by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics




[+] Advanced...





Brototh Cerdenia please submit updated evidence files, if desired, in the next 48 hours.

There is no intention on the behalf of the prosecution to change our evidence or witness forms at this time your Honour
In the incredibly unlikely event this changes within the next 48hrs we will notify the Court

Considering the Court's failure to respond to the point raised by myself and responded to during the last Constitutional Review, the defence requests the court address the following, considering its clear relevance to this case.

Constitutional Review

Requesting: court order declaring an item, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional

Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be: Legislative resolution 055 grants Congress the power to investigate individuals, as established under Article I Section I, while at the same time grants Congress the power to force individuals to testimony through a subpoena, as established under Article II Section I. With both of these established, it is clear that Congress has the power to investigate individuals as well as to force them, through a subpoena, to testimony on their own investigations. Considering this, Legislative Resolution 055 infringes upon Constitutional Rights by violating the protection from forced testimony against oneself, established under Article II Section I of the Constitution. As such it can be argued that Article II of the legislative resolution, which details subpoenas and individual obligations to comply to them, is unconstitutional.

Your honours, this is getting old and tiresome.

This point has already been covered by the Court in the previous ruling. In fact, I had argued against this very point in my own post on the previous constitutional review. Undoubtedly when making their decision the Court will have read both arguments and taken them into account before making the ruling. As such the Court has already looked over this argument and settled it.

While CR 022 specifically spoke of the right to privacy, its ruling can still be applied to this case. The ruling was that the law is only inconsistent with the right to privacy when the subpoena violates just that, the right to privacy, and a subpoena that does not violate the right to privacy can still stand. As such a subpoena that does not force a nation to testify against themselves is not unconstitutional. The same principle can be applied to this whether or not it specifically states the point as we can broadly apply the ruling. If the ruling is the law is not constitutional, only subpoenas that violate the privacy clause are, then logically the law is not unconstitutional and only subpoenas that force testimony are.

This has already been argued by both the defence and prosecution. This does not warrant another week of delay. The Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. This case would be creating unreasonable delay because we have again, already argued these points. At the most, the Court would be justified in taking a day to update the ruling with the already given arguments by the defence and prosecution. To tell us to give our points again would be a waste of time.

It is looking more like the defence cannot do their very namesake job - defend their client, and instead, their case is built upon technicalities that we have already ruled upon, we have already both submitted arguments upon. I request that this constitutional review is dismissed in its entirety or the Court update their own ruling, because yet another constitutional review where we have already established this in the previous ruling, would be delaying and thus denying the course of speedy justice. Perhaps all three Justices will expire their terms before we even get to the presentation of evidence at this rate.

At the absolute most we should not be halting the High Crime trial any further. It is clear there is no technicality for the defence to exploit under that charge, so it is time that we move on from repeating ourselves and our arguments over and over despite a ruling that has already made its broad point clear and get on with the passage of justice.

The defence believes it to be beyond obvious that it is the prosecution, as well as this court, which are causing unreasonable delay for myself and my client. The defence has never once contested the prosecution's ludicrous case "flip flopping", in which the prosecution attempted to sue my client for allegedly disobeying a subpoena, then dropped the case, then brought a new case along with a High Crime charge, then attempted to split both of the charges again and got the request denied.

The defence has brought all of its arguments to the last Constitutional Review, the court ignored half of them.

Is it really the defence which is causing unreasonable delay? No.

It is ironic that it is apparentely us causing the delay when we have already both submitted arguments. There is no need for yet another review. It is still further ironic that it is us causing the delay for the defence and their client because we wanted to split the charges, considering that request was filed in order to actually be able to do one of the charges faster. If that is creating a delay then perhaps we should be updating the dictionary for "speedy trial" and "delay".

The High Court has decided to advance with the high crime charges, with the intent to return to the misdemeanor charges after the issue of constitutionality is settled.

Please issue updated electoral fraud evidence forms within the next 48 hours.

Brototh Cerdenia