a WA piece. My area of expertise is the WA... with a particular focus in the GA. If you want a indepth and detailed article on a liberation you're asking the wrong guy. ;)

Considering that I've been somewhat clear as to my reticence to get involved in the thread where most of this is being discussed... I actually find that to be something of an over-reaction. But given that Chas and I haven't been able to connect on IRC over the last few days(despite my and him...

The World Assembly has managed to pass a couple of resolutions in the past week, but none more controversial than the security council resolution Liberate "Liberal Haven". When a collection of right wing groups (including several national socialist regions) decided to raid and "refound" Liberal...

Yeah he could put together quite the team if he really wanted. ;)

I'm here to report on the WA.

Flattery will get you nowhere. ;)

I just wish the courts had explained exactly what they wanted. For all I know there is no level of evidence that wouldn't allow doubt to be cast on it. To note I did ask the defendant to provide that information, without any coercion. He never replied.

TNP Nation: Dueling Cardsharps Delegate: r3naissanc3r Would you like to reopen nominations? No Vice Delegate:Abacathea Would you like to reopen nominations? No Speaker: Zyvetskistaahn Would you like to reopen nominations? No

I'm looking over this case and trying to figure out what I could've done differently to prosecute it better. I'm coming up with nothing. The standard of evidence is so high that it may as well be insurmountable. I'd need the guy to go on record(which no one can compel him to do) and say with...

The law as currently written allows for no debate time prior to a vote. That alone should be changed. Beyond that, what you're essentially doing is taking one of the few responsibilities the VD has, and one of the few places where they can show a genuine work ethic and pulling a Pontius Pilate...

Why is it ok to abrogate your responsibility as VD and throw every vote to the RA? Isn't it your duty to investigate security threats before denying applications? Are there other responsibilities you're going to completely ignore?

The prosecution hopes this hasn't been lost in the shuffle of recent governmental activity, and joins with the Defense in eagerly awaiting a ruling.

You know just in the interests of questioning things you appear to be certain can't be questioned... how do we know you won't be a Rogue Vice Delegate who tries to do dastardly things?

Ahh this is where we are getting hung up. I thought I was clear that I see the previous rejection as purely symbolic. There is of course a chance that the courts will rule elsewise, and if so this vote will become more than symbolic. But that's not how I see it, nor how I've argued it for these...

That's like saying that a resolution condemning someone passed by the US Congress must be repealed before someone can be elected to congress. The VD's decision has already been overturned. I'm moving to overturn the vote that upheld the original decision, as Clause 8 now allows. Let me be...