The Ruling in the Expungement of Skye_Jones

Given the hot button nature of the case, I’d like to more clearly explain my reasoning for taking the case, and my verdict more clearly to assist those confused or concerned. If this still leaves you with questions, please direct them to me at Dannyboy#8149.

The Beginning:
It is uncommon for AJSCs to take expungements, indeed. But I’ve been in our legal system for two years and counting, and when you do the same task 100 times it gets boring. So when I saw this case, which from a legal standpoint is damn near once in a career, I jumped at the chance. Skye and I aren’t friends, and have interacted in our official capacities, but not much further beyond that than sharing memes. Her case was also taken in the time span it was due to the risk to her employment due to the arrest, which I have urged on and on since my reappointment to the court in May-and as far as i know, is the general practice.

The Middle:
I intentionally had this hearing at the JC, and encouraged Mr. @Innovativemindto stream it for 100% transparency. I firmly believe that the almost two hour event was conducted fairly and reasonably, and was frankly one of the more interesting cases of my career. Both sides gave damn good arguments. I can even agree that Skye’s conduct may constitute interfering if the bill wouldn’t have been screwed.

The End:
In the end, 2 FSC 78 is clear “Additionally, we hold that all criminal laws must 1) be explicit in the conduct that is punishable and explicit in the punishment rendered…” The legislation on Interfering with an Officer doesn’t abide by this, and as such is unconstitutional under this ruling. With that, any arrests made under it (hilariously, and please contact your Congressman to fix this) so qualify for expungement under the false clause of the expungements amendment to court procedures.

7 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 1 minute. New replies are no longer allowed.

1 Like