Tim case and recusals

[punk d]

I'm fairly convinced that hileville and I have zero conflicts here.

My plan is to open the proceeding, force both parties to substantiate why they believe any of us should be recused and then rule on the recusal.

I don't mind if there is a CoI shown, but what I have seen from both sides is flimsy at best.

 

[punk d]

and by 'rule on the recusal' i mean we each make the determination whether or not to recuse ourselves.

 

[Hileville]

Yes arguing that I have a COI because I worked with the UDL is insane. If this is going to be the new trend then I might as well resign as a Justice because I am involved all around NS.

 

[punk d]

I agree. We all should resign then...hehehe.

What's worse, is I fear different counsel could seek to call justices as witnesses in order to get them off a particular case.

 

[punk d]

Okie dokie...Gaspo is MIA.

He's presented no witnesses per court rules and hasn't said anything. I believe the appropriate thing would be to dismiss the case.

But I don't want to do that just yet, but it's not fair if the defense is putting forward information and the AG is AWOL.

What do you guys think?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

The AG has already presented a case in the accusation. It's his job to support that argument. In the mean time, the Defense can proceed in dismantling the initial evidence.

 

[punk d]

Well, there's no actual evidence that has been submitted as part of the trial.

 

[Hileville]

Yeah no evidence has been submitted. The indictment phase only consists of supporting arguments to get the indictment. If the prosecution doesn't participate there can't be a trial.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Well I can only assume the logs the AG provided will be used as evidence, otherwise it would have been rather pointless to present them.

 

[punk d]

they probably will, but the AG has to go through the procedures of presenting them.

 

[punk d]

I'm going to dismiss the case at the end of discovery if the AG does not show up.

 

[punk d]

For the sake of posterity.

Regarding the decision to dismiss the case with prejudice. The decision to dismiss the case with prejudice was made by me, the Chief Justice, acting alone. The justification for doing so was based upon the following:

3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.

No rules exist when a prosecutor abandons his position during discovery phase of the trial. A prior trial with me as the AG TNP v Unibot was dismissed,but evidence had been submitted (and rejected) by the court at that time, so it was a different scenario than this case in that the AG presented nothing during the discovery phase and defense counsel was unable to reach the AG.

Thus, the Chief Justice was flying blind. In the interests of justice, the Chief felt that the misconduct of the AG should not subject the defendant of another trial and so I dismissed the case with prejudice. I do believe that the court should adopt rules regarding dismissal. At the time of this decision to dismiss the case, the current adopted court rules do not specifically state if the Moderating Justice or Full Court would decide on this matter. This should be made explicit in the future for all motions needing the full court's input.

Should I be on the Court if this decision is questioned in the future, I shall recuse myself from further involvement on the matter save for any informational requests that may be made at the time.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Actually, laws do exist when it comes to Criminal trials and they are very, very well defined:

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
12. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
13. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
14. Once an ejection is performed, the Government must notify the ejected nation of their rights within one hour, and publicly submit a criminal proceeding to the court within six hours.
15. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
16. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
17. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
18. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
19. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.

The Court gets to decide what the verdict is, and that means all of us, not just the Chief Justice.

 

[punk d]

Arguments didn't end. Discovery did.

And if you felt this strongly about it, you should have pointed this out while we were having the discussion.

When I say:

Okie dokie...Gaspo is MIA.

He's presented no witnesses per court rules and hasn't said anything. I believe the appropriate thing would be to dismiss the case.

But I don't want to do that just yet, but it's not fair if the defense is putting forward information and the AG is AWOL.

What do you guys think?

If you disagree with a dismissal, you'd say "hey you can't dismiss this case". Not after the fact. Just sayin'

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I didn't disagree with a dismissal, as you suggested, but I do disagree with a dismissal with prejudice, which was never, ever discussed here until after you already declared it so, Punk D. I didn't object to a dismissal with prejudice because that was never brought up or even suggested.

 

[punk d]

You know i don't want to argue BW. I am just saying that was my thought process. If it was faulty, so be it and I should reap the consequences. But, I definitely didn't have any malicious intent or intentionally seek to circumvent the process. I didn't think there was a processe so I created one on the fly.