[Gallery] The North Pacific v. Bobberino

Seem to me, as your ALL high ranking members of the NPA, there is the appearance here that the judge and AG should recuse themselves.

QuietDad:

Seem to me, as your ALL high ranking members of the NPA, there is the appearance here that the judge and AG should recuse themselves.

Click to expand...

There is no conflict of interest provision for the AG, nor is there a recusal requirement following from that. As well, none of the three Justices nor the Standby Hearing Officer are members of the NPA at all.

Darcania:

If it please the Court, could the above off-topic posts by a member of the public and any related responses be split off from this thread and placed in the Public Gallery?

Click to expand...

It is done.

4. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a vested interest in a matter before the Court, or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.

Click to expand...

"Holding a membership in the same body as one another" is a pretty big stretch of what constitutes a conflict of interest - especially since, if true, that would bar any member of the RA from sitting as justice for a criminal case against any other member of the RA. "Vested interest" means having a personal stake in the outcome - for example, a sitting justice running for delegate should recuse themselves from a criminal case against another candidate for delegate, because they personally benefit if that person is convicted (by making the race easier for them to win).

Not only does the AG not have a requirement to recuse themselves, as Darcania has point ed out, they also can only ever benefit the defendant with any personal bias. An AG prosecuting someone they have a bias against will.... prosecute them to the best of their abilities, just like an AG without a bias against that person would. Only an AG who wants to see a defendant get off can throw the case, by prosecuting poorly or convincing the court to accept a watered down plea deal.

Excerpt from sentencing:

Further, the defendant does not appear remorseful or to regret their actions.

Click to expand...

I call bullshit.

The picture linked above, if anything, was just a formality. How is remorse legally defined? Because I know Bob well, and I think it was pretty clear that Bob is not some sociopath who doesn't even care about what he did.

Syrixia:

I call bullshit.

The picture linked above, if anything, was just a formality. How is remorse legally defined? Because I know Bob well, and I think it was pretty clear that Bob is not some sociopath who doesn't even care about what he did.

Click to expand...

I don’t think asking and getting a one word answer is proof enough.

For example, am I bootsie?

No.

Even though we clearly can tell I’m in fact bootsie, I could argue that bootsie is only me ICly, and that I, the player behind bootsie am not bootsie. While your argument may be a good one, giving an example where bob only replies yes is a rather straw man piece of evidence to prove that.