The Conclave at large announces that it has received a civil suit from the @Bachtendekuppen (Plaintiff from hereon) against Delegate @American-Cascadia (Defense from hereon). Defense has been accused of ‘Improper exercise of veto power based on criteria contrary to the Concordat’
The Pre-Trial process is thus begun.
The Pre-Trial date is set on 2025-05-28T02:00:00Z. On that day, the Conclave shall rule on the admissibility of this motion, determined by the merit and need for trial, and appoint the Presiding Arbiter. If the Conclave by unanimous vote rules the motion inadmissible, the case is dismissed. This action is not subject to appeal.
The Trial shall begin 3 days after Pre-Trial, May 31st. This is to allow Plaintiff and Defense time to settle on their arguments. Note that the Trial Date is subject to appeal; if any of the parties may choose to appeal it, it may be done.
Until then, all questions and concerns may be asked in this thread.
TO THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE: Please send to me all evidence that shall be used in your arguments, via Discord. You may send as much evidence as you wish, however once May 28th arrives, no further evidence shall be considered. Due to a lack of legislation regarding witnesses, I shall state that you must include witnesses as part of your evidence, as well as how they are relevant to the case in hand. In addition, in a motion to introduce the witness, two kinds of objection may occur. First, objection to witness’ relevancy. This can be done when the motion occurs. If successful, the witness shall be disregarded. Second, objection to testimony’s relevancy. This can be done when a witness’ testimony is irrelevant to a case. If successful, the testimony shall be struck down, and removed from the Trial Record. Until then, all witness testimony shall be considered to be a part of Trial Record, provided that their testimony corresponds to a question asked by either Plaintiff or Defense.
I’m obliged to note that the defenses submission is late as to the set deadline by the Viceroy, in contravention of the Viceroy’s instruction and article A.A1 of the rules of evidence.
I therefore request the submission be stricken and disregarded.
I further object, insofar the submission would not be disregarded for being squarely beyond the legal deadline, to the proposed witnesses - all of them - for lack of relevancy of the witnesses and lack of relevancy of any testimony they might offer.
The complaint is squarely based on the content of the veto, it’s motivation (the two versions) and the text therein, all submitted as evidence. There is no relevant fact these witnesses can add that would be required for the Conclave to render a decision, and their testimony would - without any need - unduly slow any trial.
Moreover, it is an established principle that witnesses cannot give testimony on the law itself.
Additionally, I state for the record that I have, as a party to this suit, not received any evidence from the Viceroy as required by A.A1 of the rules of evidence (“The Viceroy will then present the evidence given to the opposing party to the other via private message at least 48 hours prior to the Pre-Trial.”).
I must assume the defense has not put forth any evidence.
Insofar necessary, I reserve my right to move for any appropriate remedy at a later time.
The Conclave has ruled this motion to be inadmissible. The vote occurred as follows:
Three arbiters nay, zero arbiters aye, one arbiter recused, and one presumed abstaining due to a lengthy period of inactivity wherein I have judged they will not return in a reasonable time to give their verdict on this motion.
If there are any further questions, please get in touch with me.
