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.


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**** 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.