Atlasia v. Antonio V

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Your Honor,

Due to my tenure as Attorney General expiring tommorow, I have to leave this case to my immediate successor.

[President Marokai]

Hello everyone!

I've put a great deal of thought into my handling of this case, and I've decided to move forward with the following action:

In order to accommodate Libertas, along with my personal belief that ongoing cases should at least be respected to some degree, I will personally appoint anyone Libertas desires to argue the case on his behalf.

If Libertas does not, however, respond with any sort of recommendation, I will refuse to argue this case myself, and will drop this case. I do not believe in this case myself, but I want to give Libertas an opportunity to continue this case himself.

If Libertas hasn't responded within 24 hours-ish, I'll proceed with the latter action.

Thanks for your patience, everyone.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Hello everyone!

I've put a great deal of thought into my handling of this case, and I've decided to move forward with the following action:

In order to accommodate Libertas, along with my personal belief that ongoing cases should at least be respected to some degree, I will personally appoint anyone Libertas desires to argue the case on his behalf.

If Libertas does not, however, respond with any sort of recommendation, I will refuse to argue this case myself, and will drop this case. I do not believe in this case myself, but I want to give Libertas an opportunity to continue this case himself.

If Libertas hasn't responded within 24 hours-ish, I'll proceed with the latter action.

Thanks for your patience, everyone.

Marokai, despite my feelings and social connections here, I haven't rescued myself from this case neither should you.

[Fritz]

I am not going to permit the Attorney General to simply drop this case.  It is his prerogative to appoint another to argue this case in his stead, but Atlasia will prosecute this case until a verdict is reached.

It appears to me that both sides rested their cases a week ago, at any rate.  Has this gone to a jury yet?

[President Marokai]

I'm certainly not going to argue a case that I don't support.

If someone wants this case to proceed then find me someone who's interested in arguing the case on the government's behalf.

Unless of course everyone involved in this case just wants it to go straight to the jury from here, in which case I'll just stand here and look pretty in the meantime while everyone else deliberates, but if it's a guilty verdict and Antonio appeals, don't expect me to participate in the case a second time.

[Secretary Polnut]

I have to agree here, the Attorney-General cannot recuse themselves from a case, out of principle...

However, given that the AG has pretty much admitted that any prosecution would be tainted, should they lead it... I personally would consider it grounds for them to recuse themselves as the AG has publicly declared as such.

[Bacon King]

Of course the Attorney General can recuse himself from a case he feels biased in. It's covered in our statute.

[Senator Libertas]

I'm certainly not going to argue a case that I don't support.

If someone wants this case to proceed then find me someone who's interested in arguing the case on the government's behalf.

Unless of course everyone involved in this case just wants it to go straight to the jury from here, in which case I'll just stand here and look pretty in the meantime while everyone else deliberates, but if it's a guilty verdict and Antonio appeals, don't expect me to participate in the case a second time.

This case was brought against Antonio V by your own administration, in which you had served as VP. It's not like this was some partisan witch hunt started by an opposing party administration. There's really no justification for dropping this case. Rather, there is a clear basis for charging the defendant here with criminal misconduct; this was recognized as such by members of both the Purple State and Fritz administrations, under which you've served.

Are you really going to be so shamelessly partisan and biased in your role so as to blatantly refuse to prosecute Antonio V? Why did you become AG if you're not going to enforce the laws of Atlasia? You're supposed to disregard your own personal beliefs and instead give your all into arguing on behalf of the Atlasian government and its laws. It's part of the job description.

[Secretary Polnut]

Of course the Attorney General can recuse himself from a case he feels biased in. It's covered in our statute.

My point is that he can't recuse himself simply because he doesn't like the case. But by publicly stating a position counter to the Administration's official position, he can now recuse himself based on that fact.

[President Marokai]

I'm certainly not going to argue a case that I don't support.

If someone wants this case to proceed then find me someone who's interested in arguing the case on the government's behalf.

Unless of course everyone involved in this case just wants it to go straight to the jury from here, in which case I'll just stand here and look pretty in the meantime while everyone else deliberates, but if it's a guilty verdict and Antonio appeals, don't expect me to participate in the case a second time.

This case was brought against Antonio V by your own administration, in which you had served as VP. It's not like this was some partisan witch hunt started by an opposing party administration. There's really no justification for dropping this case. Rather, there is a clear basis for charging the defendant here with criminal misconduct; this was recognized as such by members of both the Purple State and Fritz administrations, under which you've served.

Are you really going to be so shamelessly partisan and biased in your role so as to blatantly refuse to prosecute Antonio V? Why did you become AG if you're not going to enforce the laws of Atlasia? You're supposed to disregard your own personal beliefs and instead give your all into arguing on behalf of the Atlasian government and its laws. It's part of the job description.

Purple State ordered Kalwejt to prosecute Antonio. I was part of the Administration, but I certainly wasn't in charge, there was nothing I could do. I was Vice President, not Supreme Ruler of the Cosmos.

I'm perfectly willing to appoint anyone to take on the case aside from me or let the case go straight to the jury. If I wanted to be "shamelessly partisan" I couldn't just waltzed right in here and done my damnedest to derail the entire process. I didn't. I offered you the choice of anyone you wanted to pursue the case in my stead, as I don't believe in the case, and publicly argued in Antonio's favor before I became Attorney General.

I became AG to pursue what I considered to be breaches of the law and uphold our statute, as well as keep the regions in line. I didn't become AG to play a part in any petty squabbling. But instead of taking my offer that I was under no obligation to give you, you're here bitching at me instead of being mature and letting the case continue with someone else at the helm. You certainly have no moral highground here.

I have no desire to pursue this case because I do not believe there is any breaking of the law here, and I've already publicly argued against the government's position before I became AG. Therefore, I've done the responsible thing and backed out. You once complained to me when I served on the Court for refusing to back out of a case, and now you're complaining that I'm offering you full control over the prosecution while I step back out of it.

This case will continue if you decide to make it do so, Libertas. I don't want to hear any complaints.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Marokai, I don't feel it's right for you to say, as AG, "ok, find me someone to prosecute or I'll quit". Libertas is the one who brought a complain, not a member of prosecution team. And you're a head of the prosecution stuff.

Ok, I'll fully understand if you'd want to excuse yourself because you argued in Antonio favor before becoming AG. That's a perfectly valid argument. But as AG, you really shouldn't drop or let the case die. Want to excuse yourself, appoint an impartian special prosecutor.

[President Marokai]

Marokai, I don't feel it's right for you to say, as AG, "ok, find me someone to prosecute or I'll quit". Libertas is the one who brought a complain, not a member of prosecution team. And you're a head of the prosecution stuff.

Ok, I'll fully understand if you'd want to excuse yourself because you argued in Antonio favor before becoming AG. That's a perfectly valid argument. But as AG, you really shouldn't drop or let the case die. Want to excuse yourself, appoint an impartian special prosecutor.

Dude, what about this are you not understanding? I think the case is complete and utter BS and I've personally argued against it before I even took this office. It's perfectly within my rights to back out of this case.

My job is to prosecute what I consider to be breaches of the law. I'm not going to handle a case that I don't think it's appropriate for me to handle or that I think has no legitimacy. I wouldn't want any AG to do that. And I'll sooner resign than I will be forced into handling a court case that I feel the complete opposite about.

California didn't offer any defense of Prop 8 because they didn't believe in the cause, and instead, they handed off the defense to a pro-Prop 8 group. There are of course differences, I'm the prosecution instead of the defense here, but if a government doesn't believe in a case, they've backed out of them before and they hand off the case to an interested party. I'm doing the exact same here.

Anyone who wants to step forward and take this case, since Libertas likes a good controversy as opposed to a good legal system, I will happily hand it off to you.

[Senator Libertas]

Marokai, I don't feel it's right for you to say, as AG, "ok, find me someone to prosecute or I'll quit". Libertas is the one who brought a complain, not a member of prosecution team. And you're a head of the prosecution stuff.

Ok, I'll fully understand if you'd want to excuse yourself because you argued in Antonio favor before becoming AG. That's a perfectly valid argument. But as AG, you really shouldn't drop or let the case die. Want to excuse yourself, appoint an impartian special prosecutor.

Dude, what about this are you not understanding? I think the case is complete and utter BS and I've personally argued against it before I even took this office. It's perfectly within my rights to back out of this case.

Why is it "complete and utter BS"? Oh, that's right. The defendant Antonio is your JCP buddy, whereas the victims are the evil Populares, including myself. We don't deserve justice.

My job is to prosecute what I consider to be breaches of the law. I'm not going to handle a case that I don't think it's appropriate for me to handle or that I think has no legitimacy. I wouldn't want any AG to do that. And I'll sooner resign than I will be forced into handling a court case that I feel the complete opposite about.

California didn't offer any defense of Prop 8 because they didn't believe in the cause, and instead, they handed off the defense to a pro-Prop 8 group. There are of course differences, I'm the prosecution instead of the defense here, but if a government doesn't believe in a case, they've backed out of them before and they hand off the case to an interested party. I'm doing the exact same here.

Anyone who wants to step forward and take this case, since Libertas likes a good controversy as opposed to a good legal system, I will happily hand it off to you.

Do you honestly believe this BS, or are you just shamelessly spouting off nonsense that you know to be false? YOU are the weakest link in the Atlasian justice system right now. If you really cared about justice, you would have either gone ahead with this case, or else resigned out of principle. You shouldn't have ever even agreed to become AG if you can't be impartial enough to do your job.

[President Marokai]

Marokai, I don't feel it's right for you to say, as AG, "ok, find me someone to prosecute or I'll quit". Libertas is the one who brought a complain, not a member of prosecution team. And you're a head of the prosecution stuff.

Ok, I'll fully understand if you'd want to excuse yourself because you argued in Antonio favor before becoming AG. That's a perfectly valid argument. But as AG, you really shouldn't drop or let the case die. Want to excuse yourself, appoint an impartian special prosecutor.

Dude, what about this are you not understanding? I think the case is complete and utter BS and I've personally argued against it before I even took this office. It's perfectly within my rights to back out of this case.

Why is it "complete and utter BS"? Oh, that's right. The defendant Antonio is your JCP buddy, whereas the victims are the evil Populares, including myself. We don't deserve justice.

The law says "maliciously editing" is against the law. I don't believe there was any "malicious" intent on behalf of Antonio and also believe you've failed to prove that intent exists. I have reasons why I believe this case is a waste of the court's time, none of them have anything to do with my friendship with Antonio.

My job is to prosecute what I consider to be breaches of the law. I'm not going to handle a case that I don't think it's appropriate for me to handle or that I think has no legitimacy. I wouldn't want any AG to do that. And I'll sooner resign than I will be forced into handling a court case that I feel the complete opposite about.

California didn't offer any defense of Prop 8 because they didn't believe in the cause, and instead, they handed off the defense to a pro-Prop 8 group. There are of course differences, I'm the prosecution instead of the defense here, but if a government doesn't believe in a case, they've backed out of them before and they hand off the case to an interested party. I'm doing the exact same here.

Anyone who wants to step forward and take this case, since Libertas likes a good controversy as opposed to a good legal system, I will happily hand it off to you.

Do you honestly believe this BS, or are you just shamelessly spouting off nonsense that you know to be false? YOU are the weakest link in the Atlasian justice system right now. If you really cared about justice, you would have either gone ahead with this case, or else resigned out of principle. You shouldn't have ever even agreed to become AG if you can't be impartial enough to do your job.

Two things:

1. I'm perfectly able to be impartial, but I don't think this case is valid or a good use of this court's time. (Or mine, frankly.) As I said earlier, this is a personal squabble between you and Antonio (you have bickered with him in Atlasia for months) and there is no "malicious" intent that I can see in his edits, especially after his reaching out to you and his effort at explaining his actions.

Because of this, I'm offering the case to someone else so it can continue without me, since there is no way I can actually argue something that I don't believe is the case. It's not an issue of impartiality, you are asking be to argue in favor of something that I do not believe and have publicly argued against. It's an impossibility.

2. You once accused me of bias when I was a Supreme Court member because I wouldn't pull back out of a case and let the others deal with it. Make up your f-ing mind, Libertas. Do you want me to retreat from cases that I don't believe in or have personal feelings on, or do you want me to "buck up and do my job" like you're espousing here?

I think we could play the "conflict of interest" game for just about every person who is a justice and every person who could become a Justice, especially considering how long others have been around.

No, but you should have definitely recused yourself from my case considering the clear conflict of interest there.

Of course I wouldn't expect something so mature from you.

You're contradicting yourself, and it's only to cause trouble and get a bunch of readers in your crackpot paper. You want attention, and that's why you continue to not even acknowledge the fact that I offered you the choice of who you wanted to prosecute the case.

[Senator Libertas]

Marokai, I don't feel it's right for you to say, as AG, "ok, find me someone to prosecute or I'll quit". Libertas is the one who brought a complain, not a member of prosecution team. And you're a head of the prosecution stuff.

Ok, I'll fully understand if you'd want to excuse yourself because you argued in Antonio favor before becoming AG. That's a perfectly valid argument. But as AG, you really shouldn't drop or let the case die. Want to excuse yourself, appoint an impartian special prosecutor.

Dude, what about this are you not understanding? I think the case is complete and utter BS and I've personally argued against it before I even took this office. It's perfectly within my rights to back out of this case.

Why is it "complete and utter BS"? Oh, that's right. The defendant Antonio is your JCP buddy, whereas the victims are the evil Populares, including myself. We don't deserve justice.

The law says "maliciously editing" is against the law. I don't believe there was any "malicious" intent on behalf of Antonio and also believe you've failed to prove that intent exists. I have reasons why I believe this case is a waste of the court's time, none of them have anything to do with my friendship with Antonio.

Marokai, stop insulting everyone here with these incredibly transparent lies. It's offensive to be so shamelessly lied to.

This has nothing to do with any sort of principled objection to prosecuting the crime that was committed and everything to do with the particular people who were involved on each side.

You and I both know that if the situation were reversed, you'd be singing a different tune.

If mean old Libertas were relentlessly vandalizing the JCP Wiki page and poor Antonio had to sign on every day for four months just to undo the damage, there's no way in hell you would let me get away with it. In fact, it wouldn't last four months because you'd have brought charges the first time the vandalism happened.

1. I'm perfectly able to be impartial, but I don't think this case is valid or a good use of this court's time. (Or mine, frankly.)

If you didn't have time to perform the roles of the Attorney General, then you shouldn't have taken the job.

But I know you are so busy with work and school in real life, so I realize it is a great imposition to ask you for five minutes to actually do the job you agreed to do when you became Attorney General.

As I said earlier, this is a personal squabble between you and Antonio (you have bickered with him in Atlasia for months) and there is no "malicious" intent that I can see in his edits, especially after his reaching out to you and his effort at explaining his actions.

The Wiki belongs to all of the people of Atlasia. Vandalizing the Wiki is a crime against all Atlasians; it is not just part of some "personal squabble" between Antonio and myself.


But by your logic, I'd be okay vandalizing the JCP page as long as I left messages on bgwah's page telling him why I felt I was justified in altering his party's page. And even if he asked me multiple times to stop the vandalism, I could keep on doing it...and it still wouldn't be 'malicious' according to the precedent you wish to set.

Because of this, I'm offering the case to someone else so it can continue without me, since there is no way I can actually argue something that I don't believe is the case. It's not an issue of impartiality, you are asking be to argue in favor of something that I do not believe and have publicly argued against. It's an impossibility.

Lawyers do it all the time. Attorneys General certainly do. It's not up to you to decide a law isn't worthy of enforcement.

You're unfit for this job.

2. You once accused me of bias when I was a Supreme Court member because I wouldn't pull back out of a case and let the others deal with it. Make up your f-ing mind, Libertas. Do you want me to retreat from cases that I don't believe in or have personal feelings on, or do you want me to "buck up and do my job" like you're espousing here?

That's not even remotely comparable. A judge should recuse himself from a case if he can't make an impartial judgment. You're an Attorney General; your job is simply to put forth the best case possible on behalf of Atlasian law whether you agree with it or not. There is no judgment to be made on your part.

When you learn the art of rhetoric and debating, you learn how to do it from both sides. If you can't look at an issue from any perspective except your own narrow one, then, again, this isn't the job for you.
 

[President Marokai]

I will ask you one more time before I take this to the presiding Justice to deal with himself:

I will appoint anyone you desire in my place to prosecute this case against Antonio. Do you accept my offer or not, and if you do, pick someone for me to appoint.

[Ebowed]

Nobody here is going to be arguing any cases they don't have any agreement with.  The fact that this has erupted as a point of controversy, out of anything else from this thread, is confounding and disappointing.  I can't even begin to comprehend the implication that the Attorney General is somehow improper for not being able to argue on behalf of this case when prior to his appointment he was providing help in this very thread to the defendant.  If anything, impropriety would be in not recognizing a potential conflict of interest.

Unrelated, but we are encountering a lot of difficulty in finding people who are active and willing to serve on the jury.

[Californian Tony]

Let's let this case go to the jury. I doubt there is anything left to argue.

[Junkie]

With all due respect to the Court, this seemed like the only place to post this.

In my opinion, Blue is acting within his role as a legal representative.  For me the question is one of candor to the tribunal.  Lawyers cannot put forth an argument they know to be false.

Most of the time, this is not a factor.  Lawyers are putting forth the cases the best they can, even if they personally are against the position, because the law calls for advocating the best for their client.  Even when the law is clear, lawyers can argue to change not the law but cannot argue that the law is different than what it is.

Where this is different is in the role of a prosecutor.  Prosecutors have immense power -- the sole power of whether to bring charges against a person.  They only serve the people they are sworn to protect when they prosecute only those they believe are guilty.  Prosecutors should NEVER charge and prosecute a person they do not believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty of that crime.  To have otherwise is a system no one wants to live under.

I am not commenting on the facts of the case, or whether it can be proven -- only on the idea of proprietorial discretion and ethics.  If a proprietorial truly believes that they cannot prove that a defendant committed a crime, then they cannot issue charges, cannot argue for conviction.  Appoint a special prosecutor fine, they may have a different opinion.  But NEVER prosecute when you do not believe someone is not guilty.

[President Marokai]

Much appreciated, Junkie.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Anyway, it is my belief that this case just should be resolved.

I bet Ebowed is really cursing all of us.

[Fritz]

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Apparently nothing-- nine days have passed without a post in this thread.  Is there a jury deliberating on this matter?

I direct the Court to do its job.

[President Marokai]

I was pondering on this myself.

Do we necessarily need to go to jury if finding members is this difficult? I'm certainly fine going without one but it's really up to Antonio.

[Senator MaxQue]

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Apparently nothing-- nine days have passed without a post in this thread.  Is there a jury deliberating on this matter?

I direct the Court to do its job.

Well, I know I'm not supposed to talk here, as I'm on the jury, but, no, the jury isn't deliberating. Now, there is only me and Torie in the jury.

Sorry for violating decorum, I'll return to silence now.

[Californian Tony]

I was pondering on this myself.

Do we necessarily need to go to jury if finding members is this difficult? I'm certainly fine going without one but it's really up to Antonio.

If I can choose, I'd like to be tried directly by Justice Ebowed. Hopefully this can make things faster.