Supreme Court of eCanada - March 1 update
•
by olivermellors
Some time ago, Goran Thrax asked the court to make a decision about the correct interpretation of a portion of our constitution. In particular, he asked that we interpret and rule on the question of whether a non congressperson could be elected as speaker of congress. With apologies for delay, the court is now considering the lengthy arguments already presented and anticipates providing a ruling in the near future.
In another matter, the court anticipates deciding and releasing its judgement about the constitutionality of the Attorney General’s Act. This case was presented to the court some time ago and will now receive attention.
The Court received a complaint about a congressman selling citizenship. The evidence to date is, at best, that an attempt was made on a single occasion in the month of January. No decision has been made on whether to take the matter for trial. In a separate thread, a congressman admits selling citizenships. We suspect that Rylde isn’t really hoping to be sanctioned and have asked if he is indirectly asking the Court to make an authoritative pronouncement on the legal issues arising from such behavior. Once we have an answer from Rylde, the Court will be in a better position to decide what to do.
A trial date has now been set for the Rolo trial namely Friday March 4, 2011 beginning at 5:30 p.m. The president has been messaged and asked to appoint someone to take conduct for the government. In default of appointment, jfstpierre will have conduct as he is the originator of the complaint.
When the trial begins, one of the first things to be decided will be whether to do a complete “re-do” or simply rely on the “transcript” of the first trial (which ended in mistrial).
Rolo has been banned from the forums and irc. He may appoint someone to speak for him. If he wishes to have forum access in order to speak for himself, I need to receive such a request from him by in game PM. The request should state his election to have no councel, and the reasons he should be permitted to appear.
The trial itself will first consider the question of guilt or no-guilt. In the event the court returns a guilty verdict, the next phase is “sentencing”. The original trial never proceeded to the “sentencing” phase. Accordingly, we may require further evidence if the matter proceeds that far.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
But what of OliverMellors? All of Canada remains concerned about his Loss of Butt status.
Will the courts ensure Olivermellors remains a permanent butt?
😃😃
I think the court should first determine the legitimacy of Rolos impeachment.
People will never respect the decision or the sentence if there are doubts.
kk
Indeed.
atoms, I'm not sure how the legitimacy of an impeachment would have any bearing on the culpability of theft. It's not as if the money was held for safekeeping until we could determine if Rolo should have been impeached. "Impeachment: legal or not" will not change the fact on how much money was lost. Any more red herrings you guys want to serve up?
If I were a jurist involved in this or any case, I would want to know the motive or frame of mind of the defendant. Did the accused believe he was defending himself? Or extracting revenge? Was it premeditated? Were there any unusual circumstances surrounding the event?
Anyone who claims to be able to hear this trial fairly without considering the above is not being fair to the defendant or the taxpayers.
I will not comment on the particular case. However, the mental element is always an issue in a criminal prosecution. Sometimes an accused wishes to canvass that issue at length. Sometimes not. In cases where the evidence raises legitimate issues relevant to a known defence, the litigation strategy may well be to give "intention" or "self defence" pride of place. In other instances where the evidence paints a picture of wounded pride, revenge, bitterness and self centredness, the defence strategy will be different. Courts generally don't like to dictate the defence strategy. It is thought to be unfair.
you have raised a legitimate and interesting issue and I thank you for your contribution.