Discussion in 'Courtroom' started by Hileville, Nov 26, 2012.
The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.
I appoint Kialga as the Standby Hearing Officer for The North Pacific vs The Swedish Republic of New Kenya.
For clarity's sake, this is the trial topic for The North Pacific vs The Swedish Republic of New Kenya.
Ah, point of order:
As Kialga is an elected justice, they are ineligible to serve as a Temporary Hearing Officer and thus cannot constitute a valid choice as Standby Hearing Officer.
I think I'll want to ask my fellow justices to clarify that rule.
Meanwhile, I do think your interpretation is better than my original interpretation. I withdraw that appointment.
I appoint Nessuno (Territorio di Nessuno) as Standby Hearing Officer.
Your honours, These charges are an absurdity. Issues such as this arise all the time, without the need to involve the courts.
However, under our laws nobody should be left without an advocate, especially when the full might of the Attorney General's office is brought down on one so young and vulnerable.
I believe these charges to be malicious, especially the accusation of proxying where even a cursory examination of the evidence must have shown the Attorney General that no proxying has taken place.
Should the court accept these charges, I offer myself as defence counsel. I have a certain experience in these matters.
After considering this indictment and the relevant law, I believe that I have a conflict of interest which consists of a vested interest in the outcome of this matter. As such, I am obligated under the law to recuse myself from considering whether to accept this indictment, and from hearing the case if it is accepted. The remaining justices will need to select a temporary hearing officer before deciding what to do.
Additionally, since I am Chief Justice, I believe it would be incorrect for me to appoint the moderating justice or the standby hearing officer due to my conflict of interest. I am therefore using my discretion to say that the remaining justices will select one of themselves to assume the duties of the Chief in this case, if it is accepted and proceeds to trial. Whoever assumes these duties will need to choose a justice (or the appointed THO) to act as moderating justice, and will need to choose a non-justice to be Standby Hearing Officer. The latter role is not an official position, but indicates someone who is available and willing to serve, and does not have a conflict of interest, in case one of the members of the Court hearing the case must recuse themselves during the trial.
If the case does not proceed to trial, there are no duties of the Chief which need to be assumed and the above will not apply.
As the acting chief justice in the case brought by the Attorney General's office against Bill Kennedy I hereby announce the decision of the remaining justices to appoint Crushing Our Enemies as temporary hearing officer.
If I might petition the court,
The accused, Eraver, has been removed from the forum by Administration since it has become clear that they are well below the age allowed under the COPRA section of our Terms of Service.
This renders this court case moot, and in any real life criminal system which takes account of Age of Responsibility, a defendant who is revealed to be significantly under age would be removed from the adult criminal justice system.
Can I suggest that, given the impossibility of the defendant appearing or entering evidence in court, and especially the age of the accused, it would be inappropriate for the case to proceed? There is simply nothing to gain.
I would ask the Attorney General to withdraw the charges and, should they refuse, the Justices to refuse to hear the case.
Please disregard the court filing, as with the power of the submitting party, I declare it null and void.
Separate names with a comma.