I hope I'm not intruding, but trials in absentia are not usually
considered the most democratically just way of doing justice. If you
propose a trial, then you ought to give the defendant an opportunity to
defend himself. That would mean, at the least, reinstating him to the
list for the duration of trial period.
It would also have to mean properly appointing a jury, and submitting to
the authority of a carefully chosen judge, who would conduct the trial.
A Fluxus judge, Fluxus jury, and a team of Fluxus counsels would
certainly be appropriate, considering the circumstances. And that's OK.
But the opportunity of the defendant to offer a defense is paramount. To
avoid that issue, even in fun, is to set a bad precedent. And, after
all, it is NOT fun. A real offense is alleged, one that should, perhaps,
be addressed.
It would also mean that both parties to the trial, prosecution and
defense, would have to agree to accept the outcome. Sorry to have to
bring all this up.
Davidson
Roger Stevens wrote:
> maybe a fictitious character should enter the list and abuse someone
>
> then we can have a proper fictional trial
