Atlasia v. Antonio V

[Badger]

The Court did fail in this case.  They failed to assemble a jury, after what appeared to be a half-hearted attempt to form one.  Weeks were allowed to pass with no action.  It was not until I, as President, sent a PM to the Court asking that something be done, that a verdict was delivered.  I also made it clear that I held no opinion regarding what the verdict should be, merely that there should be one.

Well, no argument there.

Still, there's a marked difference of scale between deriliction of duty and outright corruption.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It also strikes me as a bit odd that the jury had to be made up of only residents of the Pacific. As Libertas rightly pointed out, the wiki being compromised affects all Atlasians. As such, it seems sensible to me that cases of wiki vandalism should be tried before a jury of citizens from across the nation.

[MaxQue]

Can someone confirm I'm free to talk on that issue now?
The trial is ended?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Can someone confirm I'm free to talk on that issue now?
The trial is ended?

Yes, you were just invited here to act as an extra on the set.

After the illusion was created that the court was actually going to assemble a real jury, your services were no longer needed. Judgie-wudgie had the final act written since before the show even began.

[MaxQue]

Well, too bad.

I was actually leaning towards your side, Libertas.
I hate you, but I'm neutral.
And quite experienced with wikis.

You asked him to stop. He didn't.
To me, that is malicious.
At least, we consider it like that on the French Wikipedia.

That thing should never have been in a trial.
I'm sure than you could have reached an agreement by talking.
You are both mature persons, I hope, so, you could talk calmly.
Instead of making the Court losing his time.

So, please, no war on the Wiki, please. A wiki is collaborative.
Not a battlefield.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hate you

Aw, what a nice thing to say. For my part, I hardly even know who you are to come up with such strong emotions in response.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I hate you

Aw, what a nice thing to say. For my part, I hardly even know who you are to come up with such strong emotions in response.

A classic Libertas post. Ignorance of the substance, implying everyone around him that disagrees with him is totally unreasonable. Truly Libertas perfection.

[MaxQue]

I hate you

Aw, what a nice thing to say. For my part, I hardly even know who you are to come up with such strong emotions in response.

Well, I read much, but I seldom post.
Calling Obama or the Democrats fascists or calling names people I like is a good way to make me feel like that.

You know, you could be a little bit more respectful of your opponents and all would go well.

Respect.
Not name-calling.
No insults.
Only debate and respect, please.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Can someone confirm I'm free to talk on that issue now?
The trial is ended?

Yes, you were just invited here to act as an extra on the set.

After the illusion was created that the court was actually going to assemble a real jury, your services were no longer needed. Judgie-wudgie had the final act written since before the show even began.

Why didn't you ever ask for somebody to be appointed to continue the trial, as Marokai suggested?  (Yes, I know this question will go unanswered by Libertas, but I figured I should at least try...)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hate you

Aw, what a nice thing to say. For my part, I hardly even know who you are to come up with such strong emotions in response.

Well, I read much, but I seldom post.
Calling Obama or the Democrats fascists or calling names people I like is a good way to make me feel like that.

You know, you could be a little bit more respectful of your opponents and all would go well.

Respect.
Not name-calling.
No insults.
Only debate and respect, please.

I don't call people names. Where did I do this? "Fascist" is a political ideological label, not an example of name-calling.

Can someone confirm I'm free to talk on that issue now?
The trial is ended?

Yes, you were just invited here to act as an extra on the set.

After the illusion was created that the court was actually going to assemble a real jury, your services were no longer needed. Judgie-wudgie had the final act written since before the show even began.

Why didn't you ever ask for somebody to be appointed to continue the trial, as Marokai suggested?  (Yes, I know this question will go unanswered by Libertas, but I figured I should at least try...)

I can't do the Attorney General's job. Who the frig was I going to appoint?

That was a ridiculous cheap and lazy cop-out on the AG's part.

Not to mention that I'm not sure what was even left to argue. Kalwejt and I put forth the case and addressed numerous arguments. Antonio put up essentially no defense. We didn't need some special prosecutor to be appointed to do Marokai's job for him. What we needed was a jury to be assembled, but apparently the JCP was afraid that a real jury might rule against them.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You wouldn't appoint somebody.  He would, at your suggestion.  Why would the AG prosecute somebody he didn't believe was guilty?

[Ebowed]

I don't call people names. Where did I do this? "Fascist" is a political ideological label, not an example of name-calling.

I guess this is why American politicians are always referring to themselves as fascists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Court did fail in this case.  They failed to assemble a jury, after what appeared to be a half-hearted attempt to form one.  Weeks were allowed to pass with no action.  It was not until I, as President, sent a PM to the Court asking that something be done, that a verdict was delivered.  I also made it clear that I held no opinion regarding what the verdict should be, merely that there should be one.

I actuallly 100% agree with you about that. The only reason why I decided to be tried by the Courts is because of their failure to form a jury. It's just depressing that our judiciary system is unable to give us a verdict in decent delays. As I already said, I'm not fully satisfied by Ebowed's verdict, but justice needs to be done in a way or another.

[Sam Spade]

After a basic skim through the thread, I see no problems procedurally with what occurred here.

That does not mean that I conclude such, at all for purposes of appeal, but if you're going to challenge the procedure, your time is running, Libertas.

[Badger]

I can't do the Attorney General's job. Who the frig was I going to appoint?That was a ridiculous cheap and lazy cop-out on the AG's part.

Not to mention that I'm not sure what was even left to argue. Kalwejt and I put forth the case and addressed numerous arguments. Antonio put up essentially no defense. We didn't need some special prosecutor to be appointed to do Marokai's job for him. What we needed was a jury to be assembled, but apparently the JCP was afraid that a real jury might rule against them.

First, do you deny that it is the DEFENSE's sole right to decide whether to try a case before a judge or a jury? This was not a decision for "we", the prosecution, to make but Antonio's and his alone.

Secondly, this of course leads to your interminable screaming that this trial was a "JCP orchestrated fix" from the start. Well, isn't KALWJET part of the JCP? Fritz's Veep and JCP Vice Chair actually. By your own admission you and he "put forth the case and addressed numerous arguments", apparently quite to your satisfaction. What about MaxQue? He's strong JCP and a former senator. Antonio knew he was a juror who alone could've hung the entire jury. Not to mention the JCP-rich Pacific would've undoubtedly ultimately put multiple more JCP jurors in the box to hear this case. And yet Antonio chose to waive jury anyway.

SO, Senator, if this case was such a "JCP fix" from the start, why did Vice Chair Kal so aggressively and effectively prosecute this matter until his election to VP? Why did Antonio waive jury when Max alone could've prevented a conviction (and assuredly would've had other JCP Pacific jurors to assist)? The answer should be undeniable even to you---there was no orchestrated "JCP fix". Your typical scattergun attacks wrongly and unfairly maligns the ENTIRE JCP--including people who attempted to help this prosecution like Kal and (apparently, if sworn as a juror) Max. As AT WORSE (can't emphasize this enough, more to follow...) your beef here is with A-G Marokai Blue and/or Justice Ebowed, your repeated libel of the entire JCP deserves to utterly stop, if not an apology for your broad brushed maligning 50+ forum members.

Third, you say this is Blue's fault for not pursuing the case. "I can't do the Attorney General's job. Who the frig was I going to appoint?" Alas, reality differs with your assessment again. Let's look at the facts:

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.

<highlights bolded>

You were offered EVERY chance to proceed with the prosecution, by appointment of either yourself or any bar member you would've put forward, but completely failed to step up. Blue "didn't do his job as A-G"?? As Bacon King pointed out, Senator, the A-G recusing himself he feels biased in is specifically authorized by statute. In recusing himself, Blue WAS doing his job as A-G. NO prosecutor, as Junkie wisely noted, is required to prosecute a case they believe to be legally or factually sustainable. That IS NOT the A-G's job. Furthermore, if I was in your shoes as a non-party victim in the case, I would've been highly upset if someone who repeatedly and publically declared the deep skepticism over this case tried taking over the prosecution. And of course if the case then wound up as an acquittal you would've never accused Blue of dereliction of duty in failing to appoint independent counsel. It's so unlike you to complain when you have the option of actually being constructive....

So the ball was in your court--handed to you on a golden platter even, and you chose to punt rather than run with it. If you truly believe that a prosecutor's job is prosecute any case they have fundamental misgivings about the facts and law over, let alone stated so publically, then you have no room criticizing Blue or anyone else, as such grossly non-judicial views make one professionally incapable of being a parking ticket magistrate. It's not MB's fault he DID HIS JOB as A-G by seeking independent counsel, not Justice Ebowed's for finding Antonio not guilty when Blue could not find worthy grounds to present the court, but your fault and yours alone.

Senator, we already knew you were abrasive, arrogant, a sucker for conspiracy theories, antisemitic, and flexable as a crowbar. But at least before now, and all your recent missed votes, I at least never thought you were lazy.

Nah, you just wanted something new to complain about I bet. That warm fuzzy aggrieved feeling of "fighting the corrupt system" is worth more to you than convicting Antonio 20 times over.

(Oh, and ftr, my views on the case are similar to Max's)

[Badger]

After a basic skim through the thread, I see no problems procedurally with what occurred here.

That does not mean that I conclude such, at all for purposes of appeal, but if you're going to challenge the procedure, your time is running, Libertas.

Standing?

[Junkie]

Libertas, I respectfuly disagree with you.  A prosecutor can only ethically do their job when they believe that the defendant has done a crime AND that they can prove it.  Blue did not believe in either of those conditions.  Thus he did the right thing.  He offered to appoint a special prosecutor, also the right thing.  This has happened a few times, even in front of the Supreme Court.

My favorite example of this is the case of the Hillside Strangler(s).  The DA of LA brought charges.  After some time, the DA believed that he could no longer prove the case and moved to dismiss.  The Judge disagreed and refused to dismiss (within the right of the judge -- at least in Wisconsin and obviously California).  The DA, not believing that the case could be ethically prosecuted, brought in the California AG, who felt differently, actually did some real good work, and successfully prosecuted the case.

Interesting side note -- the DA who started the case was elected AG, so when the case ended it was back in his office.  More interesting, the Judge became DA.

The point of all this is a special prosecutor could have brought in.  Blue gave you the option of naming one.  Dallasfan, Han, would have been great to name just two I am sure you would have liked.  I am sure there would have been others that would have been willing to take a look at the evidence and then determine if they could proceed based on those two conditions.

This is the only way the Justice system works.  You may not like it in this case, but trust me, it is much better than having prosecutors that blindly prosecute people they do not believe committed crimes.

[bullmoose88]

Not that we have these rules here, but shouldn't Marokai be prohibited (in the absence of a waiver) from representing the adverse party to his former client, Antonio?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, I respectfuly disagree with you.  A prosecutor can only ethically do their job when they believe that the defendant has done a crime AND that they can prove it.  Blue did not believe in either of those conditions.  Thus he did the right thing.  He offered to appoint a special prosecutor, also the right thing.  This has happened a few times, even in front of the Supreme Court.

My favorite example of this is the case of the Hillside Strangler(s).  The DA of LA brought charges.  After some time, the DA believed that he could no longer prove the case and moved to dismiss.  The Judge disagreed and refused to dismiss (within the right of the judge -- at least in Wisconsin and obviously California).  The DA, not believing that the case could be ethically prosecuted, brought in the California AG, who felt differently, actually did some real good work, and successfully prosecuted the case.

Interesting side note -- the DA who started the case was elected AG, so when the case ended it was back in his office.  More interesting, the Judge became DA.

The point of all this is a special prosecutor could have brought in.  Blue gave you the option of naming one.  Dallasfan, Han, would have been great to name just two I am sure you would have liked.  I am sure there would have been others that would have been willing to take a look at the evidence and then determine if they could proceed based on those two conditions.

This is the only way the Justice system works.  You may not like it in this case, but trust me, it is much better than having prosecutors that blindly prosecute people they do not believe committed crimes.

That was not the main issue here, despite Marokai's attempt to distract attention with it.

The real issue is that the attorney general, the judge, and the defendant were all in bed together.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

That was not the main issue here, despite Marokai's attempt to distract attention with it.

The real issue is that the attorney general, the judge, and the defendant were all in bed together.

That is exactly the issue, Libertas.  If you had simply chosen a new prosecutor, then the AG would have been removed.  You could have asked for a change of venue - there were plenty of options.  You chose instead to complain and play the victim.  You have no moral authority to complain.

[Franzl]

There really is no point in actually arguing with Libertas over this. He just wants to throw a tantrum...and no objective arguments will ever change his position.

[Badger]

There really is no point in actually arguing with Libertas over this. He just wants to throw a tantrum...and no objective arguments will ever change his position.

<sigh> You're right, Franzl, you're right. I keep forgetting.

But at least hopefully this'll encourage others to maintain some independent thought on the matter and realize how foolish his claims "the fix was in" are.