# Full Bench Trial Amendment

**URL:** <https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836>\
**Category:** The Magisterium\
**Tags:** amendment\
**Created:** [March 9, 2025, 6:52am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836 "2025-03-09T06:52:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\
**Post date:** [March 28, 2025, 6:47pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/8 "2025-03-28T18:47:13Z")

</div>

How does “a significant conflict of interest” relate to Article C, Section 5 (2nd), point 5 of the Concordat?

> [@The Concordat of The East Pacific](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/the-concordat-of-the-east-pacific/16243/1):
>
> Any Arbiter with substantial prior involvement with a matter that goes to trial must recuse themselves from said trial.

And why the “Court” here, and not “Conclave” as throughout this Section?

And doesn’t “unless contradicted by Statutory Law” go against the principle that Statutory law can’t contradict the Concordat?

And what do we do if one Arbiter is on LOA? Halt all decisions until the LOA is over?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836)._