Search results

I believe the Justice was arguing that allowing evidence that can not be shared publicly would potentially prejudice the defendant since he would not be able to see all of the evidence against him. The principle of transparency is important for a democratic justice system. Also, to be fair to...

Is this trial even still happening?

I enjoyed the choose-your-own-adventure signature game.

Indeed. Based on his last post it would seem his defense is likely to centre around the government's inaction moreso than the charges themselves.

Looks good to me.

Yes, I agree with the ruling. To the other point, I do not believe testimony would be needed to validate a release of information under a freedom of information request or similar. It is generally assumed that the government would not alter forum posts, etc., as it would require multiple...

I would see testimony and the providing of evidence (outside of testimony) as distinct and separate things and would not like to see that in the ruling. The request that has been made in this instance (and has not yet been rejected by the govt) is regarding discussions but no request for...

I believe it pertains only to governmental authorities, of which the Security Council is a part. So it would not be permissible to subpeona evidence from individuals because of the nature of our legal structure and because that could violate their right against self-incrimination. And yes, I...

I believe the Court should be able to subpeona evidence from the executive if the executive will not provide it willingly upon request. Failure of the executive to provide evidence in support of criminal proceedings appears (to me) to be in violation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

For the record, I recuse myself from judgement in this trial and will not be taking part in any deliberations.

I do indeed, sorry for the delay.

Sorry, was busy this week. I will address the multiple issues in the morning.

Just saw this. Thank you.

Looks good to me.

Yes, that sounds reasonable to me.

I see that as just another RA oversight in quickly drafting and passing legislation. The wording of the law isn't ambiguous, which is, I guess, the reason we are here. So, I will concede the point.

Congratulations.

Hello, sorry for the delayed response. As some know, I am in the final stages of preparing my PhD thesis/dissertation (I'm in the UK) for submission so am a bit busy. Regardless, in taking a look at this, I have some concerns regarding the commentary on Chapter 6, Clause 2 above...

Delegate: Plembobria Would you like to reopen nominations? No Vice Delegate: Abstain Would you like to reopen nominations? No Speaker: Zyvetskistaahn Would you like to reopen nominations? No

Apologies, I am away this weekend, but will comment on this Monday. Short version: I agree.

:blink: Constitution 3.12

I have no objections.

This is incorrect.

I agree. But, I believe the Chief Justice was just following practice that has been in place since March.

The AG's Office should be contacting the accused in due course.

While I can see your points, I am not wholly sure that the succession line is a real concern. The RA last voted on altering the succession in March 2014. Between then and now, new nations added to the SC were simply placed on the bottom, while those leaving the SC were removed from the line...

Exactly. Plus I think we already gave him the Delegacy without an election once before.* Some people didn't care for it. *Or twice depending on the calendar of events you choose to believe.

For obvious reasons, I will not be able to serve as presiding Justice if this case comes to trial.

Further screenshots have been provided to the Complainant.

I will oppose any amendment that places offsite government positions into the LoS. We have had some very unsavoury characters as AG and Justice in the recent past.