Cakatoa
TNPer
I've got it running again, and already we're running into problems that should have been sorted out before this damned thing started.
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8040117&t=6824676
Whose responsibility was it to ensure that witnesses were qualified by the court to act as 'expert witnesses'? How would we go about doing this, even if this is a bit late and something that should have been done before the trial started.
I think I need to go through the entire thread and legal code with a fine toothed comb, but I'm beginning to suspect that the sensible option would be to start the trial again, give time to get witnesses sorted, and stick to a time period for the trial. Of course, I need to find out if this is an actually legal approach, otherwise we'll be stuck with a ridiculously tangled mess of a trial that's gone through lots of justices with different interpretations of the law.
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8040117&t=6824676
Whose responsibility was it to ensure that witnesses were qualified by the court to act as 'expert witnesses'? How would we go about doing this, even if this is a bit late and something that should have been done before the trial started.
I think I need to go through the entire thread and legal code with a fine toothed comb, but I'm beginning to suspect that the sensible option would be to start the trial again, give time to get witnesses sorted, and stick to a time period for the trial. Of course, I need to find out if this is an actually legal approach, otherwise we'll be stuck with a ridiculously tangled mess of a trial that's gone through lots of justices with different interpretations of the law.