|
The Bar
Mar 2, 2016 6:09:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by The New Teutonic Order of Mars on Mar 2, 2016 6:09:33 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for New Conservatal to contact me so we can establish a date for the trial. I have a question will this be a trial by jury or a bench trial ?
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 2, 2016 12:26:43 GMT -5
Post by Natan on Mar 2, 2016 12:26:43 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for New Conservatal to contact me so we can establish a date for the trial. I have a question will this be a trial by jury or a bench trial ? This region does bench trials, we don't have nearly enough people for a jury trial.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 2, 2016 16:14:21 GMT -5
Post by Provence on Mar 2, 2016 16:14:21 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for New Conservatal to contact me so we can establish a date for the trial. I have a question will this be a trial by jury or a bench trial ? Civil court does not do jury trials they're all "bench trials" criminal trials on the other hand can have a jury but that is optional and as Natan we don't have enough people maybe Congress can be a jury I don't know. This is a civil case by the way.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 2, 2016 17:49:31 GMT -5
Post by Natan on Mar 2, 2016 17:49:31 GMT -5
I have a question will this be a trial by jury or a bench trial ? Civil court does not do jury trials they're all "bench trials" criminal trials on the other hand can have a jury but that is optional and as Natan we don't have enough people maybe Congress can be a jury I don't know. This is a civil case by the way. Actually, some civil cases can have juries. The mock trial we did in my Justice and Law class was a civil trial, and we had a jury (the rest of the class). But the Natan Region justice system has bench trials, not jury trials, as our region is far too small for a jury. Besides, cases are heard by a panel of 3 judges anyway.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 2, 2016 17:59:03 GMT -5
Post by Provence on Mar 2, 2016 17:59:03 GMT -5
Civil court does not do jury trials they're all "bench trials" criminal trials on the other hand can have a jury but that is optional and as Natan we don't have enough people maybe Congress can be a jury I don't know. This is a civil case by the way. Actually, some civil cases can have juries. The mock trial we did in my Justice and Law class was a civil trial, and we had a jury (the rest of the class). But the Natan Region justice system has bench trials, not jury trials, as our region is far too small for a jury. Besides, cases are heard by a panel of 3 judges anyway. Well I meant as a general rule that civil trials have no juries the ones that do are far and few between to be worth mentioning, he was asking general rules I believe but I could be wrong, and I doubt we will hold jury trials the closet thing I see is Congress acting as a jury and that is for impeachment trials maybe that can be expanded but I doubt it is needed...Hope the trial is fun and goes smoothly.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 3, 2016 23:00:40 GMT -5
Post by balloonists on Mar 3, 2016 23:00:40 GMT -5
So, this is kinda late, but typically a trial is: 1) Opening statements 2) Evidence presentation, rebuttal 3) Closing statements 4) Ruling
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 7, 2016 20:58:17 GMT -5
Post by Provence on Mar 7, 2016 20:58:17 GMT -5
I wish to say that in the upcoming vote for the Speaker amendment, I wish for everyone to think carefully about this if you see no problem look at Natan vs. Natan Region. This bill was a blatant way to weaken Congress just as this amendment is, if we give a little then that means we can give something up and that is the worst thing to do in a democracy. I hope you all can see reason and vote against this amendment.
If this is not obvious I am against this amendment and I hope that is enough for everyone to think twice before they vote. I VOTE NO!
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 7, 2016 22:28:24 GMT -5
Post by Natan on Mar 7, 2016 22:28:24 GMT -5
I wish to say that in the upcoming vote for the Speaker amendment, I wish for everyone to think carefully about this if you see no problem look at Natan vs. Natan Region. This bill was a blatant way to weaken Congress just as this amendment is, if we give a little then that means we can give something up and that is the worst thing to do in a democracy. I hope you all can see reason and vote against this amendment. If this is not obvious I am against this amendment and I hope that is enough for everyone to think twice before they vote. I VOTE NO! Weaken congress? The amendment I proposed only strengthens it, and I fail to see why you oppose it. My amendment (which, again, THE MAJORITY OF YOU, IF NOT ALL OF YOU, SUPPORTED BEFORE, AND WAS PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS WELL BEFORE THE TRIAL) allows congress to operate in the event of a vacancy, sets clear rules for speaker elections enshrined in the constitution, and makes sure congress can operate even when the speaker position is vacant. What if the position remains vacant, because nobody can decide on who to elect as speaker? Wusmeinia, you said it yourself in your ruling, Congress cannot operate without a speaker. To oppose this amendment would completely contradict your ruling. You know, you have claimed this amendment "weakens congress", and that it damages democracy, (never mind the fact that the majority of it's contents was inspired by the US, in which the Vice President presides over the senate, and can cast tie breaking votes, and our amendment does less than that, as the VP can only preside ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A VACANCY, which means you are basically saying the US is undemocratic) but you have given no specific examples to support your argument, whereas I have given numerous examples supporting my argument for the amendment. If you are going to oppose something, something that you don't even fully understand, you need to support your argument with examples. Until you do, I consider your argument invalid.
|
|
|
Post by empressofireland on Mar 8, 2016 0:24:42 GMT -5
I wish to say that in the upcoming vote for the Speaker amendment, I wish for everyone to think carefully about this if you see no problem look at Natan vs. Natan Region. This bill was a blatant way to weaken Congress just as this amendment is, if we give a little then that means we can give something up and that is the worst thing to do in a democracy. I hope you all can see reason and vote against this amendment. If this is not obvious I am against this amendment and I hope that is enough for everyone to think twice before they vote. I VOTE NO! Weaken congress? The amendment I proposed only strengthens it, and I fail to see why you oppose it. My amendment (which, again, THE MAJORITY OF YOU, IF NOT ALL OF YOU, SUPPORTED BEFORE, AND WAS PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS WELL BEFORE THE TRIAL) allows congress to operate in the event of a vacancy, sets clear rules for speaker elections enshrined in the constitution, and makes sure congress can operate even when the speaker position is vacant. What if the position remains vacant, because nobody can decide on who to elect as speaker? Wusmeinia, you said it yourself in your ruling, Congress cannot operate without a speaker. To oppose this amendment would completely contradict your ruling. You know, you have claimed this amendment "weakens congress", and that it damages democracy, (never mind the fact that the majority of it's contents was inspired by the US, in which the Vice President presides over the senate, and can cast tie breaking votes, and our amendment does less than that, as the VP can only preside ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A VACANCY, which means you are basically saying the US is undemocratic) but you have given no specific examples to support your argument, whereas I have given numerous examples supporting my argument for the amendment. If you are going to oppose something, something that you don't even fully understand, you need to support your argument with examples. Until you do, I consider your argument invalid. You're not going to convince anyone by telling them their arguments are invalid. *Takes long draft of Corona* I wonder if public intoxication would be considered unbecoming of a Congressman. Ah well, back to the Congress Chamber *hic*
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 9, 2016 15:31:10 GMT -5
Post by Natan on Mar 9, 2016 15:31:10 GMT -5
Weaken congress? The amendment I proposed only strengthens it, and I fail to see why you oppose it. My amendment (which, again, THE MAJORITY OF YOU, IF NOT ALL OF YOU, SUPPORTED BEFORE, AND WAS PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS WELL BEFORE THE TRIAL) allows congress to operate in the event of a vacancy, sets clear rules for speaker elections enshrined in the constitution, and makes sure congress can operate even when the speaker position is vacant. What if the position remains vacant, because nobody can decide on who to elect as speaker? Wusmeinia, you said it yourself in your ruling, Congress cannot operate without a speaker. To oppose this amendment would completely contradict your ruling. You know, you have claimed this amendment "weakens congress", and that it damages democracy, (never mind the fact that the majority of it's contents was inspired by the US, in which the Vice President presides over the senate, and can cast tie breaking votes, and our amendment does less than that, as the VP can only preside ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A VACANCY, which means you are basically saying the US is undemocratic) but you have given no specific examples to support your argument, whereas I have given numerous examples supporting my argument for the amendment. If you are going to oppose something, something that you don't even fully understand, you need to support your argument with examples. Until you do, I consider your argument invalid. You're not going to convince anyone by telling them their arguments are invalid. *Takes long draft of Corona* I wonder if public intoxication would be considered unbecoming of a Congressman. Ah well, back to the Congress Chamber *hic* Drink all you want, I don't care. And I said that I consider his argument invalid until he can actually give examples. If he gives examples for his argument, I'll consider it valid. I won't agree, but I'll consider it a valid argument.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 11, 2016 17:18:49 GMT -5
Post by Provence on Mar 11, 2016 17:18:49 GMT -5
I wonder when the Conservatives return does anybody know?
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 30, 2016 16:04:18 GMT -5
Post by Provence on Mar 30, 2016 16:04:18 GMT -5
Is it just me or did the forums change color? I don't remember it being red.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 30, 2016 16:06:15 GMT -5
Post by Provence on Mar 30, 2016 16:06:15 GMT -5
Well guys anything happened while I was gone? asks Wusmeinia as he sips some milk.
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 30, 2016 16:47:23 GMT -5
Post by Natan on Mar 30, 2016 16:47:23 GMT -5
Is it just me or did the forums change color? I don't remember it being red. It's always been red...
|
|
|
The Bar
Mar 30, 2016 20:07:46 GMT -5
Post by balloonists on Mar 30, 2016 20:07:46 GMT -5
It's been red since I registered.
|
|