[Chambers] Indictment of members of the Election Commission

I am going back and forth from my kitchen looking at this so I haven't had the chance to really sit down and look through it, but the indictment is credible enough, and alleges a serious crime, that I would accept it.
I'd name myself as moderating justice and LD as standby hearing officer, but not set on that yet.

@Lord Dominator initial thoughts?

@Pallaith I will ask you to recuse yourself in this matter.

Obviously.

I myself and still thinking through it, though it does look serious.

I am fine with being the Standby, but will note that we need another THO due to the necessary Pallaith recusal I believe before we finish this out - Sanctaria has offered and Elu is handily winning the election looks like.

Also, while I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of hypothetically running one singular trial as you presumably intend, are we sure we can do so?

Ah, missed that you already appointed Sanctaria

I would be minded to grant the indictment. It is a serious allegation, and the complainant has provided evidence for us to consider, so it is a credible application.

Lord Dominator:

Also, while I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of hypothetically running one singular trial as you presumably intend, are we sure we can do so?

Click to expand...

I hadn't gotten that far yet, but I don't see a single trial complying with article 7 of the Bill of Rights. Being tried as one would arguably be unfair and presume that the guilt of one means the guilt of all. I'm willing to hear other views, but I lean towards having each nation tried in a separate trial, but where evidence submitted in one trial can be referenced in the other trials (Which would also allow each defendant to refuse to testify against themselves in all trials).

With 3 of the 4 members of the Bar named in the indictment, Dreadton is the only possible prosecutor. If we accept the indictment I would inform Chipoli that they as VD have to appoint a prosecutor.

Regarding the prosecutor I would agree - Chipoli has to do the appointment, and we might have to pause something if Dreadton declines/”is unable to see the case to completion.”

Broadly my view is that we should assume separate trials, unless by explicit consent som number agree to have their particular trials combined as one, in full knowledge that it would be one guilty/not guilty verdict. Tlomz I believe would need a seperate one in general, as they are missing one of the counts the others have. Regardless, I do believe I lean towards (nominally, since realistically they can’t be totally) seperate trials in general, with the expressed idea of “shared” evidence and equal protection from self-incrimination in the ones a given defendant is not directly in.

On review I also agree with Sanct that the presented indictment has sufficient detailing to present a plausible case for a trial.

The indictment has been withdrawn.