Start a case on the ATS court?

Start a case on the ATS court?

It bothers me I think for almost a while now. That if you research something that may be plausible and has good foundation with lots of sources and photo or video evidence ,it doesn’t get the right attention than It should be .And I think that Many of us can coop with that who try to research at best they can . And it turns out it ends with a dissatisfaction feeling about the thing you worked so hard for.

Then I got this Idea of (I wished I could bring this in front of a court) would this not be a great Idea if ATS could make, let’s say like a virtual court. That has several ATS judges and ATS lawyers and like photo and story analyzers that have great experience and expertise on wide variety of matters in case.

For example:

Phase one,

I have done research and I post this in a thread. Then everybody jumps on the story. Skeptics and debunkers opposite this story and will deny but believers support. And if you got let’s say within some estimated time, the right amount of flags and stars you can start a case.

Phase two,

Then you go and build your case on the thread that you researched and ask an ATS lawyer to go and defend your case at the ATS court. You can ask some experts on photographic or source material subject to find out if you can bring this in front of the ATS court if the lawyer excepts then you go to The ATS court.

(The lawyers and analysts are all compensated by your points so the more points the better lawyer, or analyst’s )

There’s also the opposite force present in the courtroom of course that has their own evidence to fight you with.

Phase three
The ATS courtroom Then you are at ATS courtroom The ATS judge has been Installed by ATS itself or on demand or something like that. And judge can be someone who’s skeptical and debunks everything but it could also be someone in your favor of course that it has to be a random judge.
Also a jury of let’s say X amount of members should be there.

If you win the case it should be bill boarded and stored in some winners section or loser section with an amount of credits that you can win or lose.

I have no experience in law and enforcement to set up something like this so; it has to be some expert to set up such a thing like this. It’s all some crazy idea and nothing more.

But if you really got something of profound matter it would be awesome if you could say here on ATS

I won a case in the ATS courtroom!




[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

I'm not sure we could find real unbiased people to be judges.

It's an interesting idea, but it seems like you're asking to be judged by the court of public opinion, which is totally different then a law trial. It might even lead to people being driven away. Some conspiracy theories can't be photographed or documented, yet people fully believe in them.

Perhaps it would be good to get some sort of citation for an un-debunked theory.

reply to post by 0bserver1

---

but if you put together a real good case that the president is actually a reptilian shape shifter, and you win, what does that mean? That Obama is actually cold blooded and eats flies, or just that you argue better than the other guys? As in the case of OJ Simpson, it's not what is true, it's what you can get a jury to decide. I have lawyers anyway. They are the true reptilians.

reply to post by 0bserver1

---

Eventually you will start to see that the 'truth' is not 'out there' for someone else to tell us....

No matter how much 'research' and 'proof' for your case,' does that actually make it 'true?'

You have to ask; What are the motivations behind the people giving you this 'proof?' How does this 'proof' further THEIR agenda?

Some say there is 'proof' that the Mayan calendar ends (begins) on 2012 and some say there is 'proof' that it is 2208.......

What I am saying here is that no one can tell us what is 'truth' or not....that is for us to figure out in our hearts....what resonates 'true' for some may not for others....

In this illusion we call 'reality' everyone is not going to agree on the same 'truth'........truth is just another illusion in this 'game' we call life....

PEACE and LOVE...

reply to post by Seiko

---

Why not they could get some nickname or just ATS judge ?




Why then if your not sure about the case you want to be challenge in court you don't start the case.




It can be for your own disposal if want to take use of it ?

reply to post by 0bserver1

---

I like this idea. You could certainly advance it yourself with out the approval of ATS at large, but babysitting an evidentiary thread would take a great deal of time...what stands as evidence and what does not?

This idea certainly raises the bar for certain conversations here.

reply to post by rainfall

---

True but it would give some value to it. Does not most of the things we we do in daily life have some value ?





It would broaden their research i think and what they believe in?




[

reply to post by Witness2008

---

And thats what I aim at..

Isn't this in a way what the debate forums were for?

Two sides agreeing to argue their point and then being judged by the public on their evidence and proof presented. I agree it's a novel idea. Also in the course of a normal thread the poster if he/she has done their homework/research should be able to defend their stance. Follow along readers would chime in pro and con to present their views/evidence.

Seems to me we already have this in place. The "judges/readers" show their views already by starring the replies they agree with anyway.

At the risk of having not read the whole thread.

We already have this its called the Debate Forum.

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

True! but thats why this is just some crazy idea.And I thought maybe it could ad something? And you can really see great discussion masters at work
well you could even hire them.



[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

Wouldn't work in this venue. ATS is a user generated ecosystem. By adding this to the mix you take the "user" out of it and place it in the hands of "others". Would they be unbiased? Human nature dictates that it would be impossible to give any member that contributed to the board a fair "trail". Stars and flags are in place. That's were people "vote".

reply to post by 0bserver1

---

I think that fine tuning any argument with some amount of evidence raises the bar. I have been on many threads....chemtrail...where the loudest or more credible (ATS Tenure) voice was able to sway the tone of the debate with no evidence to support their argument.

reply to post by intrepid

---

Okay don't get me wrong of course. I respect how its being done here on ATS .
But sometimes I read the frustration of some posters that they leave this board for a long time then turn back after recovery of disappointments.

Thats one thing got this idea from. The other well thats a mystery..

reply to post by Witness2008

---

Well the first posts I did also were you tube and sources. But trying to broaden my threads I try to make it more attractive to add more evidence Its hard to do this but I is more fun and satisfactions more.

I really like the concept as it imposes a form of structure. It would be a way to encourage controversial topics to stay on-point and don't derail into out-of-context, unrelated banter and opinion. It is frustrating to observe a rising level of cynicism and sarcasm ruin otherwise interesting threads, and I understand why you would be inspired to come up with the idea.

On the other hand I think many people would ignore the case altogether. I don't think enough people take debate issues seriously enough to honestly 'code plead' their position.

To set this concept apart from others I would propose that all cases be argued in video/audio format (by the individuals involved), along with submitted briefs.

One potential drawback is that cases could drag on for a LONG time. Once a case was decided and went through the appeals process, what would be the outcome? In other words, are we talking enforcement?

reply to post by MKULTRA

---

Got a point there! , But I was meant not to participate the court by every member only the one's who are instated by the court .




approved..




That also can make it an interesting case and evidence brought to the case , on how it evolves

[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]

The problem with law itself is: It's not about what is right, wrong, correct, incorrect, just, or unjust... It's about what you can prove.

What if someone wins a case (say about.....nibiru (sp?) and in their case "proves" that it exists and we're all going to die in ten years... but the only reason they won, was because the defendant couldn't prove otherwise....? See where that leads to?

You could have each case meet certain criteria before getting to the "ATS Courtroom Stage" as to have all "cases" might prove to be inefficient...

Secondly - I don't think you'd have a problem finding unbias judges. The debate forum ran just fine.


- Carrot

reply to post by CA_Orot

---

But some members can pretty close..




Agree there are a lot flaws in the idea , some fine tuning has to be done





That makes two..

The court thing is a bad idea, we have debate boards that seem to work just fine.