Good day your honour.
In the trial in question, I was in the public galleries. I observed during the course of the trial that both the prosecution and the defense were directly in control of the judge, as evidenced here:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34845#msg34845http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34846#msg34846
The attorneys in question will doubtless claim that their influence over the judge was limited to trivial matters; however that is irrelevant. That they held any influence over the judge - meant to be the impartial, unbiased source of authority in the courtroom - is abominable.
Your honour will note the following replies to my objections:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34876#msg34876http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34877#msg34877Both attorneys requested that I find a new judge. If there was no issue, this request would not have been made - both attorneys should than capable of repudiating my claims were they unsubstantiated, given their profession.
Mr 242 then put the onus on myself thus:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34881#msg34881It is ridiculous to assert that by raising a fundamental issue with the court process, it was somehow my responsibility to rectify the situation, and indeed I pointed this out to both parties. However, by happy coincidence I was qualified to preside over the proceedings, so as both defence and prosecution had agreed to my finding a replacement, I petitioned the relevant authorities, who agreed that I should assume the role of judge.
I determined that as the prosecution had presented no case that RPG was incapable of work in general (although pointing out his laziness on some previous occasions, this was not sufficient to discredit the body of work presented as evidence that RPG sometimes does some work).
I also held Mr 242 in contempt, both for spoilers - which was a lesser crime than I thought, given the spoiled event happens at the beginning of the game - and for the more serious offence of a slanderous attempt to discredit myself through his undue influence over the judge:
http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=3406.msg34870#msg34870
I determined that given the circumstances in which I had come to preside over the trial, and further that the situation was not the subject of the trial, it was in the interests of fairness to dismiss the case in favour of the defence (who had no case to answer, in my view) and to instigate this inquiry into possible corruption in the system. I determined that the inquiry should be presided over by an independent judge, as I had personal involvement with the issue in question; I further determined that the question of Mr 242's penalty for being held in contempt should be ascertained at said inquiry to allow him to present his own side of this story - something I was not in fact required to do (I was well within my rights as judge impose penalties there and then), but that it was in the interest of fairness to all sides to do so.
Subsequent protests were made by both attorneys after the court had been adjourned. None were connected to the actual case, and I had already made clear this opportunity would exist for them to explain their actions, and frankly I could have found both in contempt for this behaviour.
In summary, my efforts were directed firstly at identifying an anomaly in the proceedings as a concerned member of the public, then in my role as judge to draw to a close a proceedings that had descended into a farce and to investigate the possible corruption in as fair and objective a manner as possible.
I ask your honour to consider carefully both parties roles in controlling the judge, their misuse of such, and the wider implications of such a set of circumstances being allowed to continue. I would also ask your honour to be mindful of the inevitable personal accusations that will be directed at myself and keep the defendants on topic so this matter can be resolved as efficiently as possible.
