Atlasia v. Tmthforu94

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Mr. Chief Justice, Justices,

Tmthforu94 is being charged for violating the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act

Kalwejt
Attorney General

[Junkie]

I will be representing the defendant.

[Ebowed]

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case on the grounds that Tmthforu94 has potentially violated the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00AM EST on Monday, July 11, 2011.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00AM EST on Wednesday, July 13, 2011.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 1:00AM EST, Monday, July 11, 2011, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The prosecution team is working on brief.

[Junkie]

Your Honor, pardon my confusion, but I do not think briefs are the way to proceed.  This would a criminal trial and not an appeal, so it would require witnesses and the taking of testimony and submission of evidence.  We may also need a jury if the defense and the prosecution can not work something out.

While we are continuing to work, and Kal has been a great credit to his office in working for the best outcome and also being available to my questions, I do have two pre-trial motions I would like to bring.

As the defendant has the right to a fair trial, I am requesting that the prosecution pm me a list of all witnesses he may call in his case in chief.  Additionally, I would all pm's that the prosecution plans to use also sent to me so that I can review them.  This will allow me to adequetly prepare my defense and make sure that my clients rights are protected.  The AG is very trustworthy, so I am not making any accusations.  I just want to review the evidence that may be used against my client.

Thank you your Honor.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Naturally, Junkie. We're in contact.

[Badger]

Your Honor, pardon my confusion, but I do not think briefs are the way to proceed.  This would a criminal trial and not an appeal, so it would require witnesses and the taking of testimony and submission of evidence.  We may also need a jury if the defense and the prosecution can not work something out.

Thank you your Honor.

Yeah, this confused me too.

I presume the same goes for Dallasfan, except as he's apparantly entering a guilty plea that case merely need proceed to sentencing, no?

[Ebowed]

Your Honor, pardon my confusion, but I do not think briefs are the way to proceed.

I understand that you will need to review the Attorney General's documentation before preparing your argument and if there is the need for more time, it can always be provided.  Right now I am just hoping to confirm a Justice to preside over the trial, so there is no pressure.  If the prosecution has its evidence prepared and only requires assembly into brief format, I imagine you should have no trouble obtaining the information that you require.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Your Honor,

I'm very disappointed. I was hoping for a clean and fair trial, which would resolve the case beyond any doubts and clean up a heathen atmosphere, which would be far better for both sides. However, the truth won't set us free this time since, due to Jake Matthews' ban and after and exhausting consultations, I have no other choice but to withdraw the charges.

Thank you for your time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's certainly not the best way to end this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's certainly not the best way to end this.

You really think I don't know that?

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's certainly not the best way to end this.

You really think I don't know that?

I wasn't refering to you. I just find it sad that Jake was banned.

[Fritz]

Wait- Jake got banned?  Why? When?

[Cincinnatus]

Wait- Jake got banned?  Why? When?

He had another account (Carlschulz), and he got banned about 1-2 weeks ago.

[Napoleon]

Wait- Jake got banned?  Why? When?

Jake said that Tmth blackmailed him about revealing a former account he was no longer using if he voted for me. Jake was banned for having a sock and so the case against the accused is harder to argue because the effects of the crime resulted in the banning of a witness. It makes no sense to me to have banned Jake for something so harmless.

[tmthforu94]

Wait- Jake got banned?  Why? When?

Jake said that Tmth blackmailed him about revealing a former account he was no longer using if he voted for me. Jake was banned for having a sock and so the case against the accused is harder to argue because the effects of the crime resulted in the banning of a witness. It makes no sense to me to have banned Jake for something so harmless.

Jake himself said I blackmailed him about revealing his sock if he voted for you? That is certainly not true.  

[Napoleon]

Wait- Jake got banned?  Why? When?

Jake said that Tmth blackmailed him about revealing a former account he was no longer using if he voted for me. Jake was banned for having a sock and so the case against the accused is harder to argue because the effects of the crime resulted in the banning of a witness. It makes no sense to me to have banned Jake for something so harmless.

Jake himself said I blackmailed him about revealing his sock if he voted for you? That is certainly not true.  

Yes