Monday, December 25, 2006

Hear Ye, Hear Ye (Welcome!)

This is the case of the People vs. the United States Government. A trial where conspiracy theorists can present their case of United States complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and debunkers can challenge the evidence.

The usual standards of justice apply, to name a few:

The United States government is innocent until proven guilty.

Witnesses and evidence must have a direct bearing on the alleged acts of the United States government.

All evidence that the prosecution plans on using will be made available to the defense in advance.

Allowances will be made for the unusual circumstances of the trial (e.g. I don't anticipate having witnesses available to directly testify, so their testimony will have to be taken from recorded statements).




I will begin considering candidates for the prosecution from the 9/11 truth community, and candidates for the defense from the debunking community. You, the reader, be the jury.

As the trial/blog develops, I'll be changing this welcome message occasionally.

Full disclosure: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It would be nearly impossible to find someone who didn't have a strong opinion either way. Such a person, if one exists, would probably not be someone you would want making any kind of decisions. All I can do is promise I will decide fairly, based on agreed upon rules, what evidence may be admitted; and how each case may be presented.

Read on for the agenda before the court.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The truth, the whole truth...

From some of the feedback I've been getting I think I need to clarify an important point:

I am far, far, far, really far, from impartial about whether or not there was a government conspiracy. I think anyone who has spent any time at all looking into government conspiracy theories has as strong an opinion as I do. I'm not trying to use this mock trial to literally mock conspiracy theorists. I have a whole different blog where I can do that.

I believe that the fairer I am in allowing their arguments to be heard, the easier it will be for people to see that their charges have little substance. I don't mind being wrong about that, either. If you're wrong, and you can admit it, that means you learned something.

My intent is to have as little involvement in the actual debate as possible. Decisions about what constitutes evidence, what will be admissible, and how the debate is structured will be mutually agreed to before any arguments are presented. All I want to do is find the participants and facilitate the debate - in the highly-structured form of a trial.

I'm open to suggestion, of course.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

This Court Is Now In Session

The business before the court:

Pretrial hearing:

1. Choose the participants for the prosecution, and for the defense.

2. Decide what charges will be filed against the United States government.

3. Come to a mutually agreed upon set of rules of evidence, and rules for presenting evidence. For example, the evidence for the prosecution could be presented as 1 post, with 1 post allotted to the defense for "cross-examination." The prosecution could then be allotted 1 final, brief post to redirect. The defense would then present its case under the same rules. Evidence might include documents, statements, videos, maybe even direct testimony (depending on the initiative of the prosecution and defense teams). Anything goes in the comments, of course.

Trial:

4. Present opening arguments for defense and prosecution. Edit: My original target date for opening arguments is turning out to be a little too ambitious, so I'm going to leave this open-ended for now. Meanwhile, I'll continue scouring the various forums out there for the strongest possible candidates to argue the case for each side, and sending emails where I can get an address.




If you have suggestions, or would like to participate in the moderated portion of the trial, send me an email: ontrial911 ****at**** hotmail.com. Obviously, ****at**** = @. If you'd like to participate for the prosecution, or for the defense, write me a version of what you would use as your opening statements - in a page or less, in the body of the email, I won't open attachments. If I've already emailed you an invitation to participate the opening statement won't be necessary - I just want to make sure that both sides receive the best possible representation. Thanks.