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

[windjammer]

Impeachment is a constitutional process. It’s quite breathtaking that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks merely mentioning, (not even introducing an impeachment resolution) a procedure contained in the constitution is somehow akin to overthrowing the judiciary. And I can assure you, impeachment was not brought up because people didn’t like how the case went.

You and crane considered it because the outcome.didn't go your way. You really don't see a problem with tje Independence of justice if justices get removed When they don't rule a certain way?

Again.

We all would have accepted the outcome of the trial. Your "ruling a certain way" has nothing to do with the grievances you have created as a result of your conduct.

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling?

There was no ruling!

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling saying the trial was dismissed?

It is about that but that isn't a ruling. A ruling is finding the defendant innocent or guilty, or a law unconstitutional or constitutional. None of that happened here. Instead you aided and abetted the defense in their delay of this trial, eventually threw up your hands and said you couldn't continue the trial because of a delay you helped bring forth, and then issued threats to those who disagreed. I fail to see how anyone can believe you will be impartial going forward.

I didn't make these threats (and again as a private citizen and not as a "justice") when you were considering impeaching me.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I thank Chief Justice Windjammer and the rest of the court for their consideration.

[Crane]

Impeachment is a constitutional process. It’s quite breathtaking that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks merely mentioning, (not even introducing an impeachment resolution) a procedure contained in the constitution is somehow akin to overthrowing the judiciary. And I can assure you, impeachment was not brought up because people didn’t like how the case went.

You and crane considered it because the outcome.didn't go your way. You really don't see a problem with tje Independence of justice if justices get removed When they don't rule a certain way?

Again.

We all would have accepted the outcome of the trial. Your "ruling a certain way" has nothing to do with the grievances you have created as a result of your conduct.

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling?

There was no ruling!

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling saying the trial was dismissed?

Because of your non-transparent and possibly corrupt methods of dispersing judicial complaints, denying the people of Atlasia a chance to seek justice which has the effect of unilaterally absolving someone of a crime.

So you're seeking to overturn the judiciary when this doesn't go your way and as well spreading false conspiracies against me.

It is about your conduct, not the court. You cannot use the powers of the judicial branch to shield yourself from accusations of impropriety.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Instead you aided and abetted the defense in their delay of this trial, eventually threw up your hands and said you couldn't continue the trial because of a delay you helped bring forth, and then issued threats to those who disagreed. I fail to see how anyone can believe you will be impartial going forward.

If you consider a frantic and desperate search to find someone with a pulse capable of serving as defense attorney to be a "deliberate strategy", more power to you.

I think the same problem befell the Justice Department here as well, and led to the ultimate collapse of this case.

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

Impeachment is a constitutional process. It’s quite breathtaking that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks merely mentioning, (not even introducing an impeachment resolution) a procedure contained in the constitution is somehow akin to overthrowing the judiciary. And I can assure you, impeachment was not brought up because people didn’t like how the case went.

You and crane considered it because the outcome.didn't go your way. You really don't see a problem with tje Independence of justice if justices get removed When they don't rule a certain way?

Again.

We all would have accepted the outcome of the trial. Your "ruling a certain way" has nothing to do with the grievances you have created as a result of your conduct.

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling?

There was no ruling!

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling saying the trial was dismissed?

It is about that but that isn't a ruling. A ruling is finding the defendant innocent or guilty, or a law unconstitutional or constitutional. None of that happened here. Instead you aided and abetted the defense in their delay of this trial, eventually threw up your hands and said you couldn't continue the trial because of a delay you helped bring forth, and then issued threats to those who disagreed. I fail to see how anyone can believe you will be impartial going forward.

I didn't make these threats (and again as a private citizen and not as a "justice") when you were considering impeaching me.

When implies past tense dude, as if my effort has stopped. My campaign to impeach you began before the threats yes, but the threats have only strengthened it, and your stipulation that you made the threats as a private citizen only came after you were called out on said threats.

[windjammer]

Impeachment is a constitutional process. It’s quite breathtaking that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks merely mentioning, (not even introducing an impeachment resolution) a procedure contained in the constitution is somehow akin to overthrowing the judiciary. And I can assure you, impeachment was not brought up because people didn’t like how the case went.

You and crane considered it because the outcome.didn't go your way. You really don't see a problem with tje Independence of justice if justices get removed When they don't rule a certain way?

Again.

We all would have accepted the outcome of the trial. Your "ruling a certain way" has nothing to do with the grievances you have created as a result of your conduct.

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling?

There was no ruling!

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling saying the trial was dismissed?

Because of your non-transparent and possibly corrupt methods of dispersing judicial complaints, denying the people of Atlasia a chance to seek justice which has the effect of unilaterally absolving someone of a crime.

So you're seeking to overturn the judiciary when this doesn't go your way and as well spreading false conspiracies against me.

It is about your conduct, not the court. You cannot use the powers of the judicial branch to shield yourself from accusations of impropriety.

So please, explain me my potential corrupt methods of administering this court case. Accusations must be presented with evidences!

[Crane]

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

The original trial was dismissed without prejudice, which means the state is free to file those charges again, and then the chief justice in essence changed his mind! You cannot say the current decision had anything to do with the initial prosecution.

[Crane]

Impeachment is a constitutional process. It’s quite breathtaking that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks merely mentioning, (not even introducing an impeachment resolution) a procedure contained in the constitution is somehow akin to overthrowing the judiciary. And I can assure you, impeachment was not brought up because people didn’t like how the case went.

You and crane considered it because the outcome.didn't go your way. You really don't see a problem with tje Independence of justice if justices get removed When they don't rule a certain way?

Again.

We all would have accepted the outcome of the trial. Your "ruling a certain way" has nothing to do with the grievances you have created as a result of your conduct.

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling?

There was no ruling!

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling saying the trial was dismissed?

Because of your non-transparent and possibly corrupt methods of dispersing judicial complaints, denying the people of Atlasia a chance to seek justice which has the effect of unilaterally absolving someone of a crime.

So you're seeking to overturn the judiciary when this doesn't go your way and as well spreading false conspiracies against me.

It is about your conduct, not the court. You cannot use the powers of the judicial branch to shield yourself from accusations of impropriety.

So please, explain me my potential corrupt methods of administering this court case. Accusations must be presented with evidences!

Why don't we just save that for the impeachment trial?

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

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

This argument is just silly. Windjammer waited around for weeks before finding an attorney then selected possibly the worst option, and weeks after it was clear Tack wasn't going to further justify an objection. And he has now made threats against those who disagree. Windjammer has plenty of blood on his hands here for aiding and abetting the delay and showing he won't be impartial going forward.

[Crane]

Instead you aided and abetted the defense in their delay of this trial, eventually threw up your hands and said you couldn't continue the trial because of a delay you helped bring forth, and then issued threats to those who disagreed. I fail to see how anyone can believe you will be impartial going forward.

If you consider a frantic and desperate search to find someone with a pulse capable of serving as defense attorney to be a "deliberate strategy", more power to you.

I think the same problem befell the Justice Department here as well, and led to the ultimate collapse of this case.

Again, the previous case has absolutely no bearing on the present one, which was killed in the crib.

[windjammer]

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

The original trial was dismissed without prejudice, which means the state is free to file those charges again, and then the chief justice in essence changed his mind! You cannot say the current decision had anything to do with the initial prosecution.

Well I have explained why, I and the other members of the court decided not to take the case. This has nothing to do with all the conspiracies you're believing in it.

Impeachment is a constitutional process. It’s quite breathtaking that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks merely mentioning, (not even introducing an impeachment resolution) a procedure contained in the constitution is somehow akin to overthrowing the judiciary. And I can assure you, impeachment was not brought up because people didn’t like how the case went.

You and crane considered it because the outcome.didn't go your way. You really don't see a problem with tje Independence of justice if justices get removed When they don't rule a certain way?

Again.

We all would have accepted the outcome of the trial. Your "ruling a certain way" has nothing to do with the grievances you have created as a result of your conduct.

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling?

There was no ruling!

So why were you considering an impeachment if that wasn't about the ruling saying the trial was dismissed?

Because of your non-transparent and possibly corrupt methods of dispersing judicial complaints, denying the people of Atlasia a chance to seek justice which has the effect of unilaterally absolving someone of a crime.

So you're seeking to overturn the judiciary when this doesn't go your way and as well spreading false conspiracies against me.

It is about your conduct, not the court. You cannot use the powers of the judicial branch to shield yourself from accusations of impropriety.

So please, explain me my potential corrupt methods of administering this court case. Accusations must be presented with evidences!

Why don't we just save that for the impeachment trial?

Why not going ahead now?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

This argument is just silly. Windjammer waited around for weeks before finding an attorney then selected possibly the worst option, and weeks after it was clear Tack wasn't going to further justify an objection. And he has now made threats against those who disagree. Windjammer has plenty of blood on his hands hewent AWOre for aiding and abetting the delay and showing he won't be impartial going forward.

tack's inactivity has never been good for the game. But it is ultimately why the proceedings didn't go forward. Why was the jury never objected to? tack had ample time to do so and went AWOL. That's part of the problem in this game. He was unprepared, likely didn't have all the evidence, and was mostly apathetic about the case in my honest opinion.

Now another person is handing the prosecution and getting as much information and testimonies as he can.

[OBD]

Please. Everyone calm down.

I'll be frank - I do not approve of this decision by the Supreme Court. Especially in the context of the current state of the game, it does not make sense to dismiss this case without a proper trial even taking place.

However, the integrity of our judicial branch is sacrosanct. The Supreme Court has proved repeatedly to be a fully impartial body, even as it has handed down decisions that are unexpected and/or disagreeable. And while we may disagree strongly with this particular decision, it's irresponsible to sling allegations of impropriety without evidence. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that the Supreme Court made this decision on a purely legal basis - though should evidence emerge contradicting this, we'd all have to re-evaluate our positions.

That said, Windjammer's conduct in this thread has been highly inappropriate. It's not acceptable to threaten the careers of elected officials, even less so in a public forum that doubles as the highest court in the land. That, at least, is potentially worthy of censure.

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

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

This argument is just silly. Windjammer waited around for weeks before finding an attorney then selected possibly the worst option, and weeks after it was clear Tack wasn't going to further justify an objection. And he has now made threats against those who disagree. Windjammer has plenty of blood on his hands hewent AWOre for aiding and abetting the delay and showing he won't be impartial going forward.

tack's inactivity has never been good for the game. But it is ultimately why the proceedings didn't go forward. Why was the jury never objected to? tack had ample time to do so and went AWOL. That's part of the problem in this game. He was unprepared, likely didn't have all the evidence, and was mostly apathetic about the case in my honest opinion.

Now another person is handing the prosecution and getting as much information and testimonies as he can.

Tack did object to the jury, then was asked to explain further, and through inaction showed refusal to do so. Instead of moving on immediately WJ waited weeks to do so.

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

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

This argument is just silly. Windjammer waited around for weeks before finding an attorney then selected possibly the worst option, and weeks after it was clear Tack wasn't going to further justify an objection. And he has now made threats against those who disagree. Windjammer has plenty of blood on his hands hewent AWOre for aiding and abetting the delay and showing he won't be impartial going forward.

Now another person is handing the prosecution and getting as much information and testimonies as he can.

WJ is not going to accept any further case on this matter that much is clear. LT is a free man unless he is impeached

[windjammer]

Please. Everyone calm down.

I'll be frank - I do not approve of this decision by the Supreme Court. Especially in the context of the current state of the game, it does not make sense to dismiss this case without a proper trial even taking place.

However, the integrity of our judicial branch is sacrosanct. The Supreme Court has proved repeatedly to be a fully impartial body, even as it has handed down decisions that are unexpected and/or disagreeable. And while we may disagree strongly with this particular decision, it's irresponsible to sling allegations of impropriety without evidence. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that the Supreme Court made this decision on a purely legal basis - though should evidence emerge contradicting this, we'd all have to re-evaluate our positions.

That said, Windjammer's conduct in this thread has been highly inappropriate. It's not acceptable to threaten the careers of elected officials, even less so in a public forum that doubles as the highest court in the land. That, at least, is potentially worthy of censure.

Well, I'm just defending myself against crane and some others wanting to screw me because I didn't rule the way they wanted me to be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Instead you aided and abetted the defense in their delay of this trial, eventually threw up your hands and said you couldn't continue the trial because of a delay you helped bring forth, and then issued threats to those who disagreed. I fail to see how anyone can believe you will be impartial going forward.

If you consider a frantic and desperate search to find someone with a pulse capable of serving as defense attorney to be a "deliberate strategy", more power to you.

I think the same problem befell the Justice Department here as well, and led to the ultimate collapse of this case.

Again, the previous case has absolutely no bearing on the present one, which was killed in the crib.

That is not what he said though. He said, "you aided and abetted the defense....".

[Spark]

The conduct in this court is highly out of character. We should have more respect for the law.

We are not an anarchic state, but one of laws. Unlike the Chief Justice, I have never made or condoned threats, especially not while in office. Respecting the confines of our office is important and the example that we set for the rest of the nation. I will not stand by while our nation descends into chaos. The Labor party refuses to take real action and it appears that anything goes right now. That is truly unacceptable.

[OBD]

Please. Everyone calm down.

I'll be frank - I do not approve of this decision by the Supreme Court. Especially in the context of the current state of the game, it does not make sense to dismiss this case without a proper trial even taking place.

However, the integrity of our judicial branch is sacrosanct. The Supreme Court has proved repeatedly to be a fully impartial body, even as it has handed down decisions that are unexpected and/or disagreeable. And while we may disagree strongly with this particular decision, it's irresponsible to sling allegations of impropriety without evidence. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that the Supreme Court made this decision on a purely legal basis - though should evidence emerge contradicting this, we'd all have to re-evaluate our positions.

That said, Windjammer's conduct in this thread has been highly inappropriate. It's not acceptable to threaten the careers of elected officials, even less so in a public forum that doubles as the highest court in the land. That, at least, is potentially worthy of censure.

Well, I'm just defending myself against crane and some others wanting to screw me because I didn't rule the way they wanted me to be.

Then do it civilly. Defending a controversial decision is fine but threatening to 'screw up' and destroy the careers of elected officials - in a Supreme Court thread no less - is beyond the pale.

[windjammer]

Please. Everyone calm down.

I'll be frank - I do not approve of this decision by the Supreme Court. Especially in the context of the current state of the game, it does not make sense to dismiss this case without a proper trial even taking place.

However, the integrity of our judicial branch is sacrosanct. The Supreme Court has proved repeatedly to be a fully impartial body, even as it has handed down decisions that are unexpected and/or disagreeable. And while we may disagree strongly with this particular decision, it's irresponsible to sling allegations of impropriety without evidence. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that the Supreme Court made this decision on a purely legal basis - though should evidence emerge contradicting this, we'd all have to re-evaluate our positions.

That said, Windjammer's conduct in this thread has been highly inappropriate. It's not acceptable to threaten the careers of elected officials, even less so in a public forum that doubles as the highest court in the land. That, at least, is potentially worthy of censure.

Well, I'm just defending myself against crane and some others wanting to screw me because I didn't rule the way they wanted me to be.

Then do it civilly. Defending a controversial decision is fine but threatening to 'screw up' and destroy the careers of elected officials - in a Supreme Court thread no less - is beyond the pale.

Well, next time I will precise "I'm talking as an individual citizen"

[Bacon King]

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.

[Crane]

Instead you aided and abetted the defense in their delay of this trial, eventually threw up your hands and said you couldn't continue the trial because of a delay you helped bring forth, and then issued threats to those who disagreed. I fail to see how anyone can believe you will be impartial going forward.

If you consider a frantic and desperate search to find someone with a pulse capable of serving as defense attorney to be a "deliberate strategy", more power to you.

I think the same problem befell the Justice Department here as well, and led to the ultimate collapse of this case.

Again, the previous case has absolutely no bearing on the present one, which was killed in the crib.

That is not what he said though. He said, "you aided and abetted the defense....".

Well, he did. As I said, though, the previous case should have had no bearing on whether this case could move forward. This was a frankly baffling, unprecedented decision that is worthy of further review, especially given the Chief Justice's paranoid, seditious, and at times incoherent response to the criticism it elicited.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have received information related to this case that I did not know. I will not comment on this further.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can we just admit that the prosecution botched the case? The Court simply works with the evidence presented, and the initial proceedings were mishandled by the people in charge of the prosecution. You can't blame Windjammer or the Court for not ruling your way because you presented a weak case and didn't follow through.

This argument is just silly. Windjammer waited around for weeks before finding an attorney then selected possibly the worst option, and weeks after it was clear Tack wasn't going to further justify an objection. And he has now made threats against those who disagree. Windjammer has plenty of blood on his hands hewent AWOre for aiding and abetting the delay and showing he won't be impartial going forward.

tack's inactivity has never been good for the game. But it is ultimately why the proceedings didn't go forward. Why was the jury never objected to? tack had ample time to do so and went AWOL. That's part of the problem in this game. He was unprepared, likely didn't have all the evidence, and was mostly apathetic about the case in my honest opinion.

Now another person is handing the prosecution and getting as much information and testimonies as he can.

Tack's "Activity" on the other hand has done amazing things for the game particularly in Congress. It's just the process of that being eliminated when he is not that has been bad for the game.