The beezzer's Court The 2nd Amendment The Trial

*goes back to drawing a Grey alien holding an m4*

reply to post by beezzer


You will impart no further understanding of this issue if you do not have a level playing field. Also, do you see the Supreme Courts of any nation allowing humour to illustrate a point? Nothing will be gained if you do not take the criticisms previously stated to task and add one more litigator on the prosecution side or axe one of the 3 you have on the defense side. I mean....how can you expect this to be taken seriously if you, yourself won't take this as anything other than a way to excercise a power trip of sorts. I once again move for a mistrial. You can call me an impartiality litigator if you like, but if you cannot accept criticism, and convene a proper mock trial, than I hold you in contempt. I care not if anyone else here does. Your continued refusal to level the playing field will be deemed equivelant to a mistrial declaration, and thus anyone else here that is truly rational will recognize it as such....your honour...and I use that term loosely....

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx


Over-ruled.

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx


Your honor, I request you ask the bailiffs to remove xXxInfidelxXx from the court

If your honour will allow it, I would be honoured to volunteer as a juror in these proceedings, as I feel I would bring a little much-needed seriousness to this discussion. No character-taking required. I am what I am, for better or worse, and you will have my best efforts. That I can guarantee. I still think you need to axe that extra litigator on the defense side though if these proceedings are to be considered truly balanced and fair.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


*Comment removed due to misunderstanding of intended sarcasm which has been clarified through U2U.*

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
If your honour will allow it, I would be honoured to volunteer as a juror in these proceedings, as I feel I would bring a little much-needed seriousness to this discussion. No character-taking required. I am what I am, for better or worse, and you will have my best efforts. That I can guarantee. I still think you need to axe that extra litigator on the defense side though if these proceedings are to be considered truly balanced and fair.

I'm not sure what numbers of counselors have to do with anything...We are arguing thoughts and ideas, not playing football...
And since, to this point, I am the only one available for the defense, your point would be irrelevant, anyway...

I have no objection to the addition to the jury, assuming he/she takes their place and conforms to the rules of the court, on one condition...

I'd like to know where the potential juror stands, on an unrelated issue...
What is your stance on the current "Idle No More" issue and protest in your own Country?

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Could you clarify what you mean by the "Idle No More" stance and what it entails(I don't watch TV). As far as the protests that have been breaking out, it depends which group you are referring to. If you mean the Occupy Movement, I honestly think they are piggybacking on the ideas of Occupy Wall Street, and as such, have no ideas of their own which would be beneficial to our somewhat unique form of governance. Alot of what I've seen (particiipated in Occupy T.O. for a while until I realised that they had no real platform to act on) has convinced me that most of them really don't agree with my stance on things as most of them haven't really done any research into issues that are unique to us, instead picking the same platforms as Occupy W.S. which wouldn't necessarily work for us in the way they think it would. As an aside...since you seem to be alone on the defense side, I would also be willing to volunteer my services to your aid in defending the second amendment as a principal backbone to the Constitution instead. To be quite honest, I think my insights would be much more useful there to be honest with you, where my slight biases could be put to use, instead of acting as a hindrance that I would have to exert effort to reign in. I make this second offer under the condition that the other two non-present litigators be relieved of their duties as they don't seem to be up to it anyways, seeing as they are not even taking part in the proceedings. I believe my participation as your co-defense would benefit these proceedings alot more than having two absentee litigators and one slightly biased juror lol.

I would like to formally request if your honour will allow it, that I replace the two absentee defense litigators instead of acting as a juror as I feel my skills would be best used in that role. It seems that the defense is getting a little lonely over there and I would like to help him out if at all possible. Consideration would be appreciated.

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx


I have no problems with a fellow Canadian being on the defense..it might even help my cause. Can I ask that we limit the amount of defense volunteers though? two on two is fair, I am willing to accept two vs. three, but at what point do we say that's enough, when it's us two vs. all American ATS members?

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

Could you clarify what you mean by the "Idle No More" stance and what it entails. Also, I believe that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. When it comes to my country, where firearms aren't really needed , as there is no real strong black market for them where I live, although I'm sure some would disagree.. If you're asking if I'm partial, well I have already stated that I believe that the fundamental right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms is inalienable. I would possibly, however be all for some additional clauses within said amendment which could limit access to criminals and those with limited mental stability. Although...since you seem to be alone on the defense side, I would also be willing to volunteer my services to your aid in defending the second amendment as a principal backbone to the Constitution instead. To be quite honest, I think my insights would be much more useful there to be honest with you, where my slight biases could be put to use, instead of acting as a hindrance that I would have to exert effort to reign in. I make this second offer under the condition that the other two non-present litigators be relieved of their duties as they don't seem to be up to it anyways, seeing as they are not even taking part in the proceedings. I believe my participation as your co-defense would benefit these proceedings alot more than having two absentee litigators and one slightly biased juror lol.

edit on 14/1/2013 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)

Firstly, I am the last addition to the defense, with wrabbit2000 and sonny1, being 1st and 2nd...I am sure they will be along anytime, now, as Sonny has an extensive opening statement, I've been told...

Secondly, no disrespect, but how could you possibly defend something that has no direct meaning or relationship to your way of life? Granted you may understand, what the 2A, is for, but I can't see how you would possess the passion for it, that only a True American, can...

And as for the Idle No More resistance, I have my own feelings about that, through a close friend, and I have been informed of the level of tyranny that has been displayed by your own govt...I just wanted to see how you would respond...Based on the way you evaded the question, you are either unaware of it, and had to look it up to respond, or you truly attempted to remain impartial. So, I guess a position on the Jury, would be acceptable...

But, that is not up to me...

Pardon.. Pardon... Excuse me.. (pushes way to front of the court) If it please the court, it's a busy day with other hearings and the start of Spring Semester classes later this afternoon. Allow me to catch up on the transcripts of proceedings here. (huddles over court reporter to catch up)

reply to post by superman2012


I think two on two would be a fair number. Any more than that would just muddy up the waters as far as I'm concerned.

A baliff has been notified.

We will wait on Defense Council to present their opening statement, then Prosecution can procede.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


I possess a passion for human rights which I feel overrules any nationalism that one may feel. I, for one, am not nationalistic in the least. I am all for doing what I would want to have done if I did live in the States. I have often been quite frustrated being sidelined by many nations on many issues simply because they think I do not understand because I do not live there. These people, maybe yourself included, don't seem to realize that alot of clarity can be had when you don't have to peer through the haze that is created through nationalism. And since I don't have to put up with your incomparably horrible mass media system, my views might even be more rational than someone that is caught in the shuffle of things. Also, I bring a level of emotional detachment which aids me immensely in getting to the true root of the problem, rather than being caught up in the knee-jerk reactionist stance that I see alot of anti-gun lobbyers taking. If all else fails, I'm with ya on this one. What more do you want. I believe in the inalienable rights that are outlined to the letter in the constitution and I believe that the 2nd amendment is the backbone of said document. Without the 2nd amendment, all will be lost in the States, and you cannot claim that I cannot feel empathy for that possibility simply because I am Canadian. If anything, empathy and mediation is one thing we Canadians are known for throughout the world. I consider myself not to be the stereotypical Canadian, but the prototypical Canadian. I stand by the values that my society supposedly abides by and I make them the core of my modus operandi. In my short history as an independant advocate, I have tried to raise awareness on multiple international issues, including the Genocide (or lack thereof) in South Africa, the Palestinian strife, and on multiple occasions I have made attempts to convince the knee-jerk liberals in the States that gun confiscation is not the solution and that if anything, it would make the situation far worse for the average American. If you need any more convincing than that, feel free to ask my stance on any issue you wish. Sadly enough, I know more about American politics than I do Canadian as information is so much more readily available(believe it or not) as we don't really have a reliable independant media in Canada, which makes it really hard to find good information these days, so I decided to try and help where I can.

Okay, no bickering during recess now. I know the prosecution must be a tough spot to be, but still, lets not take our feelings of hopelessness and being overwhelmed out on others.


First, in response to the concerns of the Prosecution on numbers, I would simply note that the Defense itself raised concerns about the numbers and qualifications of the Prosecution earlier and saw those motions summarily dismissed. I'd strenuously object if it were to become an issue now by those same folks who fought for the right to have a small non-American team to begin with. To paraphrase a well known term....One makes one's own bed, now one must accept long nights based upon the wisdom of the creation.


Next, Sonny seems to have been caught up unexpectedly and it's been the working assumption that this trial won't conclude in a single day at any rater, so we reserve the right to amend our opening statement when our 3rd team member arrives to deliver it. He's got one I believe the court will agree is worth the indulgence.

Point of order? As this is proceeding well outside the general guidelines I'm accustomed to civil or criminal court following in terms of charges to defend or discovery to properly build a defense to, I'd request specific schedule as planned at this point? I.E.... The Prosecution has made opening statements... then we will or reserve to the open of our case. Which of those options depends on the outcome of motions presented here of course,....

Then how is this proceeding? I assume my colleagues on the Prosecution will make their entire case, then allow us to make ours in defense....with their probably having the last for order in closing, right? Thanks for your patience in the court for clarification.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

edit on 1/14/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: nevermind...

Indeed it was, certainly not a blanket statement.


But hey, I wank so it was an apt retort