Bono vs Harry

[Bono]

I wish to sue Governor Harry in a court of the Southeastern Region,
Whereas the Southeast constitution provides that:
"The people of this region have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent republic; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the Atlasian Senate." Article VI, section 7.

Whereas Governor Harry refuses to appoint a representative of the region to the federal suit TCash v Southeast,
I charge Governor Harry with conspiracy against the rights of the southeast citizens.

[John Dibble]

More work already...

Ok, interested parties make your arguments - I'll make a decision in 3 days or so.

[Bono]

No such luck. Since this is a criminal trial, the constitution mandates a jury trial.

[Peter]

Exactly which SE statute makes "conspiracy against the rights of the southeast citizens" illegal?

[Emsworth]

Exactly which SE statute makes "conspiracy against the rights of the southeast citizens" illegal?

It could just be a part of the SE common law.

[John Dibble]

No such luck. Since this is a criminal trial, the constitution mandates a jury trial.

Fine, but could you at least indicate some probable cause that this be brought to trial as a criminal case. At the least, Harry may have failed in his duties as governor and you might have a case for that(that is, in future court cases against the Southeast he would have to appoint representation for the Southeast), but in order for this to be conspiracy against the rights of the Southeast you need to show some evidence that he planned this. If you can show some indication he planned with TCash to bring up a trial over the issue and that he as governor would not appoint representation, I'll get a jury together, but otherwise this charge is frivilous and I'll dismiss it. Justice in this country does go by the principle "Innocent until proven guilty" after all, and while Harry is a vile undead abomination of necromancy I'm not going to drag him into a criminal case without probable cause.

BTW, trials in the supreme court are pretty much open to anyone and I'll be representing the Southeast later in the day in TCash v Southeast.

[TomC]

No such luck. Since this is a criminal trial, the constitution mandates a jury trial.

You should be suing for the ability to represent the SE government in the federal trial. In fact, why not ask Emsworth if, as a citizen who voted for the Liberty of Contract Initiaitve, you have standing to argue the Southeast's case. I won't object.

[TomC]

If you can show some indication he planned with TCash to bring up a trial over the issue and that he as governor would not appoint representation,

No such thing happened. The ONLY statement I have made to Harry on the matter was quite public in this thread, and in no way did I indicate that he should avoid appointing someone to take this responsibility (or doing it himself), quite the opposite:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42404.15

[John Dibble]

No such luck. Since this is a criminal trial, the constitution mandates a jury trial.

You should be suing for the ability to represent the SE government in the federal trial. In fact, why not ask Emsworth if, as a citizen who voted for the Liberty of Contract Initiaitve, you have standing to argue the Southeast's case. I won't object.

He doesn't need to - when I asked Emsworth about it he said "any citizen may file arguments in any case", so as I said the federal trials are open to anyone.

[Bono]

Exactly which SE statute makes "conspiracy against the rights of the southeast citizens" illegal?

It could just be a part of the SE common law.

Of course.

[Bono]

No such luck. Since this is a criminal trial, the constitution mandates a jury trial.

Fine, but could you at least indicate some probable cause that this be brought to trial as a criminal case. At the least, Harry may have failed in his duties as governor and you might have a case for that(that is, in future court cases against the Southeast he would have to appoint representation for the Southeast), but in order for this to be conspiracy against the rights of the Southeast you need to show some evidence that he planned this. If you can show some indication he planned with TCash to bring up a trial over the issue and that he as governor would not appoint representation, I'll get a jury together, but otherwise this charge is frivilous and I'll dismiss it. Justice in this country does go by the principle "Innocent until proven guilty" after all, and while Harry is a vile undead abomination of necromancy I'm not going to drag him into a criminal case without probable cause.

BTW, trials in the supreme court are pretty much open to anyone and I'll be representing the Southeast later in the day in TCash v Southeast.

Right. Sorry, I misunmderstood the conotations of thw rod conspiracy in this particular case.
But still, singlehandedly violating the rights of the Southeast Citizens is a crime by itself. And we have more than a probable cause. Though firt, arguably, it should be established weather or not a violation of rights existed. Except that, due to a clause I snuck up on the bill of rights, that might be the job of the jury too.

Oh, and I'll be filing an Amicus brief on the TCash case tomorow.

[jokerman]

Ya'll might want to check the Georgia law code on this since we adopted it for our law code during my term.