People of the Republic of Atlasia vs. LouisvilleThunder (version 2.0)

[Crane]

You have just blocked it from happening. You say it is because there was no "speedy trial," but you allowed the appointment of a defense attorney to drag on for weeks. Then you allowed a sitting justice to represent the defendant! Then you demanded justification for the dismissal of patrial jurors, contrary to convention. In no other court is a defendant allowed to just ignore the charges against him, then cite the resultant delay as a reason the case should be dismissed!

During the first trial the prosecution did not provide any justification after challenging two jurors, thereby prolonging voir dire - and the entire trial - for no justifiable reason. The prosecution's three week absence may be forgiven - real life happens, things get in the way - but the ensuing delay of forty-five days before the prosecution even refiled the case? That cannot in good conscience be ignored. It represents a complete disrespect for the constitutional rights of the accused, which exist in our democracy no matter how severe the crimes of which they are accused.

Lol, not FORTY FIVE days! There was so much activity in that time!

Regardless of whether that length of time is unjustifiable (it isn't) you know as well as I do that I couldn't refile this case until I was appointed to do so. Once that happened, we were coming up on another election and other issues which I waited through to make sure this would get the full attention of the court, but it has been filed in a very reasonable amount of time to preserve the subject's constitutional rights.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bacon King raises and important point and one that I raised earlier on discord.

How do you conduct a judicial process, when you lack people willing and able to serve as defense/prosecuting attorneys?

Especially for criminal prosecutions, where a defense attorney is a constitutionally protected right. How do you make something come into existence out of thin air, when activity is low and the current population of players seems less legal focused then previous?

As I noted in previous periods, we did not have such extensive problems in this area of legal types years back even in periods of inactivity, with a game of 150 people and 100 to 120 voters and five regions to staff.

[Bacon King]

Lol, not FORTY FIVE days! There was so much activity in that time!

old case dismissed: August 31, 2021
new case filed: October 16, 2021

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You have just blocked it from happening. You say it is because there was no "speedy trial," but you allowed the appointment of a defense attorney to drag on for weeks. Then you allowed a sitting justice to represent the defendant! Then you demanded justification for the dismissal of patrial jurors, contrary to convention. In no other court is a defendant allowed to just ignore the charges against him, then cite the resultant delay as a reason the case should be dismissed!

I am remiss to get involved here, but if I may be so bold as to interject: it was I who urged my fellow justices that the defendant's constitutional rights would be violated if we accepted this case, not windjammer, and he was obviously not the only justice who agreed with me. This constitutional protection exists regardless of what happened in the previous attempt at this trial.

The court unanimously agreed that Justice PiT would serve as court-appointed attorney for the defendant after we tried and failed to find others who could fill the role. Most of the early delay was caused by the court's inability to locate anyone willing and able to represent the defendant, not by anything the defendant himself did or didn't do (and trust me, we tried!). The unorthodox choice of defense attorney was necessary to preserve the defendant's right to a speedy trial, specifically to prevent the outcome that has now occurred.

The presence of the defendant was ultimately not relevant to the conduct of the case - had he not appeared, the case would have continued regardless, only with Justice PiT representing him in absentia.

The only difference that could have reasonably sped up the first portion of the trial would have been if the defendant had selected his own attorney. This however simply cannot be a requirement or expectation we can place on criminal defendants, as the Atlasian Constitution provides all defendants with the right to an attorney, regardless of their ability or willingness to retain an attorney's services of their own initiative. These Constitutional protections are essential and should not be abrogated.

To the best of my knowledge there currently is no accepted convention pertaining to the conduct of voir dire in Atlasia? If one exists, and the prosecution believed the court was not properly adhering to this convention, then surely an objection would have been warranted?


Ultimately to blame the lack of a speedy trial on the defendant or even the court is a gross oversimplification.

During the first trial the prosecution did not provide any justification after challenging two jurors, thereby prolonging voir dire - and the entire trial - for no justifiable reason. The prosecution's three week absence may be forgiven - real life happens, things get in the way - but the ensuing delay of forty-five days before the prosecution even refiled the case? That cannot in good conscience be ignored. It represents a complete disrespect for the constitutional rights of the accused, which exist in our democracy no matter how severe the crimes of which they are accused.

To the bolded - why wait weeks for a justification that was never coming? The correct action would have been to allow 3 or 4 days to justify, then dismiss the objection and proceed to seek testimony from whoever was ready to begin first.

[Crane]

Lol, not FORTY FIVE days! There was so much activity in that time!

old case dismissed: August 31, 2021
new case filed: October 16, 2021

I literally just addressed why I had to wait until now to re-file? Besides, that's a very quick turnaround in real time. I have read about cases re-filed years after a mistrial or dismissal without prejudice. Some of us who play the game have real lives and that should be respected.

[Bacon King]

To the bolded - why wait weeks for a justification that was never coming? The correct action would have been to allow 3 or 4 days to justify, then dismiss the objection and proceed to seek testimony from whoever was ready to begin first.

this will be my last response in this thread because anything I say here is just nonbinding dicta, so if you'd like to continue this conversation let us continue it in the court case discussion thread

without the benefit of hindsight how could the judge possibly know that no justification was coming? He could have been absent for a week due to pressing real life reasons - what happens if the challenge is dismissed on day four and he returns on day seven with a valid justification (both for removing those jurors and his own absence)? Furthermore if I were in the judge's shoes I would not feel it fair to enforce an arbitrary time limit like that if it was not established at the outset.

In truth, windjammer was more lenient to the prosecution than I probably would have been in such a situation. A criminal trial is literally initiated by the prosecution, they have the burden of proof, the entire process is centered around them. How can a case possibly continue when the prosecution is AWOL?

[Crane]

Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I appreciate BK's testimony on this matter. Ultimately it does not change the fact that Windjammer has made threats and only stipulated later on that it was "in his private capacity". This is equivalent to someone making a public expression of Slander or Libel and then claiming they didn't think it would become public. It doesn't excuse his actions. And of course Windjammer isn't just someone, he is our chief justice and he has shown he is no longer impartial. To those thinking new information would change things, information does not seem to have any relation to the supposed justification for dismissal. It is clear - unless WJ is impeached LT is a free man. And who knows who WJ will fail to be impartial towards going forward. We certainly cannot trust him after tonight.

If Impeachment does not have the votes I am also supportive of Censure.

I have nothing further to say on this matter tonight and the DDNN press office is closing for the evening immediately.

[Sestak]

I will note that in real life of course the Supreme Court doesn’t even need to give a justification for denying certiorari. In fact they basically never do!

[Continential]

wtf happened while I was asleep

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

wtf happened while I was asleep

LT is a free man unless a change is made to the Court

Windjammer is making threats to elected officials and generally showing he will no longer be an impartial judge.