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

[windjammer]

This has been seen.

[windjammer]

The supreme court has decided to dismiss it as granting certiorari would violate the fifth atlasian constitution:

Section 10.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of their peers in the Region wherein the crime shall have been committed, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against them, to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in their defense.

we are over three months from the initial start of the first trial so it would violate Louisville's right of having a speedy trial.

[windjammer]

The trial took so long in part because LT and the court kicked the ball around for weeks with regards to appointing a defense attorney. This decision means that all crime is effectively legal, as a defendant can avoid certain conviction by refusing to answer the charges brought by the state. The entire game is inactive right now —this justification is frankly nonsensical.

This entire ordeal is a travesty of justice and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

The supreme court feels pretty good of itself thank you for your concern.

[windjammer]

The trial took so long in part because LT and the court kicked the ball around for weeks with regards to appointing a defense attorney. This decision means that all crime is effectively legal, as a defendant can avoid certain conviction by refusing to answer the charges brought by the state. The entire game is inactive right now —this justification is frankly nonsensical.

This entire ordeal is a travesty of justice and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

The supreme court feels pretty good of itself thank you for your concern.

I am sure you do, since your goal was to prevent a trial from ever happening. Congrats!

A trial did happen but I understand you are having problems with facts as you're trying to put the blame on me.

[windjammer]

The trial took so long in part because LT and the court kicked the ball around for weeks with regards to appointing a defense attorney. This decision means that all crime is effectively legal, as a defendant can avoid certain conviction by refusing to answer the charges brought by the state. The entire game is inactive right now —this justification is frankly nonsensical.

This entire ordeal is a travesty of justice and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

The supreme court feels pretty good of itself thank you for your concern.

I am sure you do, since your goal was to prevent a trial from ever happening. Congrats!

A trial did happen but I understand you are having problems with facts as you're trying to put the blame on me.

Don't worry, many people deserve blame. It is true that you never wanted a trial for political reasons and allowed many unethical actions to occur!

Yes this is true. I told you given the charges it was better that you handle it directly with the mods than with a fantasy trial. In the end, I didn't block it from happening.

[windjammer]

The trial took so long in part because LT and the court kicked the ball around for weeks with regards to appointing a defense attorney. This decision means that all crime is effectively legal, as a defendant can avoid certain conviction by refusing to answer the charges brought by the state. The entire game is inactive right now —this justification is frankly nonsensical.

This entire ordeal is a travesty of justice and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

The supreme court feels pretty good of itself thank you for your concern.

I am sure you do, since your goal was to prevent a trial from ever happening. Congrats!

A trial did happen but I understand you are having problems with facts as you're trying to put the blame on me.

Don't worry, many people deserve blame. It is true that you never wanted a trial for political reasons and allowed many unethical actions to occur!

Yes this is true. I told you given the charges it was better that you handle it directly with the mods than with a fantasy trial. In the end, I didn't block it from happening.

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!

So now it is a crime to ask the accusation why they want to dismiss some jurors?

[windjammer]

For the record,
I just had a civil discussion with Truman and everything is settled. We're just disagreeing on it.

I do appreciate his bluntness and the fact that he has said all these things to my face.

To all the laborites who have been calling for my impeachment on an another channel behind my back. Just to tell you that I know your names.



I will certainly not beg for mercy after 8 years of loyal service to this party. I have saved this party countless times from destruction, . And to all these worthless and ingrateful laborites who are seeking my demise, my vengeance will be terrible.

I will screw up your career.

[windjammer]

For the record,
I just had a civil discussion with Truman and everything is settled. We're just disagreeing on it.

I do appreciate his bluntness and the fact that he has said all these things to my face.

To all the laborites who have been calling for my impeachment on an another channel behind my back. Just to tell you that I know your names.



I will certainly not beg for mercy after 8 years of loyal service to this party. I have saved this party countless times from destruction, . And to all these worthless and ingrateful laborites who are seeking my demise, my vengeance will be terrible.

I will screw up your career.

I'm not calling for your impeachment yet, but this display is clearly not one befitting the holder of one of the highest offices in the game. Whatever your logic was for this decision, it was a bad one and will do harm to this already-dying game in the long run.

I have all of the loggs. You and some others have deliberately considered to impeach the supreme court because one court case didn't go your way. This display is clearly not one befitting a member of the senate!

[windjammer]

I won't be using the bench to screw you. Don't worry for that.


Like both of you have been considering impeaching the supreme court because a decision didn't go your way, you don't think your behavior was acceptable either?

[windjammer]

There is always this persistent with this game. This is always the people with the worst behavior (wanting to overthrow the judiciary system because they disagree with a ruling) who are trying to lecture some other people.

Never change Atlasia!

[windjammer]

I won't be using the bench to screw you. Don't worry for that.


Like both of you have been considering impeaching the supreme court because a decision didn't go your way, you don't think your behavior was acceptable either?

Impeachment is a constitutional procedure, unlike whatever it is you're doing.

And you don't see a problem with the separation of power to overthorw the judiciary system as soon you don't get your way?

[windjammer]

I won't be using the bench to screw you. Don't worry for that.


Like both of you have been considering impeaching the supreme court because a decision didn't go your way, you don't think your behavior was acceptable either?

Impeachment is a constitutional procedure, unlike whatever it is you're doing.

And you don't see a problem with the separation of power to overthorw the judiciary system as soon you don't get your way?

Oh, who is attempting to “overthrow the judiciary”? There has been nothing but criticism offered against you, (unless you consider that to be “overthrowing”). And you don’t see a problem with hurling threats against people from the bench? Interesting.

I'm.not talking "from the bench". I'm talking as an individual regarding that.


You have been calling for impeachment on discord because the supreme court ruled against you. This is a blatant power grab that is a direct violation of the separation of powers.

[windjammer]

I won't be using the bench to screw you. Don't worry for that.


Like both of you have been considering impeaching the supreme court because a decision didn't go your way, you don't think your behavior was acceptable either?

Impeachment is a constitutional procedure, unlike whatever it is you're doing.

And you don't see a problem with the separation of power to overthorw the judiciary system as soon you don't get your way?

Oh, who is attempting to “overthrow the judiciary”? There has been nothing but criticism offered against you, (unless you consider that to be “overthrowing”). And you don’t see a problem with hurling threats against people from the bench? Interesting.

I'm.not talking "from the bench". I'm talking as an individual regarding that.


You have been calling for impeachment on discord because the supreme court ruled against you. This is a blatant power grab that is a direct violation of the separation of powers.

You are making these threats in a court case thread.

Further, removing one justice by a constitutional process does not amount to "overthrowing the judiciary." No one is immune to consequences if the majority of decision makers follow the correct procedure to find them incompetent.

You are "overthrowing the judiciary" if you advocate to impeach justices if they don't go your way.


Well I was making this comment as a private citizen obviously.

I won't be using the bench to screw you. Don't worry for that.


Like both of you have been considering impeaching the supreme court because a decision didn't go your way, you don't think your behavior was acceptable either?

Impeachment is a constitutional procedure, unlike whatever it is you're doing.

And you don't see a problem with the separation of power to overthorw the judiciary system as soon you don't get your way?

Oh, who is attempting to “overthrow the judiciary”? There has been nothing but criticism offered against you, (unless you consider that to be “overthrowing”). And you don’t see a problem with hurling threats against people from the bench? Interesting.

I'm.not talking "from the bench". I'm talking as an individual regarding that.


You have been calling for impeachment on discord because the supreme court ruled against you. This is a blatant power grab that is a direct violation of the separation of powers.

Simply discussing impeachment is not a violation of anything, but sure.

It is see my answer above.

[windjammer]

Backtrack on this decision and your threats and let the trial go forward. That is the only way you will secure your future at this stage.

No one really sees a problem with that???

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.

[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"