I have been making some plans for the structure of the Shill
Tribunal that I describe in the background links above. These are just my own basic
and interim plan and further details can be worked out in the future with the
cooperation of others. These latest plans concern personnel. In a courtroom
there are always numerous people. How many and what role they play all depend
on the type of court it is and the legal system it is under. It is a good
enough starting point for me to use this as a model. Below is a list of the
personnel in the Shill Tribunal according to my current model, who they might
be and what their job will entail. I have drawn up a diagram of the system in
the Illustration above.
Judge
The Judge in the Shill Tribunal will be very different to
any you will find in a normal court because the Tribunal will have no judicial
power, just like the Jewish and Muslim courts I describe in the above
background links. The role of the Judge will be to organize a hearing and
ensure that good order is maintained at all times. Obviously he or she will
have no power to deliver a sentence, except personal ones between themselves
and the convict. For example, if the Judge is a Facebook group admin they can
ban the convict from their group. After a hearing, the prime duty of the Judge
will be to announce the verdict of the Shill Tribunal and publish it as far and
widely as possible. This is really all that can be done in terms of enforcement.
Defendant
This is the person accused of an offence and committed to
the Shill Tribunal for a hearing.
Defendant's
Advocate
This is the person who is presenting the case for the
defence, in the same way a Barrister does in a Crown Court. They will also get
the chance to cross-examine the Accuser, the Defendant and all witnesses. Alternatively
the Defendant can opt to play this role themselves, in which case their
Advocate can remain within the hearing as their informal supporter if the
Defendant wants this.
Accuser
This is the person bringing the case against the Defendant.
They must submit their application to the Judge who will then investigate and
set up the hearing.
Accuser's Advocate
This is the person who is presenting the case for the
prosecution, in the same way a Criminal Barrister does in a Crown Court. They
will also get the chance to cross-examine the Defendant, Accuser and all witnesses.
Alternatively the Accuser can opt to play this role themselves, in which case
their Advocate can remain within the hearing as their informal supporter if the
Accuser wants this.
Jury
The Jury are the people who decide on the verdict. I'm not
sure at the moment how many people should be on the Jury. It might even vary
from hearing to hearing. I believe there should be some ground rules when it
comes to their selection: 1. They should not be partners or relatives of the
Accuser or Defendant. 2. They should not be on the friends list of the Accuser
or Defendant. 3. They need to have a foundational knowledge the special
interest of the Accuser or Defendant, for example UFOlogy, Bigfoot, vaccine
dangers etc. The Judge should approach these people in a random manner and ask
them to become Jurors of a Shill Tribunal hearing. If they agree then it will
be necessary for the Accuser and Defendant and/or their Advocates to approve
them as Jurors.
Witnesses
These are anybody else the Accuser's or Defendant's
Advocates choose to call the hearing to give testimony if they think it will
help their client's position.
Another question is, where and how do the hearings take
place. This could be done in the real world by hiring a function room somewhere
and the hearing personnel meeting up there, but this will probably be too difficult
and expensive in most instances. I believe it is perfectly suitable for hearings
to be conducted online via an internet communication service such as Skype, the
former Google Hangouts or Zoom. I am very keen on the idea of a public trial and
believe the proceedings should be published, in real-time by livestream if
possible. This may not be an option if large numbers of personnel are needed in
a session of the hearing on the same call; in which case the proceedings should
be recorded and uploaded as soon as possible afterwards. The Judge alone must
be responsible for this and ensure that no editing of recordings takes place.
There is, of course, a lot more that needs to be worked out in this process and
my ideas here are just the start, but I like what I have concocted and welcome
feedback from readers. We do have a necessity to get this system up and running
as soon as possible because there are so many people in the UFO/Paranormal/Conspiracy
Theory community who could be described as "pending trial", people
who will theoretically be good candidates for Defendants; for example: Larry
Warren, Darren Perks, Simon Parkes, Miles Johnston... and of course, myself.
