Search results

Attorney General, this is not a criminal matter. There is no "chief prosecutor", there are no "prosecutorial processes". While it might be true that you could be called on to provide "legal counsel" to the three Justices of the Court, they can literally call upon any citizen to provide such...

Well, at least we've reached the conclusion that the Court's rather lackluster of an explanation of how they determined guilt in this case would be grounds, in and of itself, for an appeal and that future Courts should probably invest the time to give a reasonable explanation for their findings...

Well, the Bill of Rights does say "a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence." A Court, "the fact finder", failing to explain how they reached their conclusion of guilt, "reasonably certain evidence", could be construed to be in...

Which is irrelevant, because my request concerns the policy laid down by the current Justices, not by the Office of the Attorney General. Your involvement in this request, as Attorney General, is peripheral, at best. Ivan, you have no more right to post here on this matter than any other...

Well, strictly speaking, finding people guilty with the reasoning of "because they are guilty" is usually pretty bad form. It could be argued that such a reasoning doesn't establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thus opening the door to a mistrial.

Sure it was. Tomb v. TNP established that the Court may rule on any criminal matter after hearing an argument only from the Prosecution, thus opening the door for a Bill of Rights violation to occur for anyone tried in the future. I don't believe I have to wait to be put on trial, and my right...

As demanded by the Court, I am resubmitting my Request for Review regarding a probable Bill of Rights violation that has arisen as part of the Court's handling of the Tomb trial. I will be submitting this request using the Court mandated cookie-cutter template what was invented to "reduce...

Bill of Rights violations effect everyone. I'm interested to know how the Court came to the conclusion that only the "affected party's" protected Rights might have been violated by this policy, which any citizen might possibly be subject to. This seems to be an attempt by the Court to deflect...