New Rogernomics
Staff member
Herald
Assembly Speaker
Minister
Councillor (CLS)
Foreign Affairs
Citizen
Lazarene
Verified
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 3,226
- Feather
- ƒ5,035
Response to AMICUS CURIAE New Rogernomics v Mzeusia
Firstly, it is a drafted Indictment, on a firm factual basis of evidence not in doubt i.e. IP address discrepancy, and as such is still to be assessed for legal basis, evidence, and breadth of charges. The purpose of a prosecutorial system is not to defame anyone's character but level charges that will require the defendant to defend their case, and even the defendant recognizes the necessity of such a trial to allay all fears and doubts of their character. Certainly all the proposed charges only exist, as evidence can be delivered to allege the possibility of a crime being committed. It is not a statement as to whether in truth that the accused is guilty, as even the prosecution agrees to the proposition that the accused is innocent till proven guilty, and the charges could not be finalized without a court in session to assess whether the charges themselves can go before the court.
Secondly, the charge of using the same IP address, and Snoodum and Mzeusia being in the same geographical location, even the defendant does not dispute, and this is certainly the initial basis for the Indictment.
Thirdly, the court is not in session, and as such the Indictment will not be finalized or brought fully till the court can be able to bring the case, and evidence has suitably been assessed. Previous cases have leveled charges with or without a full court, and in itself the filling of an Indictment is not a basis for defamation. It should be noted that I do not hold any ill intent to the accused, and it is a requirement for those in witness to an alleged crime to report it for basis of an indictment, regardless of whether they consider the accused innocent or guilty.
Fourth, no basis exists to deny the collection of evidence and charges, as this would be a violation of a right of any citizen at any time to petition the court on basis of an allegation of a crime. The draft indictment has only been posted for verification of the feasibility and legality of charges.
Fifth, if defamation were able to be brought against the government or the Chief Operating Officer as the head of the Council of Lazarene security during the initial process of drafting an indictment, this would make it impossible for any charges to be laid, where the court is not in session, even where there is a clear case for public notification that a law may have been broken by a citizen. For instance, if an election was due for a justice, due to resignation, all the drafted indictments would have to been edited or deleted, even where the election is conducted within a short period of time. This would be logistically infeasible, and make it impossible for the court to function.
Finally, it should be noted that it was never the intent for this to go to trial without a full court in session, and this Indictment would have waited until the time that a court could be convened. The part of the brief that refers to whether the court should be of a full complement, and not hold any temporary justices that preside only over a case to resign is a good question, though the poster of an Indictment, is not responsible for the fairness of a trial - that is down to the decision of the Assembly in who they appoint to the position of justice.
If a justice cannot be found within a reasonable amount of time i.e. within the month of posting this draft Indictment, or if the Assembly votes against an appointment, then it is reasonable to assume that this would remain in a drafted state and be tabled rather than remain in a perpetual state of view. It is that point of time that the draft Indictment would be edited to omit allegations against the accused. Then the charges would be revisited and considered for legality.
As to the brief itself, the court is not in session to hear it. So before it were heard, the court would have to rule on whether a brief can be laid against drafting an indictment when the court is not in session and the charges are not finalized.
Also defamation, especially on basis of writing an indictment, does not exist in the Criminal Code, so you can't accuse the writer of an indictment draft of a crime that does not exist under Lazarene law.
Firstly, it is a drafted Indictment, on a firm factual basis of evidence not in doubt i.e. IP address discrepancy, and as such is still to be assessed for legal basis, evidence, and breadth of charges. The purpose of a prosecutorial system is not to defame anyone's character but level charges that will require the defendant to defend their case, and even the defendant recognizes the necessity of such a trial to allay all fears and doubts of their character. Certainly all the proposed charges only exist, as evidence can be delivered to allege the possibility of a crime being committed. It is not a statement as to whether in truth that the accused is guilty, as even the prosecution agrees to the proposition that the accused is innocent till proven guilty, and the charges could not be finalized without a court in session to assess whether the charges themselves can go before the court.
Secondly, the charge of using the same IP address, and Snoodum and Mzeusia being in the same geographical location, even the defendant does not dispute, and this is certainly the initial basis for the Indictment.
Thirdly, the court is not in session, and as such the Indictment will not be finalized or brought fully till the court can be able to bring the case, and evidence has suitably been assessed. Previous cases have leveled charges with or without a full court, and in itself the filling of an Indictment is not a basis for defamation. It should be noted that I do not hold any ill intent to the accused, and it is a requirement for those in witness to an alleged crime to report it for basis of an indictment, regardless of whether they consider the accused innocent or guilty.
Fourth, no basis exists to deny the collection of evidence and charges, as this would be a violation of a right of any citizen at any time to petition the court on basis of an allegation of a crime. The draft indictment has only been posted for verification of the feasibility and legality of charges.
Fifth, if defamation were able to be brought against the government or the Chief Operating Officer as the head of the Council of Lazarene security during the initial process of drafting an indictment, this would make it impossible for any charges to be laid, where the court is not in session, even where there is a clear case for public notification that a law may have been broken by a citizen. For instance, if an election was due for a justice, due to resignation, all the drafted indictments would have to been edited or deleted, even where the election is conducted within a short period of time. This would be logistically infeasible, and make it impossible for the court to function.
Finally, it should be noted that it was never the intent for this to go to trial without a full court in session, and this Indictment would have waited until the time that a court could be convened. The part of the brief that refers to whether the court should be of a full complement, and not hold any temporary justices that preside only over a case to resign is a good question, though the poster of an Indictment, is not responsible for the fairness of a trial - that is down to the decision of the Assembly in who they appoint to the position of justice.
If a justice cannot be found within a reasonable amount of time i.e. within the month of posting this draft Indictment, or if the Assembly votes against an appointment, then it is reasonable to assume that this would remain in a drafted state and be tabled rather than remain in a perpetual state of view. It is that point of time that the draft Indictment would be edited to omit allegations against the accused. Then the charges would be revisited and considered for legality.
As to the brief itself, the court is not in session to hear it. So before it were heard, the court would have to rule on whether a brief can be laid against drafting an indictment when the court is not in session and the charges are not finalized.
Also defamation, especially on basis of writing an indictment, does not exist in the Criminal Code, so you can't accuse the writer of an indictment draft of a crime that does not exist under Lazarene law.
Last edited: