Neemfy
Citizen
Administrator
Justice Department
State Department
Interior Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Willow Resident
Neemfy
sergeant
- Joined
- May 13, 2020
- Messages
- 335
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name: Commonwealth of Redmont
- Counsel Name: Neemfy
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant
- Reason for the Appeal: Throughout the whole case, there was a clear bias against the defense.
1. The Magistrate first demonstrated bias at the beginning of the case, when he ignored two objections. He then stated, before responding to these objections, that the court would not accept any other responses unless they were opening statements.
2. A Motion to Recuse was rejected, on the grounds that he did not want those to speak out of turn so the case did not “turn into a circus.” An objection can be lodged at any time during the case, and is not speaking out of turn.
3. After the rejection of the Motion to Recuse, Mask3D_WOLF stepped away from the case and allowed RelaxedGV, the Solicitor General at the time, to begin. This prompted the Magistrate to state the option to have an in-game trial, which was already declined at the very beginning of the case. Mask3D_WOLF, the Attorney General, and therefore speaker for the DLA, politely rejected the in-game trial for the second time. As a result of the Attorney General having to repeat herself, she was charged with one count of Contempt of Court.
4. When asked for a list of witnesses, Dartanman listed Mask3D_WOLF as a witness. The Plaintiff then asked her to provide screenshots as evidence for the case. When she provided these screenshots, they were immediately struck from the record, and Mask3D_WOLF was given a warning, despite this being requested from the plaintiff. Witnesses are compelled by law to answer questions truthfully and to the best of their ability. This error was corrected, but not by the Magistrate. Instead, the plaintiff had to bring this information to light.
The entire case was filled with mistakes by the Magistrate, ones that would incur a warning if they were made by the counsel. I, on behalf of the DLA, believe that this case should be retried for the sake of impartiality.
- Counsel Name: Neemfy
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant
- Reason for the Appeal: Throughout the whole case, there was a clear bias against the defense.
1. The Magistrate first demonstrated bias at the beginning of the case, when he ignored two objections. He then stated, before responding to these objections, that the court would not accept any other responses unless they were opening statements.
2. A Motion to Recuse was rejected, on the grounds that he did not want those to speak out of turn so the case did not “turn into a circus.” An objection can be lodged at any time during the case, and is not speaking out of turn.
3. After the rejection of the Motion to Recuse, Mask3D_WOLF stepped away from the case and allowed RelaxedGV, the Solicitor General at the time, to begin. This prompted the Magistrate to state the option to have an in-game trial, which was already declined at the very beginning of the case. Mask3D_WOLF, the Attorney General, and therefore speaker for the DLA, politely rejected the in-game trial for the second time. As a result of the Attorney General having to repeat herself, she was charged with one count of Contempt of Court.
4. When asked for a list of witnesses, Dartanman listed Mask3D_WOLF as a witness. The Plaintiff then asked her to provide screenshots as evidence for the case. When she provided these screenshots, they were immediately struck from the record, and Mask3D_WOLF was given a warning, despite this being requested from the plaintiff. Witnesses are compelled by law to answer questions truthfully and to the best of their ability. This error was corrected, but not by the Magistrate. Instead, the plaintiff had to bring this information to light.
The entire case was filled with mistakes by the Magistrate, ones that would incur a warning if they were made by the counsel. I, on behalf of the DLA, believe that this case should be retried for the sake of impartiality.
