Laki v. Young Texan

[Mr. Reactionary]

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

When did he take an oath before a tribunal?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

When did he take an oath before a tribunal?

If the defendant chooses not to testify, their decision cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. This is based on the principle of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or speak in court.

However, if the defendant voluntarily chooses to speak during the trial or at any other time, their statements can be used as evidence against them. In such cases, it is generally expected that the statements made by the defendant should be truthful. Providing false or misleading information can potentially be considered perjury, which is a criminal offense.

[Mr. Reactionary]

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

When did he take an oath before a tribunal?

If the defendant chooses not to testify, their decision cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. This is based on the principle of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or speak in court.

However, if the defendant voluntarily chooses to speak during the trial or at any other time, their statements can be used as evidence against them. In such cases, it is generally expected that the statements made by the defendant should be truthful. Providing false or misleading information can potentially be considered perjury, which is a criminal offense.

Are you really arguing that everyone is always under oath and subject to perjury at any time? Wouldn't that make you subject to perjury for pretty much everything you've done in the game?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

When did he take an oath before a tribunal?

If the defendant chooses not to testify, their decision cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. This is based on the principle of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or speak in court.

However, if the defendant voluntarily chooses to speak during the trial or at any other time, their statements can be used as evidence against them. In such cases, it is generally expected that the statements made by the defendant should be truthful. Providing false or misleading information can potentially be considered perjury, which is a criminal offense.

Are you really arguing that everyone is always under oath and subject to perjury at any time? Wouldn't that make you subject to perjury for pretty much everything you've done in the game?

This is a judicial thread, i assume that as the defendant of the lawyer, the prosecutor, the defendant etc. you intend to speak the truth.

All i will say, is that it is an obvious lie and that I never claimed or said that. If it will really be considered perjury, that will be up for the judges (or jury) to decide, but in my belief it is.

[Coastal Elitist]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

You said you were open to sharing private facebook profile info with the justices. That could definitely be considered doxxing. You don't always need a name just a photo can be searched online to find a specific person.

This is what you said is it not:
 but if requested (or in case of objections) i can provide that privately to the court.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

You said you were open to sharing private facebook profile info with the justices. That could definitely be considered doxxing. You don't always need a name just a photo can be searched online to find a specific person.

This is what you said is it not:
 but if requested (or in case of objections) i can provide that privately to the court.

Whats another improper ex parte communication with the court from this prosecution, am I right?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

You said you were open to sharing private facebook profile info with the justices. That could definitely be considered doxxing. You don't always need a name just a photo can be searched online to find a specific person.

This is what you said is it not:
 but if requested (or in case of objections) i can provide that privately to the court.

Whats another improper ex parte communication with the court from this prosecution, am I right?

Well, Windjammer - just like you btw - is also a friend in life. We both live in Europe IRL. So obviously i talk to him almost everyday (just like with you), not just about Atlasia but also private life or about Gathering Storm.

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

Remember that Atlasia is a game (with 170 registered people, and usually fewer people who are active). Unless you somehow will argue that i'm not allowed to chat with Windjammer at all anymore.

I've been talking to you as well, i don't think it is a proper lawsuit case, if the lawyer of the defendant talks on a daily base with the prosecutor as well. I consider that improper ex parte communication.

With regards to privately including the images of the FB leak, i'll not do that. I think it's very clear at this point that we're talking about a conversation between you and fhtagn on Facebook, so there would be no need to proof that. I'll repeat that i'll not doxx people and don't intend on doing so, to clear out confusion.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[windjammer]

I can confirm everyone Laki and I talk almost every day, in particular regarding Gathering Storm and some gossip drama.

[Mr. Reactionary]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/76.15

28 CFR § 76.15 Ex parte communications.

(a) Generally. The Judge shall not consult with any party, attorney or person (except persons in the office of the Judge) on any legal or factual issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate. This provision does not prohibit a party or attorney from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.

(b) Sanctions. A party or participant who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to any appropriate sanctions. An attorney who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, exclusion from the proceedings.

At this time counsel for the defense asks the court for the following:

1. Monetary sanctions against the prosecutor in the amount of $1,000 Atlasian dollars payable to the Southern Department of Justice.

2. An order enjoining the prosecutor from further improper ex parte communucations with any justice on the court until the conclusion of the trial.

3. An apology from the prosecutor admitting that his actions were improper, wrong, and in violation of federal law.

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General, CPU Blue Heart

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/76.15

28 CFR § 76.15 Ex parte communications.

(a) Generally. The Judge shall not consult with any party, attorney or person (except persons in the office of the Judge) on any legal or factual issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate. This provision does not prohibit a party or attorney from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.

(b) Sanctions. A party or participant who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to any appropriate sanctions. An attorney who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, exclusion from the proceedings.

At this time counsel for the defense asks the court for the following:

1. Monetary sanctions against the prosecutor in the amount of $1,000 Atlasian dollars payable to the Southern Department of Justice.

2. An order enjoining the prosecutor from further improper ex parte communucations with any justice on the court until the conclusion of the trial.

3. An apology from the prosecutor admitting that his actions were improper, wrong, and in violation of federal law.

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General, CPU Blue Heart

I respectfully object

No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate.

There was no discussion with regards to any matter at issue in this case, while secondly

This provision does not prohibit a party or attorney from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.

the provision doesn't prohibit me from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning procedures.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[Mr. Reactionary]

Let's review the record.

...

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.

You've claimed you didnt discuss any matter at issue in the case with the Chief Justice, and yet you admit that the matter you discussed with the Chief Justice were these three (3) screenshots you yourself introduced as evidence under discovery. Screenshots you confirmed today were indeed evidence you intended to introduce at trial.

Please reconcile this. Are these screenshots evidence or not?

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ Ricardo

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Let's review the record.

(image)

...

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.

(images)

You've claimed you didnt discuss any matter at issue in the case with the Chief Justice, and yet you admit that the matter you discussed with the Chief Justice were these three (3) screenshots you yourself introduced as evidence under discovery. Screenshots you confirmed today were indeed evidence you intended to introduce at trial.

Please reconcile this. Are these screenshots evidence or not?

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ Ricardo

Again, I object.

These messages have been sent to multiple people associated with the Labor Party, and the ones sent to Windjammer have been sent hours and hours before the lawsuit even started.

Secondly, that alone is not evidence in the case. I explicitly added this was added for context, and at that point what Adam Griffin has sent was virtually public knowledge. The messages have been sent by Adam Griffin and have been directed to YoungTexan. Last time i've checked, you weren't the lawyer defending Adam Griffin and neither is Adam Griffin currently being criminally charged? This is unrelated to the lawsuit case and not an instance of an "ex parte communication".

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It has come to the attention of the prosecution that the defense has engaged in actions that can be characterized as witness tampering, in violation of the law. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, specifically (b) which states that "A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she harms another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness or informant," we firmly believe that the defense's conduct amounts to intimidation and retaliation against a crucial witness in this case.

In particular, the witness known as LouisvilleThunder (LT), who has provided valuable testimony in support of the prosecution's case, has recently been banned from a private communication server, namely the Conservacord server, due to their involvement in this legal proceeding. This act of exclusion from a platform where communication regarding the case takes place is concerning and can be viewed as an attempt to suppress their testimony and intimidate them from further participating in the proceedings.

it is important to note that the defendant Fhtagn holds a position of authority as an owner within the private communication server in question. This elevated status within the server potentially provides them with increased control and influence over the platform and its members, including the ability to limit or manipulate access to certain channels or discussions. Similarly, the defendant Young Texan (YT) holds the role of an admin within the server, granting them significant administrative powers.

Moreover, it has come to our attention that one of the lawyers representing the defense also holds an administrative position within the same server. This dual role as both a legal representative and an admin may create conflicts of interest and raises concerns regarding the impartiality and fair representation of the defendants.

The combination of these factors, including the defendants' positions of authority and the overlapping roles of defense counsel as an admin, raises serious questions about the potential for abuse of power and the fair treatment of witnesses and participants in the legal proceedings.

Additionally, it has come to our attention that the defendant, Fhtagn, has engaged in persistent and unwarranted harassment directed at the prosecutor. This harassment has taken place both privately and publicly, with insulting remarks and derogatory comments being directed at the prosecutor, creating an atmosphere of hostility and attempting to undermine their credibility and professionalism, eventually leading to what can be considered contempt of court or obstruction of justice.

These actions are not only unethical but also detrimental to the pursuit of justice and the fair administration of the legal process. Witness tampering and harassment not only obstruct the truth-seeking purpose of the trial but also infringe upon the rights and well-being of those involved, compromising the integrity of the entire legal system.

The prosecution strongly condemns such behavior and urges the court to take appropriate measures to address these violations. It is crucial that witnesses are protected from intimidation and that the legal process remains free from undue influence and harassment. We trust that the court will carefully consider this matter and take the necessary steps to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

Addendum:

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.439

§ 11.439 Witness tampering.
(a) A person commits a misdemeanor if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he or she attempts to induce or otherwise cause a witness or informant to:

(1) Testify or inform falsely; or

(2) Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing; or

(3) Elude legal process summoning him or her to supply evidence; or

(4) Absent himself or herself from any proceeding or investigation to which he or she has been legally summoned.

(b) A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she harms another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness or informant.

2.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Let's review the record.

(image)

...

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.

(images)

You've claimed you didnt discuss any matter at issue in the case with the Chief Justice, and yet you admit that the matter you discussed with the Chief Justice were these three (3) screenshots you yourself introduced as evidence under discovery. Screenshots you confirmed today were indeed evidence you intended to introduce at trial.

Please reconcile this. Are these screenshots evidence or not?

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ Ricardo

Again, I object.

These messages have been sent to multiple people associated with the Labor Party, and the ones sent to Windjammer have been sent hours and hours before the lawsuit even started.

Secondly, that alone is not evidence in the case. I explicitly added this was added for context, and at that point what Adam Griffin has sent was virtually public knowledge. The messages have been sent by Adam Griffin and have been directed to YoungTexan. Last time i've checked, you weren't the lawyer defending Adam Griffin and neither is Adam Griffin currently being criminally charged? This is unrelated to the lawsuit case and not an instance of an "ex parte communication".

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

If it is irrelevant and not evidence it should never have been introduced as part of a discovery request and should be deleted therefrom immediately. As it stands you posted potentially prejudicial material (a private message) relating to the defendant in this case in the case thread along with other evidence (which was clearly instructed to be shared confidentially as we intend to move to exclude some) after having had an improper ex parte communication with the Chief Justice about said material.

You keep saying "public knowledge" but Im not quite sure you know what that means. Were you not the first person to post this on Atlas? And in this thread? Just because you and the Chief Justice were both aware of the existence of this private message does not mean that it is "public knowledge".

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Let's review the record.

(image)

...

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.

(images)

You've claimed you didnt discuss any matter at issue in the case with the Chief Justice, and yet you admit that the matter you discussed with the Chief Justice were these three (3) screenshots you yourself introduced as evidence under discovery. Screenshots you confirmed today were indeed evidence you intended to introduce at trial.

Please reconcile this. Are these screenshots evidence or not?

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ Ricardo

Again, I object.

These messages have been sent to multiple people associated with the Labor Party, and the ones sent to Windjammer have been sent hours and hours before the lawsuit even started.

Secondly, that alone is not evidence in the case. I explicitly added this was added for context, and at that point what Adam Griffin has sent was virtually public knowledge. The messages have been sent by Adam Griffin and have been directed to YoungTexan. Last time i've checked, you weren't the lawyer defending Adam Griffin and neither is Adam Griffin currently being criminally charged? This is unrelated to the lawsuit case and not an instance of an "ex parte communication".

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

If it is irrelevant and not evidence it should never have been introduced as part of a discovery request and should be deleted therefrom immediately. As it stands you posted potentially prejudicial material (a private message) relating to the defendant in this case in the case thread along with other evidence (which was clearly instructed to be shared confidentially as we intend to move to exclude some) after having had an improper ex parte communication with the Chief Justice about said material.

You keep saying "public knowledge" but Im not quite sure you know what that means. Were you not the first person to post this on Atlas? And in this thread? Just because you and the Chief Justice were both aware of the existence of this private message does not mean that it is "public knowledge".

It is added as part to provide context to the evidence given the private message was leaked in SEXIT.

Secondly, this is not prejudical material, as the defendant (YoungTexan) was the recipient of this message, while the defendants lawyer (you mr. Reactionary) was the one who leaked it to me, as part of a wider chat group, involving you & me. We were all aware of that message already long before anyone else, including the judge or the Labor party.

Laki

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol.

I just want to point out that if kicking people out of private Discord servers as retaliation for participating in legal proceedings isnt allowed, as prosecution suggests, perhaps he should reverse the ban against me in PaxCord, which this prosecutor himself carried out since I refused to throw the case as he unethically requested.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Lol.

I just want to point out that if kicking people out of private Discord servers as retaliation for participating in legal proceedings isnt allowed, as prosecution suggests, perhaps he should reverse the ban against me in PaxCord, which this prosecutor himself carried out since I refused to throw the case as he unethically requested.

(image)

You were never part of "Peace discussion without R", so you weren't kicked in that chat. Secondly, I informed you over potential conflicts of interest as I did here.

Dear Justices of the Supreme Court,

I am writing to object to the appointment of Mr. Reactionary as the lawyer for the defense in the case of Laki v. Texan. Mr. Reactionary is a member of the Peace Party, which is the same party as the prosecutor in this case. Furthermore, he is not only a friend but also a fellow senator of the prosecutor.

This creates an inherent conflict of interest that cannot be overlooked. Mr. Reactionary's loyalty and allegiance to his party and personal relationships may cloud his judgement and compromise his ability to represent the defendant to the best of his abilities.

As a public plaintiff, I urge the court to consider the potential bias and conflict of interest that Mr. Reactionary may bring to this case and take appropriate action to ensure that justice is served impartially and fairly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Lakigigar

You objected to that as you did here. You indicated you believed there was no conflict of interest.

Defense objects to the motion to change counsel.

Being friends with the opposing lawyer isnt grounds for dismissal provided the lawyers maintain their ethical duty to zealously advocate for their client. As Southern AG my client is the Southern Region, and its officeholders in the course of governance. We still have not had a formal presentment of what criminal charges are at issue here but presumably they involve official acts of one of its officeholders. Im comfortable with performing zealously notwithstanding my friendship with opposing counsel just as Im sure he is with me. IRL and in game I have been  on the opposite side of the courtroom against friends. Its common. As long as the defendant does not object to my representation, I deny any conflict of interest that would not equally apply to the prosecutor.

Additionally, the Deputy AG may fill in for me at any point such a conflict may end up presenting itself, just as General Turner may assist Laki.

Accordingly, we ask the Court to deny the motion to change counsel, as no conflict of interest is present.

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ CPU BlueHeart

As chair of Peace, I have the authority to make decisions regarding party membership, including the removal of individuals from the party, which is outlined in the party's bylaws, rules or constitution. If you want to start the proper procedure of expulsion, just sign a petition in the responsible threador change party registration.

Bylaws

STRUCTURE

• The Peace Party shall be organized by a Chair and a Vice-Chair.
• The Chair is responsible for organizing conventions, running votes, and the general day-to-day operation of the party.
• The Vice-Chair is responsible for recruitment and shall take over for the Chair if that person cannot or does not fulfill their duties.
• The members of the Peace Party shall be all those Atlasian citizens considered by the Registrar-General to belong to the Peace Party, with the exception of anyone who has been expelled.

THE MEMBERS
Any group of two or more members may at any time petition for a vote on any of the following subjects:

• endorsing one or more candidates in an upcoming election
• a specific proposal for modification of the platform or by-laws
• dismissal of the Chair and/or the Vice-Chair
• expulsion of one or more members
• dissolution of the Peace Party

All members are eligible to participate in any vote conducted by the Peace Party provided they have been a registered member of the Peace Party for at least seven days preceeding the beginning of the convention at which such vote is being conducted.

THE CHAIR
The Chair shall run all votes and threads of the Peace Party, except for votes on their own dismissal, which shall be run by the Vice-Chair.
The Peace Party shall assemble at Convention the second week of every February, June, and October in order to complete tasks including, but not limited to, the following:

• electing a new Chair, Vice-Chair and Whip
• endorsing candidates for President, Regional Senate, At-Large Senate, Subregional Senate, Lincoln Governor and General Court, South Governor and Chamber of Delegates, and Fremont Prime Minister and House of Commons.
• affirmation or modification of the platform and by-laws

February conventions shall be held in the South. June conventions shall be held in Lincoln. October conventions shall be held in Fremont.

The Convention Order of Business will be as follows: 1. 72 hour delegate Sign-in, 2. ByLaws Consideration, 3. Endorsements for any upcoming election, 4. Platform Consideration, 5. Leadership Elections, and 6. Nominations for the Next Convention's City. The chair shall have the power to postpone endorsements and proceed to other items if they believe additional time is needed for candidacies to develop.  

Votes shall consist of a 72-hour nomination period (where applicable) and a 72-hour voting period. More than one vote may be held at the same time.
If the Chair resigns or fails to fulfill their duties for a period of 72 hours, the Vice-Chair shall automatically become Chair.

THE VICE-CHAIR
The Vice-Chair's main duty is to recruit members and candidates for the Peace Party.
The Vice-Chair shall also remind all eligible members via PM of upcoming elections and any relevant endorsements.
If the Vice-Chair resigns or fails to fulfill their duties, the Peace Party shall elect a new Vice-Chair.

THE WHIP
The Whip's main duty is cooperating with party members to develop consensus on matters of policy.
The Whip shall also be tasked with ensuring that Peace members of the Senate of Atlasia be present for all votes, or announcing leaves of absence when a member is unable to vote.
The Whip shall be considered the leader of the Peace Caucus within the Atlasian Senate, even if they are not a member of this body.

GENERAL
Peace Party members are automatically endorsed, except in the case of more members running than there are available seats in a given election , for the presidential election, or if two or more members object to an automatic endorsement within 24 hours of the chair calling for such objections. If there are more candidates than available seats, a primary will be held, using a public IRV vote to determine the endorsement in which all members registered with the party 72 hours in advance and in the case of a regional or subregional election, registered in that specific region or subregion. If sufficient objections are raised to an automatic endorsement, the same electorate will vote to approve or reject the endorsement. Non-party members may petition for the endorsement of the Peace Party if there are more available seats than Peace Party candidates, prompting a nationwide majority vote to determine the endorsement. A nationwide majority vote will also be held for the presidential election, and any candidate may seek that endorsement.
Elections for party offices will be held by a public IRV vote.

• All yes-or-no votes will require a simple majority, except for dissolution, which will require two thirds.
• If all party offices are vacant at the same time, elections shall be run by the first available member.
  

As is stated in the bylaws, i'm responsible for the general day-to-day operation of the party and it's normal that I do have the right to have interactions with people within my party that would exclude the lawyer of the defendants / defendant of the party i have to prosecute.

Secondly you as lawyer of the defendant / defendant have also excluded me from certain groups, so if you believe I did something unlawful here, than I immediately request you to add me back in that group as well. You're accusing me of something you've done as well.

All i'm doing is my job.

Laki.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I privately told you that I was open to readding you back to Paxcord whenever the ongoing lawsuit case is over, if people within Pax are open to that idea, as well.

I secondly want to add that i defended you from others despite some always having objections over the course of these months over your presence in the party, including outside pressure from people outside Peace: Labor and DA.

As long this lawsuit is ongoing, a return to Paxcord will not be possible. This ensures that all parties can independently and ethically handle the case.

As the prosecutor, I respectfully request silence, an end to the debate, and your cooperation in awaiting court orders. Let us maintain a respectful and orderly atmosphere as we proceed with the proceedings and adhere to the instructions and decisions of the court. Thank you for your understanding.

Laki

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do not have time to sift through this mess but I removed the linked Facebook whatever it was untill I can get home and figured out what happened.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It is added as part to provide context to the evidence given the private message was leaked in SEXIT.

Secondly, this is not prejudical material, as the defendant (YoungTexan) was the recipient of this message, while the defendants lawyer (you mr. Reactionary) was the one who leaked it to me, as part of a wider chat group, involving you & me. We were all aware of that message already long before anyone else, including the judge or the Labor party.

Laki

Again, literally anything you, personally, as prosecutor introduce to this court in the thread is evidence. Anything. You cant say "its public knowledge" and then post it. You cant say "its for context" and then post it. You cant say "this was DMd to the defendant so therefore its not prejudicial" and then post it. Anything you post is evidence and is therefore subject to all federal rules pertaining to evidence.

Like, we havent even began the trial phase yet. Youve already broken the rules and posted your evidence publicly, in this thread, without defense having the opportunity to review it to exclude improper evidence first (which is most of it). We very clearly asked for confidential disclosure and you ignored that and dumped it here tainting several potential jurors. You do realize that anyone who has seen this improper evidence cant be on the jury now, right?

Youve admitted to having improper ex parte communications with the chief justice about evidence (which yes that is no matter how desperately you try to spin it).  You do realize that those screenshots cannot be used as evidence in the trial now, right? Even if you claim its "just for context".

Youve demanded defendant violate his rights against self-incrimination.

Youve ignored the grand jury step and just blundered forward with insufficient evidence to support your case.

Youve failed to provide requested exculpatory evidence in your possession as required by Brady v. Maryland (we know this because we obtained it from someone else).

Youve privately admitted that this is a political trial to achieve a political result, requested defense counsel to throw the case, and retaliated against such defense counsel for refusing to do so.

Youve ignored the federal rules of criminal procedure and the federal rules of evidence.

Youve stated that the defendant shouldnt get a jury trial because its inconvenient and are trying to deny the vicinage rights of the defendant.

I mean, you are literally just making up criminal charges at this point in the thread. You claim to have indicted the entire government of a whole Region. On the fly. With no evidence. For doing legal things. You tried to indict the defendant for perjury, despite him not being sworn, because he hurt your feelings. Now you claim you are indicting more people for witness tampering, when the very same message you are again improperly posting as evidence clearly states that anyone similarly situated would have been banned from the server. (Hint: it was for nasty sexual stuff posted last night).

Like, this really is a fun drinking game where everyone drinks each time Laki does something improper and unethical.

And since youve replied again, it is laughable that you are trying to somehow feign innocence for banning me from PeaceCord where there wasnt even trial discussion occuring. It was pure retaliation. Your DM even states that you wanted to ban me because I was a lawyer in this case. Your private chat to ban me did not occur until after I declined to throw this case. And I wasnt banned until today after we made more motions you didnt like.

Like, what is this? How is this due process?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have edited the comment to remove the reference to the "images" as well as the link to the "Facebook chat". Please, I ask everyone to remember that however heated and wild Atlasia might get, you all still bound by the rules of the forum and we have rules against this for a reason.

[windjammer]

Just to inform both the defense and the accusation we will make a decision very soon

[Sestak]

It is the opinion of this court that none of the prospective charges to be filed here took place within any physical boundary in Atlasia; the alleged conduct took place entirely in online chatrooms and the cosntituent forum with no physical present required for any of the involved actions. Thus there is no mandatory constitutional venue in this case.

Due to the direct involvement of the governments of the other two regions, the Supreme Court has decided that Lincoln is the appropriate venue for proceedings and has appointed me to preside.

Grand Jury proceedings will begin immediately. I will post a separate thread for those proceedings to begin. The defense counsel is hereby ordered to refrain from posting in that thread directly; I also ask that all others aside from the justices of the Supreme Court, the selected grand jurors, and those authorized by the prosecution refrain from posting in that thread. To begin, I ask that the prosecution respond to that thread listing all the individuals it wishes to charge and each crime it seeks to charge each individual. Following this, the court will proceed to selection of the grand jury.

[reagente]

It is the opinion of this court that none of the prospective charges to be filed here took place within any physical boundary in Atlasia; the alleged conduct took place entirely in online chatrooms and the cosntituent forum with no physical present required for any of the involved actions. Thus there is no mandatory constitutional venue in this case.

Due to the direct involvement of the governments of the other two regions, the Supreme Court has decided that Lincoln is the appropriate venue for proceedings and has appointed me to preside.

Grand Jury proceedings will begin immediately. I will post a separate thread for those proceedings to begin. The defense counsel is hereby ordered to refrain from posting in that thread directly; I also ask that all others aside from the justices of the Supreme Court, the selected grand jurors, and those authorized by the prosecution refrain from posting in that thread. To begin, I ask that the prosecution respond to that thread listing all the individuals it wishes to charge and each crime it seeks to charge each individual. Following this, the court will proceed to selection of the grand jury.

The prosecution has introduced new evidence of acts which occurred within the physical boundary of the South, namely resolutions passed by the Southern legislature, and executive orders issued by the President of the South. This evidence shows a clear territorial nexus to the Southern region and therefore I request that venue be immediately transferred from Lincoln to the South.

Furthermore, I request that the court hold Laki in criminal contempt and move that the current indictments be quashed due to the posting of fabricated evidence. I never expected the prosecution to resort to such illegal and immoral tactics, but that is nevertheless what has happened.

Laki in the Grand Jury thread posted the following evidence:

Something that was actually seriously being discussed in the senate as part of the Regional Rights Amendment, giving an amendment proposal was to make the ownership of nuclear weapons a regional right, something that would've fitted these plans perfectly.



Would you trust nuclear weapons being a regional right when you have a Southern President who discusses plans about supposedly the purchase/annexation of Iceland and the Faroe Islands after Greenland, but also specifically about having the oil and the nukes to be able to destroy the world.

Reproduced here:


This screenshot is edited. The actual screenshot is as follows:



I can provide a Justice of the Court access to the SEXIT chat to provide proof of this. Shame on the prosecution.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It is the opinion of this court that none of the prospective charges to be filed here took place within any physical boundary in Atlasia; the alleged conduct took place entirely in online chatrooms and the cosntituent forum with no physical present required for any of the involved actions. Thus there is no mandatory constitutional venue in this case.

Due to the direct involvement of the governments of the other two regions, the Supreme Court has decided that Lincoln is the appropriate venue for proceedings and has appointed me to preside.

Grand Jury proceedings will begin immediately. I will post a separate thread for those proceedings to begin. The defense counsel is hereby ordered to refrain from posting in that thread directly; I also ask that all others aside from the justices of the Supreme Court, the selected grand jurors, and those authorized by the prosecution refrain from posting in that thread. To begin, I ask that the prosecution respond to that thread listing all the individuals it wishes to charge and each crime it seeks to charge each individual. Following this, the court will proceed to selection of the grand jury.

The prosecution has introduced new evidence of acts which occurred within the physical boundary of the South, namely resolutions passed by the Southern legislature, and executive orders issued by the President of the South. This evidence shows a clear territorial nexus to the Southern region and therefore I request that venue be immediately transferred from Lincoln to the South.

Furthermore, I request that the court hold Laki in criminal contempt and move that the current indictments be quashed due to the posting of fabricated evidence. I never expected the prosecution to resort to such illegal and immoral tactics, but that is nevertheless what has happened.

Laki in the Grand Jury thread posted the following evidence:

Something that was actually seriously being discussed in the senate as part of the Regional Rights Amendment, giving an amendment proposal was to make the ownership of nuclear weapons a regional right, something that would've fitted these plans perfectly.



Would you trust nuclear weapons being a regional right when you have a Southern President who discusses plans about supposedly the purchase/annexation of Iceland and the Faroe Islands after Greenland, but also specifically about having the oil and the nukes to be able to destroy the world.

Reproduced here:


This screenshot is edited. The actual screenshot is as follows:



I can provide a Justice of the Court access to the SEXIT chat to provide proof of this. Shame on the prosecution.

Can you proof this is fake?