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

[Sestak]

I thought I’d posted the concurrence in Yankee’s case two weeks back, but I apparently left it in the preview. Apologies to all involved; it’s up now.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

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

[windjammer]

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

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

[West_Midlander]

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

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

Mr. Chief Justice,

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

Thanks,
WM

[windjammer]

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

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

Mr. Chief Justice,

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

Thanks,
WM

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

[FairBol]

So what's up with this OSR case?

It's MHO that cert should've never been granted here.  Unless the plaintiff somehow is contending that the Senate does not have the power to "discipline...its members", it doesn't seem like he has a legal leg to stand on. 

Article III Section 1 Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution makes it very clear that the Senate does, in fact, have this power.
 

The Senate may adopt rules concerning the discipline and expulsion of its members; but no Senator shall be expelled but with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Senate.

Now you're telling me that the Court might decide in favor of OSR? I get the whole "you need to respond" thing, but geez...are they willing to do away with an important legislative check that the Senate has?

SMH!

[reagente]

So what's up with this OSR case?

It's MHO that cert should've never been granted here.  Unless the plaintiff somehow is contending that the Senate does not have the power to "discipline...its members", it doesn't seem like he has a legal leg to stand on. 

Article III Section 1 Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution makes it very clear that the Senate does, in fact, have this power.
 

The Senate may adopt rules concerning the discipline and expulsion of its members; but no Senator shall be expelled but with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the Senate.

Now you're telling me that the Court might decide in favor of OSR? I get the whole "you need to respond" thing, but geez...are they willing to do away with an important legislative check that the Senate has?

SMH!

The plaintiff is not arguing that the Senate does not have the power to discipline members. Please re-read our brief.

[FairBol]

Let me get this straight...you appear to be conceding the argument regarding "discipline and expulsion", correct?

Then what the hell is it that you're actually arguing? Maybe I'm missing the point, but "impeachment" sounds like an attempted exercise in "discipline" to me...?

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

It's been over two weeks since the indictment has been issued. Is there a timetable on the next proceedings in the trial of Laki v Young Texan?

[Joseph Cao]

Bumping since someone seems to have unpinned this thread at some point.

[FairBol]

Just commenting on the case of ChiefFireWaterMike v LouisvilleThunder.  I think that in this case, the source/availability of the "undisclosed evidence" should be more thoroughly examined.

• First, where did the plaintiff get this information from? Could it have been Photoshopped, or otherwise forged?

• Second, are we totally sure that the alleged "new" evidence wasn't available back in 2021? If not, I would say that the defense has a claim of laches: that is, that the plaintiff knew or should have known about this evidence previously, yet chose not to present it at original trial (and by doing so, gave up the right to re-allege based on such evidence...they "slept on their rights")
  
  (see also estoppel)

Anywho, that's my take right now.  

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

Just commenting on the case of ChiefFireWaterMike v LouisvilleThunder.  I think that in this case, the source/availability of the "undisclosed evidence" should be more thoroughly examined.

• First, where did the plaintiff get this information from? Could it have been Photoshopped, or otherwise forged?

• Second, are we totally sure that the alleged "new" evidence wasn't available back in 2021? If not, I would say that the defense has a claim of laches: that is, that the plaintiff knew or should have known about this evidence previously, yet chose not to present it at original trial (and by doing so, gave up the right to re-allege based on such evidence...they "slept on their rights")
  

(see also estoppel)[/li][/list]


Anywho, that's my take right now.  

1 - LT himself hasn't denied the authenticity of the evidence (and he won't deny the authenticity under oath because he knows doing so would perjure himself). Nobody serious denies the authenticity of this evidence even his defenders, you are literally alone in this concern.

2 - Once again, I literally did not have access to this evidence until a week or two before I filed the case. Please explain how this evidence would have been discoverable in 2021. Subpoena LT for the contents of his direct messages? That would violate his right against self-incrimination. Please think through this more next time.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not surprised to see the No More Nineteenth law in court. At all.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

    Sorry for the delay in handling this case. I've tried to get in touch with the Attorney General of the Republic of Atlasia to file a response, which has met with limited success. I will give the Republic of Atlasia until 11:59 PM EST on Wednesday, December 6th to file a response brief or formally request an extension. Absent a satisfactory response the case will proceed regardless.

That's likely because the AG deregistered:

Mr. X
De-registered

I always intended this to be a short-term return and I just have too many other things going on right now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Sorry for the delay in handling this case. I've tried to get in touch with the Attorney General of the Republic of Atlasia to file a response, which has met with limited success. I will give the Republic of Atlasia until 11:59 PM EST on Wednesday, December 6th to file a response brief or formally request an extension. Absent a satisfactory response the case will proceed regardless.

That's likely because the AG deregistered:

Mr. X
De-registered

I always intended this to be a short-term return and I just have too many other things going on right now.

     Mr. X just reached out to me about this. As far as I can tell, a replacement hasn't even been nominated yet, so there doesn't seem to be much hope of getting an official response to the case.

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

I have advised Laki, who was the author of the bill, to draft a brief.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I have advised Laki, who was the author of the bill, to draft a brief.

     Thanks, I appreciate the help.

[Continential]

snip

bruh no way that we file the same case in 10 minutes coincidentally

[Adam Griffin]

Trying to figure out the argument here surrounding HLP being a minor party and therefore there's a special election required.

Laki resigned his Senate seat as a member of HLP 1 minute before de-registering. This means before, at and after resignation, HLP had 3 members. It also had 3 or more members prior to, during and after the appointment of Wulfric.

Is the argument that if any party were to temporarily drop to minor party status after a vacancy was formed only to return to major party status before the appointment, that its ability to appoint a replacement is nullified?

[Joseph Cao]

Alright, what the dickens is going on?

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

Alright, what the dickens is going on?

Basically, we no longer have a Supreme Court. Not sure I'm authorized to reveal exactly why.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Alright, what the dickens is going on?

Green Panty raid 2.0, Hawaiian style after Laki's deregistration. Ended up being a big mess and now the seat's in contention leading to one of three possible scenarios:

A) The appointment was legitimate and Wulfric was lawfully appointed to Laki's seat, which he then resigned while a member of Peace and thus Peace has the right to appoint someone to it
B) The appointment was not legitimate, but Hui Liliʻuokalani still had the right to appoint someone which ReallySuper did, meaning HL would be the senator to the seat [while this one has some moral backing/"what laki wanted with his seat", the legal backing seems minimal which means this is the least likely scenario to pan out]
or
C) The appointment was not legitimate because either 1) "Wulfric" isn't listed on the census and/or 2) Hui Liliʻuokalani ceased to be a major party when Laki deregistered. Both of these mean that the seat is still vacant because the party didn't have the right to appoint someone, so the seat should be up for a special election.

As you can tell, it's pretty messy.