CLAIM

Pursuant to Constitution article 3, part D, section ii, paragraph a, I, jamietech, the defendant in the trial of citylion v jamietech, declare my belief that the ruling by crimeo violated my constitutional rights and therefore request a vote be held to declare the decision a mistrial.

I certify that the verdict thread is no longer accessible.

This claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following:

Violation of constitutional rights

The Constitution relevantly provides, in the Bill of Rights, that:

I. All persons, citizen and noncitizen, are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (Constitution as in force at the time of the original trial.)

I. All persons, resident and nonresident, are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (Constitution as in force now.)

As part of the "equal protection and benefit of the law" (using whichever formulation that applies to me as an alien), I am entitled to receive a trial that is not marred by an erroneous application of the law to a trial.

The original decision contains several errors, rendering it incorrect and insupportable. The offence charged by citylion related only to ‘erroneous claims that [citylion] was a citizen of Gabon’. Indeed, crimeo ruled that it was ‘correct that citylion was a citizen’.

However, crimeo went further than the original complaint and sought to include claims of bias as forming part of the offence, despite these claims not being argued at any time by citylion as forming part of the offence. Additionally, the possibility of these claims being capable of forming part of the offence was not raised at any point of the trial by crimeo.

By expecting me to respond to claims that were not expressly argued at trial, my right to defend myself has been violated rendering the decision manifestly unjust.

Allowing the decision to stand on foot would constitute a miscarriage of justice.

For these reasons, I implore the current judges to vote in favour of declaring a mistrial in this matter.

Materials relied upon not otherwise quoted

Constitution article 3, part D, section ii:

ii. Mistrials

a. Following the completion of a trial, should the defendant, plaintiff or any citizen feel that the ruling or process by which the trial was conducted violated the constitutional rights of either the defendant or the plaintiff or otherwise significantly undermined fair treatment or due process under the law, they may initiate a vote to declare it a mistrial. The request should be made in the trial's verdict thread should it still be accessible, otherwise a new thread should be created on /r/MtAugusta or /r/mtaugustajustice

b. The vote will be held by the current Judges and the Mayor, excluding the individual who issued the verdict. Votes will be cast on the subreddit in reply to the mistrial request and will require greater than 50% of eligible votes in favour for the trial to be declared a mistrial. A lack of response within 48 hours will be recorded as a vote against the mistrial request. Sentences are assumed to remain valid during voting.

c. After a trial has been declared a mistrial, all proceedings of the trial and any rulings are declared invalid and a new trial is held. The individual who issued the verdict of the previous trial may not again determine the outcome of the retrial.