[CHAMBERS] TNP v. Elu
- Thread starter Sanctaria
- Start date
Abbey
TNPer
Okay:
Impersonation - Dismiss charge -purely- on the basis of the fact that the alleged impersonation (and impersonation alone) took place before the law was passed. Refuse to address the rest of the argument on the basis of irrelevance.
Election fraud- the Defense is correct that the case currently presented is weak, but there is the potential for them to argue this (as reflected by the acceptance of the indictment), so my opinon is that this motion should be refused.
Treason - The point of the trial is to prove these things. Again, the indictment was accepted - there is some "base" to the charge. Again, I think this motion should be refused.
Gag order - no way in the fiery depths of hell. There is no legal basis to this request at all. It is in fact illegal as per the bill of rights:
Impersonation - Dismiss charge -purely- on the basis of the fact that the alleged impersonation (and impersonation alone) took place before the law was passed. Refuse to address the rest of the argument on the basis of irrelevance.
Election fraud- the Defense is correct that the case currently presented is weak, but there is the potential for them to argue this (as reflected by the acceptance of the indictment), so my opinon is that this motion should be refused.
Treason - The point of the trial is to prove these things. Again, the indictment was accepted - there is some "base" to the charge. Again, I think this motion should be refused.
Gag order - no way in the fiery depths of hell. There is no legal basis to this request at all. It is in fact illegal as per the bill of rights:
Even if there were legal basis, this -way- oversteps the mark - I'm not going to, ever, disclose my personal discussions with r3n and others involved in this case, especially given they have no basis on the doing of justice at all. Private conversations, especially, are -private- and -staying that way-. This gag order would essentially mean all of us dissapear off IRC and MSN and that's not happening.
Abbey
TNPer
*curls up in a ball in the corner*.
Right.
Disallowing of edits - This should be common sense. There's no legal basis but people shouldn't be editing anyway.
Allowing forum testimony - I'm willing to allow it, if they're sensible with it. I'd rather they didn't, though, but I understand why they'd need to.
Accepting the other ruling - I'm not willing to unequivocally accept the prior ruling. It is there, it exists, he can refer to it if he wishes, but I don't want to say "go ahead" because he'll overstep the boundaries of the ruling itself, which was directly in relation to the FoI request.
I'll deal with the rest later in the week.
Right.
Disallowing of edits - This should be common sense. There's no legal basis but people shouldn't be editing anyway.
Allowing forum testimony - I'm willing to allow it, if they're sensible with it. I'd rather they didn't, though, but I understand why they'd need to.
Accepting the other ruling - I'm not willing to unequivocally accept the prior ruling. It is there, it exists, he can refer to it if he wishes, but I don't want to say "go ahead" because he'll overstep the boundaries of the ruling itself, which was directly in relation to the FoI request.
I'll deal with the rest later in the week.
Cove
TNPer
Right. Let's see. I'll assume you only want views on the motions to dismiss.
Obviously the impersonation charge, as Abbey said must be dismissed since we can't exactly enforce laws that weren't in effect when a supposed event took place so I believe it to be quite obviously a charge we cannot let progress. Election fraud - I'm unsure on this - not really much evidence proving it, yet the indictment was accepted. My view would be not to dismiss the charge and to allow the trial to continue with that charge remaining. Treason, again - not much evidence, yet the indictment was accepted, so again - my view would be not to dismiss.
Obviously the impersonation charge, as Abbey said must be dismissed since we can't exactly enforce laws that weren't in effect when a supposed event took place so I believe it to be quite obviously a charge we cannot let progress. Election fraud - I'm unsure on this - not really much evidence proving it, yet the indictment was accepted. My view would be not to dismiss the charge and to allow the trial to continue with that charge remaining. Treason, again - not much evidence, yet the indictment was accepted, so again - my view would be not to dismiss.