Lawsuit: Adjourned xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62

Status
Not open for further replies.
federal-court-png.12082


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBPOENA

@Milkcrack is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico to provide Court records as appropriate. The following records have been subpoenaed:
- Any draft verdicts for the case Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.
- Any opinions given by Justices presiding over Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.
- Any discussion surrounding signing onto a verdict or dissenting to a verdict.​
 
@Milkcrack is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be punished accordingly by the DOJ. They have 24 hours to appear before a second count of contempt of court is added.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honour,
I must express my profound dismay at the egregious mishandling of this entire process.
First of all your subpoena makes it look like you have summoned me in a private capacity, and not in the capacity of the Chief Justice, which is wrong.

However, not so wrong as summoning me at all. The classification clearly states that a Freedom of Information request is to be made to the cabinet. As you should know this information on the Judiciary Discord Server is classified beyond a level of SC-3. Therefore even summoning them would be wrong. The only proper response would be to determine whether the information is properly classified. Your lack of understanding of this core tenant of our legal system is alarming, especially considering your esteemed position as a colleague.

Furthermore and perhaps the most egregious of all is how you have chosen to issue a contempt of court charge which, to put it mildly, is misguided. The subpoena you issued fails to specify a deadline. This ambiguity has given rise to unnecessary confusion. It was more than reasonable to assume that the lack of an indicated time frame was for preparation and meaningful discourse among the distinguished justices of this Supreme Court - an assumption that, in the absence of explicit guidelines is entirely logical and well in line with established practices of the court.

It is disconcerting that you, in your capacity as a justice, would entertain and propagate a baseless allegation that not only impugn the integrity of a colleague but also display a shocking disregard for the core principles of respect and professionalism.

Lastly, may I remind you, That our roles are not mere titles, but are committed to the tenets of our legal system. I implore you to rectify this situation with the urgency and seriousness it warrants. I have decided to extend to you the opportunity to reevaluate your actions and rectify this unfortunate situation you have created. The very opportunity you didn't hesitate to deprive me of when you thought I was in the wrong

The Honourable Chief Justice,
Milkcrack
 
Motion to reconsider is rejected.

First of all, if I forgot to include your title in the summons, I apologize. However, I specified already what capacity I was summoning you in: "I will summon the Chief Justice as the head of the Courts".

Your argument against my summoning you is erroneous. I'm addressing this particularly thoroughly for precedential value, because I feel that it is important that the correct procedures are followed. You are right, if I were filing a Freedom of Information request as my individual self I would go through the cabinet. However, I'm not. The Classification Act states that, " A Freedom of Information request made by a court, congressional chamber or congressional committee is an ordained subpoena of information towards the cabinet." I'm not making any subpoenas of information towards the cabinet, but towards the Judiciary. As a subpoena of information from a court towards the Judiciary is not mentioned within the Classification Act, summoning the Chief Justice is an appropriate method to request such information.

You've also argued that the information on the Judiciary Discord server is classified. This is likewise mistaken. Any case discussions, like the ones subpoenaed here, are classified by default per the Classification Act until the verdict is announced. Considering that the verdict in the case in question was announced in October of 2022, 10 months ago, the discussions' classification has long since expired. I suggest you evaluate your own understanding of our core tenets before challenging mine.

The argument against the contempt of court charge does not hold water either, Mr. Chief Justice. The Courts have an assumed 48-hour deadline unless otherwise specified. Witnesses are not parties, but you have not been summoned as a witness. You have been subpoenaed to provide information, and furthermore, contempt of court can include "Conduct tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice." If I determine that failure to appear at all within the commonly-understood 48-hour mark interferes with the orderly administration of justice, that is contempt of court.

Mr. Chief Justice, I am not sure what allegations you are accusing me of propagating. I made a summons in accordance with my job, and if that's what "propagating allegations" is, I think we are all, yourself included, in for a lot of slander suits. And on the topic of respect and professionalism, I expect that further communications in my court will not be directed with such levels of hostility and condescension as you have displayed here, toward anyone, including myself. Your comment that, "I have decided to extend to you the opportunity to reevaluate your actions and rectify this unfortunate situation you have created" is completely out of line. This will be an orderly environment, and open hostility has no place here. This is your warning, you are on very thin ice.

Finally, I do not appreciate your accusations against my commitment to the tenets of the legal system. I take upholding these tenets incredibly seriously, and while you are in my courtroom, you will refrain from making personal remarks that serve no purpose but to attack.

There is no excuse for behaving this way in a court, and I expect far more from the Chief Justice of Redmont. You have 12 hours to respond to the subpoena before you receive a second contempt of court charge. I hope I have made myself crystal clear, Mr. Chief Justice.
 
RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA

First of all, I appreciate your apology, though I must emphasize that your current course of action still raises concerns. While I understand that your interpretation of the Classification Act has put you on this course of action, I believe this unprecedented approach raises significant questions about the balance of powers within our institution and therefore requires careful consideration and examination.

Regarding classification, it's important to clarify that while a system for potential declassification exists under the Classification Act, it does not mean that those documents are declassified. As Chief Justice, it is my responsibility to determine the classification status, and I must inform you that the information in question remains classified as SECRET and parts of it are no longer available. Therefore your subpoena can not be fulfilled.

Turning to the contempt of court charge, I would like to assert that my actions were to ensure the orderly administration of justice. The Supreme Court's slower pace is inherent to its process, this allows for comprehensive discussion and thoughtful consideration. It's worth noting that any interference with the orderly administration of justice has not arisen from my conduct, but rather from the unprecedented actions of this courtroom.

As this situation develops, I must urge you to reconsider your approach, mindful of the fact that hasty decisions tend to undermine the very principles our institution stands for.
 
So just to be clear, the statements you have made about the classification system are untrue. The Classification Act specifies that all discussion classification expires when the verdict is announced, meaning that it is declassified, not that it can potentially be declassified, and that the Supreme Court as an institution must actively classify parts of the discussion, not the Chief Justice. That notwithstanding, the Supreme Court's duty as stated in the Act is that it may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released. (All parts in bold cited directly from the Classification Act). Noting this, and the fact that there was no motion to include confidential evidence at any point during the original case, I am concerned that you are not being truthful with this Court, Mr. Chief Justice, and I take any potential perjury very seriously. I am willing to open a closed court for the subpoenaed information to be presented without violating the classification you have referred to, but I am going to need some explanation about why it is classified, which parts are classified, and when it was classified.
 
Your honour what you are pointing to is sub-section 3 of section 10 of the Classification Act. If you want to determine if the classification is correct, I request that you open a closed court for the subpoena.
 
You are correct. I will open a closed court channel where I will make a determination about the classification level.

Something I will specify for this closed court is the clause in the Classification Act permitting the executive to request for the Chief Justice to review the evidence instead of the presiding judge/justice. In order to prevent any malfeasance through a conflict of interest, as part of the instructions for closed court, I will not permit this section to be invoked in this case. The Chief Justice has a vested interest already expressed through declaring themself as the classifying authority, and it is not appropriate to allow them to review the evidence as an impartial party. I will make a determination as the impartial presiding Justice, based on the evidence's content.
 
Your honour, I have just been informed of this comment. However, it is not within the purview of this court to decide this matter. The president has requested the Chief Justice to decide on this issue as per the Classification Act. The Supreme Court will consider this issue and come back to you with an answer. Until that time the hearing will be paused.
 
Your honor, permission to submit a brief on this issue? To be short, I do not believe we can just ignore laws for convenience and wish to propose a solution to what can be an impasse.
 
You may submit your brief with a solution.
 
Milkcrack said:
Your honour, I have just been informed of this comment. However, it is not within the purview of this court to decide this matter. The president has requested the Chief Justice to decide on this issue as per the Classification Act. The Supreme Court will consider this issue and come back to you with an answer. Until that time the hearing will be paused.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. If the Supreme Court has decided that my order overstepped the power of the Federal Court, I will respect that decision, and the President's request will be allowed. Chief Justice MilkCrack may review the evidence and make a determination on the classification, which this Court will honor.

However, in the meantime, we will continue on with this case to ensure a speedy trial. The evidence may be seen by all parties in a closed court, regardless of classification, per Judicial Privilege in the Classification Act. Thus, the evidence will be discussed by all parties in a closed court with Defense, Plaintiff, Chief Justice MilkCrack, and myself in attendance. The evidence will be considered classified as SECRET unless determined otherwise by Chief Justice MilkCrack in his review.
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Your Honor, it is imperative to emphasize that acting unilaterally against the Supreme Court raises concerns about the integrity of this process. Such actions could potentially result in a breach of integrity. Therefore, it becomes essential for me to take steps to prevent any potential damages, as failing to do so could be seen as an act of negligence.

Although it would have to be examined the scope of the records. It's imperative that the judiciary's private discussions remain classified in accordance with the law until deemed necessary by the judge with the proper authority. It's also imperative that judges make rulings and perform actions within the boundaries of the law.

As previously noted, the proceedings for closed-court hearings on this matter will remain on hold until a decision is reached by the Supreme Court. Thereby I am ordering you to refrain from sharing classified court records or information about those records with any persons until they are declassified.​
 
This is me notifying the court of the defendant's reduced access to internet between 7-11 Aug.
 
Banana said:
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. If the Supreme Court has decided that my order overstepped the power of the Federal Court, I will respect that decision, and the President's request will be allowed. Chief Justice MilkCrack may review the evidence and make a determination on the classification, which this Court will honor.

However, in the meantime, we will continue on with this case to ensure a speedy trial. The evidence may be seen by all parties in a closed court, regardless of classification, per Judicial Privilege in the Classification Act. Thus, the evidence will be discussed by all parties in a closed court with Defense, Plaintiff, Chief Justice MilkCrack, and myself in attendance. The evidence will be considered classified as SECRET unless determined otherwise by Chief Justice MilkCrack in his review.
Click to expand...
BOAR ON THE FLOOR, BOAR ON THE FLOOR.
ezgif-3-c65b006a12.gif

Back in line
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krix said:
BOAR ON THE FLOOR, BOAR ON THE FLOOR.
View attachment 36058
Back in line
Click to expand...
Krix, you are in contempt of court. You may not speak in cases you have not been summoned to. I order that they be punished accordingly, and their comments will be struck.
 
I might add since you are a party in this case, that you have not been summoned to speak, and that your comments are out of line.
 
End said:
This is me notifying the court of the defendant's reduced access to internet between 7-11 Aug.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your advance notice.
 
Milkcrack said:
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Your Honor, it is imperative to emphasize that acting unilaterally against the Supreme Court raises concerns about the integrity of this process. Such actions could potentially result in a breach of integrity. Therefore, it becomes essential for me to take steps to prevent any potential damages, as failing to do so could be seen as an act of negligence.

Although it would have to be examined the scope of the records. It's imperative that the judiciary's private discussions remain classified in accordance with the law until deemed necessary by the judge with the proper authority. It's also imperative that judges make rulings and perform actions within the boundaries of the law.

As previously noted, the proceedings for closed-court hearings on this matter will remain on hold until a decision is reached by the Supreme Court. Thereby I am ordering you to refrain from sharing classified court records or information about those records with any persons until they are declassified.​
Click to expand...
I am sorry, Mr. Chief Justice, I misunderstood the Court's order. When you referred to "the hearing" generically, I assumed you meant the evidence classification review hearing, not the entire trial. I will of course comply with a decision that the Supreme Court has discussed carefully and deemed necessary.
 
Your honor,

Per 4.9 of the Classification act, Judicial discussion would be considered not classified unless the Supreme Court had previously voted to keep conversations classified. Under 10.3 of the classification act, the Federal court can determine whether or no said information is classified and that the presiding judge/justice will lower its classification to the highest justifiable level. Again noting that judicial discussions under 4.9 would already be declassified, there exists no lower level of justification. Only in extreme circumstances, the Chief justice may be asked to review evidence. If we are under that circumstance and there exists an issue of bias, a motion to recuse maybe submitted, and in which case the only other available justice who also happens to be the most senior judge, would become acting Chief Justice in accordance with the constitution, and be able to review evidence vs the presiding judge/justice. It should be again noted though that under 10.3, this condition only exists in "extreme cases", which I am not sure if "judicial discussions" qualifies under, especially since the discussions would have already been declassified unless the Supreme Court at the time decided to keep the discussions classified.

So the solution to the impasse could be to allow Associate Justice JoeGamer to review and decide since he would become acting Chief Justice if there is am issue that would be cause for current Chief Justice Milkcrack to recuse from this case.
 
The Supreme Court has decided to allow the Chief Justice to review the evidence as stated within the Classification Act. No judge may suspend a provision or parts of a provision of law without a constitutional reason. It's vital that we uphold the law and interpret the law as created by Congress. The Chief Justice's hearing will be continued. The other closed-court hearing will be presided over by Justice Banana, however, no records may be shared which are deemed classified with a classification of SCR-2 or SCR-1.
 
RULING ON THE CLASSIFICATION
Upon thorough examination and contemplation, I have reached the determination that the only evidence within the scope of the subpoena is 1 message by Justice JoeGamer.

The rest of the deliberations are not available as they were most likely not kept on in the course of a re-organization of the judiciary discord which happened a month ago.

It is my understanding that this message should be classified SECRET to protect the integrity of our judicial process. If it were to be released it could cause significant collateral damage to the integrity of the court and by extension the government.
 
Milkcrack said:
The rest of the deliberations are not available as they were most likely not kept on in the course of a re-organization of the judiciary discord which happened a month ago.
Click to expand...
Mr. Chief Justice, could you explain what you mean by "not kept on in the course of a re-organization"? Have these messages been deleted? If so, by whom?
 
And if the Chief Justice has finished his review, I request that the Supreme Court allow this case to continue in closed court with the subpoenaed evidence.
 
Banana said:
Mr. Chief Justice, could you explain what you mean by "not kept on in the course of a re-organization"? Have these messages been deleted? If so, by whom?
Click to expand...
In the course of re-organizing the court, the channel housing the very old supreme court cases had been deleted. As the Chief Justice, it was my responsibility to spearhead the re-organization so by me.
 
Banana said:
And if the Chief Justice has finished his review, I request that the Supreme Court allow this case to continue in closed court with the subpoenaed evidence.
Click to expand...
Mr. Chief Justice @Milkcrack, I do not believe I got a response from the Supreme Court about continuing this in closed court. I request that either the pause be lifted, or the Supreme Court cite the exact part of the law they are using to deny the parties the ability to use evidence in a closed court.
 
My right to a speedy trial is being denied, i'd like to request that this case is continued at the earliest convenience before I am away again the week after next.
 
Same for the plaintiff side as well. We concur with the defendant on this matter of having a speedy trial.
 
Your Honour and the relevant parties,

When making Supreme Court Decisions it's essential to deliberate with the relevant justices which takes extra time, especially considering the extraordinary circumstances. I want to stress the necessity of this process while also apologising for the unfortunate results.

The Supreme Court has decided to allow the evidence to be used in a closed court as long as the integrity of the classification can be preserved, which will fall under the presiding judge's responsibility.

Justice Banana has been given access to the information and some additional guidelines.
 
End said:
Is the Supreme Court denying the relevant parties access to the evidence?
Click to expand...
Why do you need this evidence to continue? Our party is fine continuing without.
 
@Banana I go away again for a period of 3 weeks starting next Tuesday. I'd appreciate it if the case was heard prior to that, otherwise I'll be requesting a recess.
 
End said:
@Milkcrack
Click to expand...
The instructions were given to Banana if he thinks the message is relevant to the case and the classification can be protected he can hold a closed court with the relevant parties.
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

The court is infringing the defendant's right to a speedy trial. The Court has failed to share evidence made available to it to assist the defendant's case. The Judge has failed to respond in over a week.
 
Objection
Improper Procedure

You cannot motion to dismiss this case for the inaction of the Judge. It is not the plaintiff's inaction that is cause for your harm. Please use the proper request which would be a motion to recuse rather than use a motion to dismiss.
 
End said:
MOTION TO DISMISS

The court is infringing the defendant's right to a speedy trial. The Court has failed to share evidence made available to it to assist the defendant's case. The Judge has failed to respond in over a week.
Click to expand...
The motion to dismiss is rejected. I have been absent for irl circumstances which I realize I failed to share with both parties. It slipped my mind, and the period of inactivity is over. However, that is not a reason to dismiss the case.
 
Both parties will be granted access to the closed court to view the evidence.
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

A key tenant to this case is whether the Supreme Court made a legal verdict. Noting that the Chief Justice made a unilateral response to the case without any indication of who supported the verdict or ruled on the case, it cannot be determined that he made the verdict according to law (which requires all justices to submit a verdict individually).

This is further reinforced through the evidence provided in closed court. No evidence supports the fact that the Chief Justice sought the opinion of the Supreme Court and no evidence supports the fact that they provided a verdict - and if they did, it was not communicated in accordance with the law.

The burden to prove otherwise is on the plaintiff and they have failed to provide any credible evidence that the Chief Justice has delivered the verdict in consultation with the other Justices. There is a reason to believe that he has not and therefore it is completely reasonable for the media to make comment on the allegations.

The Chief Justice has already deleted court records and the other justices involved (that we assume are involved because no formal notice was given as to who was actually ruling on the case) cannot remember with certainty who said what and where, as determined in the previous witness testimony. I think and I believe statements and a court with no records is not conducive to fulfilling a standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.
 
Your Honor, may I respond to this ridiculous motion to dismiss?
 
I will be away from tomorrow until mid-September with reduced access to electronic devices. Should the court not uphold the non-ridiculous motion to dismiss I will be unavailable.

Given that the case stopped in the absence of the presiding officer, i'd like to request that the court recesses in my absence as well.
 
You may respond to the Motion to Dismiss. If it is rejected, the case will go into a recess while the Defense is away.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

On 08/20/23, the defendant posted a motion to dismiss requesting the case be dismissed on the reasoning that a subpoena that they requested for evidence that they sought yielded a single picture. The plaintiffs of this case find the motion to dismiss to be amusing in the least and a legal misunderstanding from the defendant at best. Simply put, the defendant’s entire assessment of the situation is entirely incorrect.

To begin with, the defendant states “A key tenant to this case is whether the Supreme Court made a legal verdict”, they would be correct. However they then go on to state that ”I think and I believe statements and a court with no records is not conducive to fulfilling a standard of proof of the balance of probabilities” because “ it cannot be determined that he made the verdict according to law (which requires all justices to submit a verdict individually)”. Ignoring the fact that the common law of Redmont does not allow for dismissal of a case for lack of evidence (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The_Donuticus vs. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 99, Lawsuit: Dismissed - The_Donuticus vs. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 99 (Motion to Reconsider Rejection), Lawsuit: Adjourned - xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 69, and Lawsuit: In Session - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62 (Post #4 Of This Case)), this motion to dismiss has three primary issues with it. One is that it only addresses the second claim of relief made by the co-plaintiff and ignores the first claim of relief made by the plaintiff. Second, and more critically, is that it contradicts already established court testimony and borderlines perjury. Thirdly, it borderlines perjury on the defendant's counsels stance when they were also held the position of Chief Justice .

The charges we alleged against the defendant are two fold. The one that the defendant is using to attempt to dismiss the case in whole is the second claim for relief, which is “Due to the Defendant’s article which made false statements against the co-plaintiff, the co-plaintiff’s reputation was damaged. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant falls under the definition of libel”. Even if this claim for relief were to be denied and dismissed, the case as a whole would not be dismissable as our first open claim for relief “Due to the Defendant’s article which made false statements against the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s reputation was damaged. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant falls under the definition of libel” would have been unaddressed.

This seems confusing at first glance, but remember, the plaintiff is xLayzur while the co-plaintiff is Krix. The fact supporting the claim of relief for the plaintiff xLayzur is “12. The plaintiff was thus accused of the crime and acquitted of it, therefore he is not guilty of committing the crime as found in the highest court in our nation, therefore the allegations laid out in fact 3. are false”. This is in contrast to the co-plaintiff’s argument for libel, which falls under the fact 13 “Per fact 3., the defendant alleged in their article ‘Despite having witnesses and evidence, suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice (bold added for emphasis) at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction’” and fact 14 “This is false, as the Court came to the conclusion as a whole, it was not just the decision made by solely the co-plaintiff (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)". The Defendant’s argument only addresses the claim for relief of the co-plaintiff and not the plaintiff, therefore on this grounds alone, the motion to dismiss the entire case should be denied.

So does this allow for the defendant’s motion to dismiss to be victorious against the co-plaintiff’s case against them? No. The defendant states “The burden to prove otherwise is on the plaintiff and they have failed to provide any credible evidence that the Chief Justice has delivered the verdict in consultation with the other Justices”, this is patently false. The plaintiff called Nacholebraa as a witness. Some might even say as an expert witness since he is both a former chief justice and was one of the Justices who made the [2022] SCR 19 decision. We asked and received the following questions and answers.

1. Did you, Joe, and Krix unanimously vote to dismiss the case against xlayzur?
Nacho said:
I do believe it was a unanimous decision to dismiss the case. I would have to refer back to discussions about the case within the Judiciary Discord to be 100% certain about the matter as the discussion occurred 9 months ago.
Click to expand...

2. So, since it was a unanimous decision. Would you characterize the statement "suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction" as untrue?
Nacho said:
I wouldn't classify anything as untrue, favoritism can occur on any level at any time. However, I would agree in this instance that it was unlikely due to the three of us agreeing to dismiss. I believe at the time, we even all agreed that it was either we all agreed, or it didn't happen due to the importance of the case.
Click to expand...

The testimony regarding whether or not the decision was unanimous went unchallenged. Instead the defendant fruitlessly tries to argue the lack of evidence, while frankly ignoring the witness’s testimony. Nacholebraa, who was a Justice at the time of the discussion, clearly stated that the decision was unanimously made. With that said, the motion to dismiss must be denied as evidence has been provided by the plaintiff regarding whether or not a unanimous decision was made by the Supreme Court.

The defendant then tries arguing that “Chief Justice made a unilateral response to the case without any indication of who supported the verdict or ruled on the case, it cannot be determined that he made the verdict according to law (which requires all justices to submit a verdict individually)”, making the claim that the original verdict was illegal or contradictory to law if not all Justices make a verdict justifying the decision. The plaintiff finds this argument ironic, as when the defendant’s counsel was the Chief Justice, they made unanimous decisions without a “unilateral response” by all justices (see Appeal: Accepted - FCR 13 - Appeal Request, Lawsuit: Dismissed - Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] SCR 4, and Appeal: Denied - FCR 22 - Appeal Request). As Nacholebraa, former Chief Justice, stated, “a justice agreeing on the wording of the interpretation of another justice and affixing their name to the verdict is equivalent to them posting the same thing, not copy pasted. It's a practice the court has actioned for the past year or so”. We suspect that somewhere deep down, the defendant's counsel agrees with this position as well, considering they did so when dismissing cases and rejecting appeal requests.

Your Honor, the arguments made by the defendant borderline perjury because he contradicts his conduct as Chief Justice and due to it blatantly ignoring witness testimony to make a verifiably false claim. This motion to dismiss should be struck and the defendant should be barred from making them considering this is his 6th motion to dismiss.
 
I will reject the Motion to Dismiss. I believe that there is still argument to be made to determine the validity of the claims for relief. Furthermore, as has been well established by now, lack of evidence is not a legitimate reason to dismiss a case. I will not bar the Defense from making motions, including motions to dismiss, as I believe this would violate their rights to due process, however I will strongly recommend that they carefully consider what they are using the motions for, and not to abuse this right with frivolous arguments.

With that said, as previously provided for, we will be going into a recess. We will reconvene on 15 September as requested by the Defense for an absence, unless either party has a different need that they would like to communicate.
 
We'll have to wait for a new judge to take the case, unless you would like me to be the one who presides?
 
Good day, counselors, parties to the case.

I understand that it has been many weeks since any activity has occurred in this case. Furthermore, I understand the Plaintiff's original Attorney is now a Judge.

For these reasons, both parties must respond (or have legal counsel respond) declaring their presence in the next 48 hours.

After this, we will move on to Closing Statements.
 
Present
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top