Search results

I have an appeal in process that must now be considered by the whole Court and can not be dismissed by any one Justice alone, in accordance with Court Rules.

Ah, but the Court itself ignored the Bill of Rights, the prior Court ruling made by COE, and several required court procedures throughout this case. The "5-minute" part might be hyperbole, but it is no exaggeration to say that this opened several massive holes in the Criminal Courtroom...

Ivan, you seem to be purposefully confusing Tomb "being around" with Tomb being defended. Tomb got no defense and he never explicitly stated that his wish was to not be defended. Just the opposite can be inferred, since he appointed three people to represent him. Clearly he wished to be...

Irrelevant. The case still opened the door for citizens to be tried without a Defense argument. This would allow people who are tried in absentia, who automatically plea "Not Guilty" by not showing up, to be ruled upon with no one speaking in their Defense, a grave misjustice. It would also...

That's not applicable nor grounds for denying my appeal, Plembobria. According to the Court's own rules, the appeal must now be considered by the Court as a whole. Or are we just going to ignore the rules whenever it fits the agenda of the day? Again, I do not understand the Court and...

It's been very clear from the start that I am not asking the Court to rule on the Tomb vs. TNP case, only the decision that arose from it. I am not appealing the Court decision on Tomb's case, and if Plembobria had bothered to even glance at the request, that would have been made abundantly...

With no words spoken in defense of his innocence, Tomb's "Defense" was in name only.

I was legally in the wrong, so said the Court, when I banned Govinda for spamming. I wasn't taken to court, charged with Gross Misconduct, and ruled on without anyone defending me.

Well, this is a bit different than one's specific nation being banned from the region. This last legal ruling has established that the Court may rule on any trial after hearing only from the Prosecution, as such all of us may be potentially effected. A Right to a Fair Trial is a passive right...

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...

Justice Severisen, this request, while related to Tomb's trial, is in regards to Court rules and procedure and if that procedure has violated the Bill of Rights. At no point have I ever stated that I am appealing or challenging the Court's verdict in Tomb's trial. I know that I do not need to...

I think Flem is upset that people are calling the Kangaroo Court that Tomb stood before out for what it was, a ridiculous show trial that was as much of a witch hunt as it was a sham. Flem, of course, would very much like to see Tomb publicly shamed and punished, justice be damned. I would...

Oh, so the Defense Team can lose a case on Tomb's behalf but not appeal on his behalf? Isn't that pretty hypocritical? Flem, while it is true a verdict has been reached, a sentence has not. This means the trial is still on and the Defense Team very much intact, and with the trial ongoing and...

So if you admit the trial was mismanaged, and you've decided to take "full responsibility" for your self-admitted mismanagement, then why did you proceed with a verdict, why are you proceeding with the sentencing, and why has the case not been declared a mistrial? Are you just saying these...

Since the trial is now all but over, what were the redacted questions and answers? This doesn't seem to be a case based upon spies and secret evidence (like the failed Treason case against me was, years ago) so I am interested to know what was so scandalous that it was censored by the Court. On...

And the Court still ruled without hearing a word from the Defense speaking on behalf, and in defense, of their client. That is the Court's fault. They chose to allow for only one side to present its case. They chose to allow a one sided argument to occur and then chose to rule on the case after...

Regardless, the Defendant is still entitled to a Defense. Tomb's Defense team effectively abandoned him mid-trial, either by never showing up (Mal and Bel) or by literally quitting and walking out on the trial itself (Roman). This left Tomb without legal representation. At that point, a new...

I assure you, you have not.

It's not the Court's responsibility to ensure the Defendant gets a fair trial? Since when?

Well, in this case I am asking the Court, a government entity, to review it's ad hoc policy of allowing a trial to proceed with an absent, or non-existent, Defense or Defense Team.

Regarding Tomb's recent trial on the charges of Gross Misconduct it has been observed that Tomb's defense was completely absent from the case itself. Of the entire team, only Roman ever posted and only twice, once to ask a question about Courtroom procedure and the other to thank the Court for...

Or the Court could just appoint a Defense for them. In cases where the Defendant doesn't show, how would the Court proceed then? As I mentioned before, per TNP law, if a Defendant doesn't plead, a plea of "Not Guilty" is automatically submitted for them. And if the Defendant never shows up to...