Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[windjammer]

I don't know if there's any mechanism for change of venue, but I'd like to point out it would be hard to complete a fully impartial jury in Pacific which was sharply divided during the very crisis.

If I recall correctly, they can choose an another region for the jury.

[windjammer]

Just for the record,
I will not recuse myself, I didn't send a single party GOVT PM for both the general/run off elections.

[windjammer]

Just to be clear about something,
The Supreme Court does all it can to be as quick as possible. It's just extremely when basically 1 SC deregistered, an another one is missing, and an another one recused himself. We are 2 and we're not intentionnally waiting because "it's funny to have no president xD". It's just extremely difficult to end up having a ruling when we are only 2 and that there is no  tie breaker.

[windjammer]

I'm doing all I can to find a replacement for Dereich, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problem.

Btw, I know you mean well etc but you have no authority to do so.

[windjammer]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

[windjammer]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

[windjammer]

I must say, I am disappointed that NE case went directly to the Supreme Court, though I do understand the reasoning for it.

This was one concern I had when we merged the judicial branches of the regional and federal level. Yes, it reduced the total number of offices by 1, but my hope was that the regional Justices would act first in their capacity over matters, even when the federal constitution is involved. And then appeal occur if necessary.

I understand skipping it for simplicity, but this is a game and there are few cases anymore.

I understand your reasoning Yankee but this is just slowling the process as it is likely it would end up to the whole SC in the end.

And what is the problem with that? I mean I get what the problem is from the perspective of efficiency, but doesn't it set a precedent that really weakens the role of the Regional Justices?

The problem with that? Slowling the process. Just imagine if this could change the result of an election.

Is there an election currently at stake?

There is a such a thing as an expedited process for emergencies, yes. But in the absence of that, the normal process should be proceeded with.

I don't think so but still, I don't see the point of intentionnally makign the process longer.

[windjammer]

So when are we actually getting a ruling in TimTurner v. Peebs?

Soon,
The SC is currently debating about it.

[windjammer]

Don't worry,
Either the duel act gets struck down or not but that will be all.

[windjammer]

I mean, we are actually debating these cases.

[windjammer]

So it begins.

[windjammer]

This isn't the first time I have participated in a trial. But this is definitely the most important trial I ever had to deal with since I started playing this game in 2013, and since I joined the court more than 5 years ago.

[windjammer]

2013 here we come.

I call on the next administration to impeach Windjammer

Yep, called it.

Can't wait for Windjammer to switch his party to the Federalists.

Its always hilarious when current group of lefties doesn't like the last group of lefties supreme court majority. Which was 2013 in a nutshell.

Well second act of 2013. The first act was just rank inactivity at a time when a majority of the game did consider it appropriate to moralize about activity (not passing judgement for or against just stating how it was). Then that got picked up by and ran with by Laborites who were angered by the adverse rulings relating to the Pacific business.

All of the mid 2013 court's members ended up voting against Labor's candidates in the October 2013 elections. Bgwah and Ebowed voted for Superique over Tyrion and Opebo for then Federalist Spiral IIRC. Opebo also infamously joined the Federalist Party during that period as well.

For the record, in 2013, Adam simply wanted a labor supreme court instead of a napoleon friendly one (ebowed and bgwah were Napoleon's friends )

[windjammer]

I agree, this is a poor decision. Although the case would have likely been lopsided and uninteresting, this doesn't set a good precedent. I also must take objection to the description of this relating to actions of a "fictional character"; such statements undermine the canon status of the game engine and also don't make sense considering that all of this is fictional.

I guess I will explain more in detail my decision.


I do not believe the Supreme Court can simulate fantasy court case like that. The main reason being  basically due process. How could this fictional character "Elon Musk" be represented realistically? He's not even a real person in this game.

I'm not even against this kind of "fun stories", it's just to me the Supreme Court isn't going to host court cases where the accused person doesn't exist.

It's main point against it.

[windjammer]

Elon Musk isn't a player and the court isn't going to do a court case about someone who doesn't exist and who cannot represent himself

[windjammer]

So putting the mudslinging aside now, I want to get the official position of the Chief Justice and/or other members of the Court so that this problem won't come up again: should the GM Team assume de facto jurisdiction over NPC cases? We need to address the existence of lower NPC courts (like the Delaware Court of Chancery) for future lawsuits that can be appealed directly to the Engine if they are inappropriate for the regional or Supreme courts. This needs to be in the form of a constitutional amendment or statute, and it's something that we'll need to know for future GM nominees if that's the route we're going.

Honestly yes definitely. NPC court trials aren't the Supreme Court Juridiction. NewYorkExpress can simulate it.

I'm not trying to block you from doing your things. It's not our prerogatives simply.

[windjammer]

So putting the mudslinging aside now, I want to get the official position of the Chief Justice and/or other members of the Court so that this problem won't come up again: should the GM Team assume de facto jurisdiction over NPC cases? We need to address the existence of lower NPC courts (like the Delaware Court of Chancery) for future lawsuits that can be appealed directly to the Engine if they are inappropriate for the regional or Supreme courts. This needs to be in the form of a constitutional amendment or statute, and it's something that we'll need to know for future GM nominees if that's the route we're going.

I'm not sure it even requires a new law, quite frankly.

^^

[windjammer]

Can we have an update on the grand jury proceedings? It's been a week.

I don't have a feedback from all the jurors yet

[windjammer]

Can we have an update on the grand jury proceedings? It's been a week.

I don't have a feedback from all the jurors yet

Mr. Chief Justice,

Is there a procedure for resolving no feedback from jurors after X amount of time and also is there a certain threshold of time for no response which could lead to a juror being replaced or some other effort being made to resolve the situation?

Thanks,
WM

Oh don't worry for that, I'm waiting for an another week and if no feedback from the last remaining juror, I will announce the results