Attn Justices: Atlasia v. Benconstine

[SPC]

Ugh, I just lost my ruling because I signed in under the 60 minute thingy and it logged me out.

I'm going to need a few minutes (at least) to reconstruct.

That's why I usually copy my posts before I click post.

[Sam Spade]

Ugh, I just lost my ruling because I signed in under the 60 minute thingy and it logged me out.

I'm going to need a few minutes (at least) to reconstruct.

That's why I usually copy my posts before I click post.

Normally I just log in forever, so I don't need to do that.  Oh well...

[Sam Spade]

Let's try this again.
Counsel, I am going to generally agree with your motion, but I feel that the form is poor and the scope is too broad.

First, I see no reason to vet prosecutorial statements, whether made before or after Xahar's dismissal.  If you wish to use these statements in defense of your client, it will be up to the jury to decide the quality or validity of those inferences.

As for prosecutorial evidence used at trial, I have great concern over possible tampering and wish to review it personally, but not under your guidelines.  Rather, I will use the following procedure to review evidence, for the particular circumstances of this case only (i.e. non-precedential):

After the defendant has entered his plea and I have formally selected a jury (i.e. all jury members have said the oath), the prosecution shall have 24 hours to present to me, via PM, every piece of evidence (i.e. exhibit) it wishes to present at trial.  Additionally, it must provide me, via PM, to the best of its knowledge, how the evidence was obtained and its handling up to the point of trial.  Any evidence not presented at that point shall only be allowed into the trial by this court under extraordinary circumstances.

Once I receive the evidence, I will PM the evidence to Counsel, at which point he shall have 24 hours to make his objections to the admission of the evidence. 

Once I have received his objections, I will PM them to the prosecution and allow an additional 24 hours for rebuttal.

After this process, I will issue a ruling on each piece of evidence as to its admission via PM to both parties.  The trial shall begin forthwith afterwards.  If either side wishes to place an objection to my ruling on a piece of evidence to be heard on appeal, they will have 24 hours to place the objection.  After that time, no objections will be heard by the Court on appeal.

Most importantly, I reserve full discretion to speed up the process, if need be, due to time constraints - meaning that the time limits set above are the outer constraints I will allow. 

This means that the prosecution may send me the evidence it wishes to present at trial before the defendant has entered his plea or I have seated the jury.  I may also choose to send the evidence to the defendant for his 24 hours of argument before either above task has been completed.  Time will be the governing factor.

That's it on that ruling.

The prosecution still has somewhere under 72 hours to send me its opinion on whether to continue the case or not.

And although no time limit has been placed *yet* (mainly because of the prosecution's burden), I do urge defendant to enter a plea as soon as practicable.

(bangs gavel)

[Peter]

The defendant enters a plea of not guilty. (if it is permissible for me to enter it on behalf of my client?)

Furthermore, I wish to make the Court aware of the following:

Dear Citizens of Atlasia,
I would like to say that I am going to continue to be a citizen in Atlasia, through this scandal. To answer any question, I have only met Xahar in person once in my life, I do not live near him, nor do I go to the same school as him. The hacking of Ben's account was carried out by both of us, and no evil was meant of it. I would like to agree with Xahar on the fact that the secret RPP forums should be opened to the public. The reason that Xahar knew Ben was the Populist was through illegal means,

Unless the Attorney General is able to offer some other method through which evidence was obtained, I shall have to ask the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice

[Sam Spade]

The defendant enters a plea of not guilty. (if it is permissible for me to enter it on behalf of my client?)

The defendant needs to say so himself unless he is unable to.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I enter a plea of not guilty.

[Sam Spade]

Since my evidence may be important to this trial, I would ask the court for permission to enter as a witness for the defense, should the defense accept my offer.

That is something for you to discuss with Defense Counsel personally. 

If he wishes to call you as a witness, he will need to let the court and the prosecution know before presenting his case.  The prosecution needs to know so that they're not thrown any last-minute curveballs (and I will be asking the same thing of the prosecution for the same reason).

If anyone does call witnesses, I will likely have to come up with some procedure for examination/cross/redirect on the fly, so be patient.

[Sam Spade]

I forgot to mention one other thing earlier:

I have received an opinion from the AG in favor of continuing the prosecution against benconstine for the crime of voter fraud.

I have reviewed the opinion and have determined that it presents a reasonable rationale towards continuance of the action.

So, I with Franzl as acting prosecutor, the case against the defendant will continue.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty, which is so noted by the court.

Either later on today or tomorrow (as it is getting close to New Year's Eve party time), I will determine the jurors that are qualified to be jurors in this action and will then use a randomization device to select them.  Since I am not Ernest and don't do the D&D thing, my randomization device will be the I Ching.

There is also another conflict between the Constitution, federal statute and Southeast regional law in the selection of jurors that I will have to rule on before selecting a jury.  Just FYI.

I believe that's it for now.  (bangs gavel)

[Sam Spade]

I noted an earlier conflict that must be settled concerning the selection of jurors in order to *carry out the selection of jurors for this trial*.

While it is plainly clear that the Senate has the power to legislate on juries in federal trials generally, the ordering of verdicts and the general implementation of criminal justice within the federal courts of Atlasia, Article III provides one provisions where the Senatorial legislation is not effective if Regional legislation touches upon the same subject.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 7 so provides:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A simple interpretation of this clause finds that a juror must be *selected* according the laws of the Region where the crime was committed, not by Federal statute.  *Selection* means what it says - the process of *selection* is determined by the Region, not the process of *dismissal*, nor the process of *verdicts* or of *punishment*, nor anything else that the Region may legislate.

We are fortunate in this case - the relevant federal provision provides:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Jury_Reform_Act

The Southeast Regional provisions on this subject provide:

1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Jury_Selection_Initiative

I would not have included any jurors with convictions in a random selection, so this provision is irrelevant.

Lastly, the provisions relating to "composition of a jury" or "dismissal of jury members" do not relate to "selection of jury members", except as in so far that dismissal requires eventual selection under rules of the Southeast Region.  The constitutional impact of Article III, Section 2, Clause 7 is thusly narrow.

So ordered.

[Sam Spade]

I have limited jurors eligible for selection to those who have voted (validly) in the August, October, November special or December elections.  All others have been eliminated.  In addition, posters who have not logged in the past 30 days are eliminated.

That leaves us with this motley crew of individuals.

AHDuke99
Andy Jackson
Bacon King
brandonh
Daniel Adams
Democratic Hawk
downwithdaleft
gporter
John Dibble
josh4bush
PiT (The Physicist)

From these 11 posters, I will randomly select and notify five persons.

To be announced later this evening.

[Meeker]

Only 6 of the 11 are RPP members. Not quite as unbalanced as I thought it might be.

[Јas]

although the RPP also isn't proud of what Ben did.

Does ben not remain a full member of the RPP?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

although the RPP also isn't proud of what Ben did.

Does ben not remain a full member of the RPP?

I am currently a member of the Silver Regional Protection Party, although I identify nationally with the RPP.

[DownWithTheLeft]

although the RPP also isn't proud of what Ben did.

Does ben not remain a full member of the RPP?

Member?  Yes there is nothing we can do to stop that.  However, we did strip him of his Mideast chairmanship and order his resignation

[Sam Spade]

I have consulted with the I Ching, which has resulted in a selection of these forum members to constitute the five-person jury, pursuant to the Jury Reform Act.

Andy Jackson
Bacon King
Daniel Adams
gporter
josh4bush

These jurors shall have 72 hours from the time of my PM sent to them (in a few minutes) naming them as jurors to sign in and swear the oath as below:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If any of these jurors have cause as to why they should not be placed in the jury on this trial, they must post in this thread the reasons why within the next 72 hours and I will determine whether these reasons are valid enough for excuse.  If dismissed, I will consult the I Ching as to another juror to select from the jury pool.

If any juror does not respond publicly in this thread within the 72 hour-period, I may exercise discretion to place them in contempt of court.

I am in receipt of the evidence to be presented for trial by the prosecution and will forward it to Defense Counsel within the next 24 hours pursuant to the above-stated procedure.

I believe this is all for now...  (bangs gavel)

[Sam Spade]

Additionally, I have decided that only a majority verdict (per the Jury Reform Act) will be needed for conviction. (i.e. 3 votes in favor of guilty on the count charged)

[Franzl]

What will happen to ben if he is guilty?

Should he be found guilty, he could be sentenced to loss of voting rights and/or loss of ability to hold public office for a certain amount of time.

[Josh/Devilman88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

X-Josh22 aka josh4bush

[Daniel Adams]

I swear that I will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and give a true verdict according to the law and evidence, so help me Dave.

[minionofmidas]

What will happen to ben if he is guilty?

Should he be found guilty, he could be sentenced to loss of voting rights and/or loss of ability to hold public office for a certain amount of time.

oh...... thanks.

The judge decides the exact verdict.

[Bacon King]

I swear that I will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and give a true verdict according to the law and evidence, so help me Dave.

[Historia Crux]

I swear that I will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and give a true verdict according to the law and evidence, so help me Dave.

[Sam Spade]

I have received contact from gporter that he is interested in serving, but no post on the thread yet.  If there is no post by the 72-hour period being up tomorrow, I will contact him again and likely give him 24 more hours.

Other than that, in the next day or two, I will be ruling on the evidence the prosecution wishes to admit at trial.  And then the trial will start.

I say that all this may take a day or two because I have to deal with jury duty tomorrow, which will hopefully be a short and painless ordeal.

[Sam Spade]

I have notified gporter via PM that he needs post the oath within 24 hours of my PM being sent (i.e. tomorrow) or else I shall have to pick another juror from the jury pool.

The evidentiary rulings will be made tomorrow.

Trial not soon thereafter.  That is all.

[Sam Spade]

As to the exhibits presented by the prosecution:

Exhibits "A" to "E" and "G" to "I" are admissible at trial.
Exhibits "F" and "J" are inadmissible.  "J" may be admissible in the future, but only upon particular circumstances occurring.

Trial shall begin once all jurors are sworn in.