DISCUSSION: TNP vs Matt

A curious NSer

A curious NSer

TNPer
I had sworn I would have stayed away of this mess, just looking at it. But now... men, may I just ask ONE question?

Everyone here cries democracy has been betrayed, Matt is a backstabbing pig and so on and on... and then? What do you do? You create a process thread... a process where the one who's supposed to be the Judge is someone who considers the defendant the incarnation of the devil?

I honestly hope I won't have to crawl throughout your whole forum to find other references, as I think THIS post should be enough...

And HERE, both TEP and the whole NS have already had a final judgement...

Honest, guys. i'm not taking side. But come on... fairness to fairness!
 
Nowhere has Romanoffia been appointed to preside over this case. :blink:

In any case, please keep inquiries and comments out of the formal indictment thread. (Feel free to start a new thread.)

Thank you.
 
Thak you, Ozarka, for your clarification...

... but it does not wipe away my doubts. Probably nobody has appointed Romanoffia, but

THIS

do actually seem the post of a judge. Of course, that's unless anyone can accept and docket cases, here in TNP. Aside that... well, when you see someone wearing a COURT JUSTICE banner (and signs the post itself with "Justice Romanoffia, Court of The North Pacific"), you get ideas...




Therefore, I have to say all my questions stand:

I had sworn I would have stayed away of this mess, just looking at it. But now... men, may I just ask ONE question?

Everyone here cries democracy has been betrayed, Matt is a backstabbing pig and so on and on... and then? What do you do? You create a process thread... a process where the one who's supposed to be the Judge is someone who considers the defendant the incarnation of the devil?

I honestly hope I won't have to crawl throughout your whole forum to find other references, as I think THIS post should be enough...

And  HERE, both TEP and the whole NS have already had a final judgement...

Honest, guys. i'm not taking side. But come on... fairness to fairness!
Click to expand...
 
I'm next on the docket to hear an upcoming case.

As per "SUMMARY JUDGMENT":


A summary judgment is a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party. The opposing party will respond by counter-declarations and legal arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If it is unclear whether there is a triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then summary judgment must be denied as to that cause of action. The theory behind the summary judgment process is to eliminate the need to try settled factual issues and to decide without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion is made.

IOW, given the facts, it is entirely within the scope of the AG to request a summary judgment on the matter and especially if the defendent refuses to answer a summons and appear to answer to the charges.

If EM has any defense, he will have to provide it. Lacking that, there is a good case for a Summary judgment in the matter given the instance that EM thumbs his nose at the court.
 
I honestly appreciate the dissertation about the SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. But that wasn't the purpose of my comment.

I'm just saying: aren't you a bit BIASED, Romanoffia, to be the one deciding the case, be it a Summary Judgement, a Complete one or whatever you name it?
 
Without being prejudicial, and this is NOT prejudicial at all for me to say...

That would be a very stupid question for me to answer.

I will say that EM will get his chance to defend himself against the charges should he choose to defend himself at all. His right to due process is will be in tact and he retains the right to appeal any decision not to his liking.
 
:blink: Due process?

I thought "due process" meant something on the line of "the defendant is entitled to an unbiased trial". Am I wrong?

If you cannot answer my former question, Romanoffia... can I at least ask you what does "unbiased" mean, in your opinion?
 
MY apology for butting into the court:

Curious NS User, I am pretty sure that is not the name by which you are best known. Out of courtesy to the region would you mind identifying yourself?
 
Yes, Flemingovia. I would mind. My identity is irrelevant, just as my original region. And considering the ongoing situation, forgive me if I won't trust anyone saying "oh no, dear curious NSer, we'll not retaliate against your region, should we be able to locate where you're from".

Will it change something, if I'll say I'm from Gatesville? Or from TWP? Or TEP? Or TSP? Or TNP? Will it change something if I say I'm indeed a puppet account for Matthuis or GMB or Kandarin or whoever else?

My questions would stand anyhow... because they're not NS-related. They're related to one statement only: you're crying about principles, and law, and trust... and then you create a court thread where the judge has already made up his/her mind about the whole thing.





Woot... I've already earned 50$, wth my posts. Could you please send them to me? ;) :lol:
 
A curious NSer:
:blink: Due process?

I thought "due process" meant something on the line of "the defendant is entitled to an unbiased trial". Am I wrong?

If you cannot answer my former question, Romanoffia... can I at least ask you what does "unbiased" mean, in your opinion?
Click to expand...



Due process of law is the fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is preserved by TNP Constitution, which provides (in yo so many words that no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. From this basic principle flows many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights.

I have not made up my mind about anything.

There. I answered your former question and therefore satisfied the need to go no further.
 
This is strange, Romanoffia. You go on with wikipedia-like explanations about formal issues... and you carefully avoid coming to the gist of the problem. You can make fun of me as long as you want... but doing this you do not do anything else but strengthening the sensation you should step down as a judge.

I mean... how will you ever be able to evaluate with fair eyes ANY evidence Matthuis will ever be able to offer you (providing he has some, which is irrelevant)? You can well conside all the readers of this forum as mindless puppets of either Matthuis or GMB... but this is not the case. Sorry for that.


And... not made up your mind about anything? Be serious, Mr Judge. You OWE it to your own rank.

What's THIS POST, if it's not an anticipation of the judgement?

You've said
Point being is that EM has committed treason by siexing the Delegacy with the help of a foreign entity, that being Gatesville.
Click to expand...

That's a STATEMNT, in your opinion. You can well call God at your side in your holy crusade against EVILMATTHUIS... but that doesn't change things.
 
I will say just this: Attempts to derail the judicial process here in The North Pacific will not be successful.


OOC: Can I make a suggestion that this topic is moved out of the Court area (and the OT posts from the other court thread merged in here?).
 
(*sighs*) this is not an attempt to derail anything, HC. it's just an attempt to have a discussion about principles, considering everyone round here cries for them.

however... it's a sad day when such a respected NSer as you feels the need to hide behind his own finger to avoid facing the truth, HC.

I have a better suggestion: you can well move the thread wherever you wint, perhaps to a passworded area and then avoid answering. THAT would be a good way to kill the discussion... and the process will go on without other disturbances. THAT would definitely be a democratic way to handle dissenting opinions.
 
You are perfectly entitled to your views. However I am not hiding away from any truths. As far as my understanding of the matter goes, if the accused turns up then he will be entitled to a trial by jury for a start. Also, I would presume it would be down to him to contest if the judge in question is prejudicial in his case, although I am hardly a specialist of law. My interest is to see justice served and if we need to change the presiding officer to ensure a fair trial than the processes necessary to do so will be followed. At this early stage in proceedings I do not feel there is any more to say.
 
HC... Romanoffia has clearly expressed his views. Why should Matthuis ever bow to such a trial, when he has no chances to be ACTUALLY considered?

Referring to your statement... yep, it should be him the one contesting the judge. And indeed I'm not formally contesting. I'm just observing. And I was looking for a fair discussion.
 
Curious NS user.

To me as root admin your refusal to identify yourself is discourteous at best, and at worst could imply that you are concealing your identity becuase you have already been banned from this forum and are circumventing that ban. If you refuse to identify yourself, I am going to assume the latter, and permanently IP ban you from this forum.

You have one more post to do so.
 
It's your call, Flem.

I just do not want to endanger my region, exposing it to possible retailiations. I'm acting on my own. As a NSer who thought freedom of speech was something respected throughout the whole NS.

The best I can say is I have never been on this forum before... uhm... yesterday, i think. Or the day before. I just know some of you because I've met on other forums. So... nope, I'm not circumventing any form of ban.

Now, feel free to act according to what you think you have to do. I won't make any fuss out of that.





EDIT:

Kharkistania, despite what someone seems to believe, I'm not saying Matt is right. At all. Nor I'm saying he should be plauded for what he has done. I'm just a bit upset because of this choice of yours to trial him without giving him a fair chance to be heard. That's all.
 
But there's no chance on earth he'll be heard. Whichever his defense will be, he'll be judged a traitor. This is not due process, Khark.
 
Analogy: Lets assume a man murders someone, and the entire town happens to be watching, and he's also caught in the act on film. Maybe he kills the mayor at the Labor Day festivities or something. The man goes to court, and the entire town shows up as witnesses against him. This man will be convicted as guilty no matter what defense he makes, with the possible exception of being insane. Does this mean that this man has had an unfair trial? Or that he is undeniably and indefensibly guilty?

This is what happened in TNP. Matthuis has betrayed the region and has no qualms about it. Any sane court of law would find him guilty.
 
A curious NSer:
But there's no chance on earth he'll be heard. Whichever his defense will be, he'll be judged a traitor. This is not due process, Khark.
Click to expand...
I fail to see what your carping is all about. EM will get a fair trial under due process. If he chooses not to defend himself, well then the evidence will speak for itself. He will get a fair trial based upon the evidence provided by both sides. I will be the first to assure that his right to due process is preserved.

And why can't you understand that?
 
Also, what does "three-person Judiciary" mean to you?

If Roman is granted the case and if he is found to have acted unjustly in his presiding, it will be taken care of. That's what due process is. It's not that we can guarantee no bias ever, but rather that when it's discovered, it will be rectified.
 
There's an interesting term, "Three Person Judiciary". Are you talking a panel of judges like is often used in UK courts (that is three judges sit to hear preliminary evidence to determine the merits of a case before it actually goes to a trial?) or the arrangement here in TNP?

In some criminal proceedings in some countries a panel of judges will often make a summary judgment for guilt or innocense and/or whether the case is worthy to go to trial or be dismissed. In the case of a summary judgment of guilt the defendent can either accept the decision or move to a jury trial if he thinks he can get a better result. IOW, if the panel of judges decide that the prosecution has no merit, they can equit the defendent or dismiss the case then and there. If they decide that there is enough evidence to result in an absolute conviction, they can issue a summary judgment of guilty, or if they are unsure, they can bind it over for a full jury trial. And if the defendant doesn't like the decision of the judges he can force it over to a full trial jury or he can simply accept the initial summary judgment.

In most instances (in the countries in question) the only thing that judges in a panel will do is to determine if the prosecution has enough evidence (in the absense of a defense) to get a conviction and then either send it to a trial or not.
 
What I meant was that you are not the only justice in our judicial system. If you're found not fit to preside, then we'll simply have another justice adjudicate. Easy peasy.
 
(*sorry, i'm not not-posting because i do not think you guys do deserve it. but i've been ip-banned and then... uhm... i'm here again. considering i'm not sure flem INTENDED to readmit me, i'll wait for his clearance to post again*)





...


...

(*ok, smart guys. i'll wait for his clearance to say something relevant. so this post shouldn't count*) :lol: :P

...aside for increasing my money, of course. I'm now at... 110$!! Who's the one who'll send them to me, anyhow?!?

(*shuts up waiting for flem*)
 
Just to show everyone that I have justice as my primary interest in this matter, I will pass this off to whatever justice is after me on the docket. Just so that no one has any reason to bitch.

IS every body happy now? :fish:
 
At the moment the only other member of the Court is Chief Justice Mr. Gaunt. But both Mr. Gaunt and Romanoffia can agree to appoint a judicial hearing officer to help with the Associatr Justice vacancy.

From my experience as a former Chief Justice, a summary judgment process is possible in the legal system here. If there are no facts in dispute and the law can be applied to those facts to reach a legal conclusion, then a legal judgment is possible.

Curious NS user, your style of argument is so reminiscent of both Insane Power and Cathyy that it is spooky. And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the use of proxy servers is illegal where TNP and this forum is concerned. So if you are posting by using a different IP having been IP banned, then your presence here is no less improper.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Curious NS user, your style of argument is so reminiscent of both Insane Power and Cathyy that it is spooky. And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the use of proxy servers is illegal where TNP and this forum is concerned. So if you are posting by using a different IP having been IP banned, then your presence here is no less improper.
Click to expand...
Grosseschnauzer, as I've told you on the other thread, I honestly do not have a clue on whether I do use this proxy server or not (honestly i do not even know what a proxy is). All I can say is I usually post from three different computers... which, I suppose, do actually have different IPs. But I've not tried to willingly overcome the banning. I suppose everything should be fine now that the ban has been lifted, but to my excusation (if yet needed) I can say that as soon as I've noticed I was able to postv again I've gone straight to Flemingovia to understand whether that was intended or not.



And now… going back to the gist of what I was trying to say before creating all the mess… Outer Kharkistania, your analogy is definitely interesting, but in my opinion you’ve not inserted the ingredient I’ve (i had) noticed here and about which I’m doing all this fuss.

The man is seen. Plenty of eyewitnesses. He goes to court… he gets his punishment. That’s not unfair. It becomes unfair if the judge is one of the citizens… and namely, one who’s waving a “To the stake! To the stake!” sheet in front of the cameras.

That’s what I was challenging. The idea that Romanoffia – who had clearly stated more than once that Matthuis IS guilty – was the one charged with the task to give a judgment.

And I was challenging it not because I hope Matthuis will be found innocent. At all. Despite the fact he’s the only one I do know, I honestly do not care. Everyone has to bear the burden of both his/her choices and his/her behaviors. Moreover, this is your region, not mine. I wouldn’t dare to interfere with the application of any of your laws… but here, I was seeing betrayed not a law of TNP, but a general principle of law.

A principle called “due process”, which is (or at least “should be”) one of the foundations of all democracies. A principle to enforce which sometimes we have to step down, despite how much we feel involved… or probably EXACTLY because we feel too involved. That’s why I greatly appreciate Romanoffia’s decision. Not because I think he is not a good judge or anything like that. Far more simply… just because now I think there is a chance the judgment will be (as much as it can be, at least), unbiased. And that, whichever the outcome, will strengthen both you as individuals and your region as a whole.





Obviously, I apologize if this has been too InsanePowerish and/or Cathyysh. I swear I’m not him nor her. Nor I’ve ever got in touch with them. I NOW know who they are… but that’s just because everyone round here was crying “he’s InsPo, he’s Cathyy”, so I was curious… :lol:
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Problem: How would we ensure absolute neutrality of the judge, then?
Click to expand...
Since I am apparently to sit on this case since no formal protest against it has been filed since my determination for motions, I shall act in the capacity of Judge in this matter.

My duties as a Judge shall largely be to control and judge proceedures unless the Prosecution request SUMMARY JUDGMENT provided the conditions for such a request are met.

See my decision in relation to motion presented by the Prosecution in the relevant courtroom.

The defendant is innocent until proved otherwise and has beed advised of his rights and specifically that he has a right to defend himself and should do so unless he decides to exercise his right to remain silent, and that in the absence of a plea on his part or refusal thereof, a plea of NOT GUILTY has been entered by the COURT on his behalf in accordance to the laws of The North Pacific.

Matt has been advised in my decision pertaining to motions by the prosecution that it is in his best interest to defend himself vigorously due to the nature of the charges detailed in the indictment.

The Prosecution's evidence will be examined carefully with all benefit of a doubt given to the Defendant should the Defendant refuse to testify under his right to not incriminate himself in the event that the Prosecution cannot meet the requests for a trial by jury or a request for Cause of Action and Summary Judgment by the Prosecution.

In either event, the Prosecution will be required to present evidence that proves their charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, mitigating circumstances withstanding, of he defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If at any time the defendant feels that his rights under the Constitution are being violated, I shall defer to other available justices for rectification of any faults that may have occured.


Justice Romanoffia of The North Pacific.
 
As a preliminary note, i just want to quote my other reply, to avoid having to post it again.

REPLY

While, about your comment, Kharkistania...
Outer Kharkistania:
Problem: How would we ensure absolute neutrality of the judge, then?
Click to expand...

The plain answer is you cannot. You definitely have a point, on that. But, according to my opinion as a RL lawyer, the solution modern democracies have found to the problem appears pretty interesting.

In the western world, a judge is considered BIASED if he has done or said something which gives a REASONABLE DOUBT about his/her impartiality. So, our RL nations do not look for people without opinions and/or feelings.

They just look for peoples who happen to have a deep knowledge of the law and who have not gone around BEFORE THE PROCEEDING saying "the defendant is guilty". no matter how high the pile of evidences against him.

basically, our nations say: "ok, John Doe. you're the greatest judge we've ever had. but UNFORTUNATELY you've affirmed the defendant is guilty before the proceeding actually started. so we, as a nation, do believe you are not ready to evaluate with fair eyes the situation: that's not because you're a jerk, but because you ALREADY have an opinion, while a fundamental principle of law is that you have to make your own opinion DURING the proceeding"

"and be honest with yourself, john doe. you can cry you'll be fair. but everyone knows you WON'T change your mind. so, i consider you biased. probably i'm wrong, and you're such a wise person to avoid this loophole, but we - as a nation - cannot take the risk. sorry"

that's what our nations do. they forbid judges to lead the trial when they're biased. when they have bad feelings towards the defendant. when they're not in the position to ensure dueness of the process.

that's what, according to my opinion as NSer, TNP is not doing. and trust me, Outer Kharkistania. I'm not trying to protect matt anyhow. you're free to stone him to death, if you need to. in the end, i'm trying to SUGGEST you should protect the region... by yourselves. because in the end, when you'll have had the condemnation you're seeking, EVERYONE in the whole ns will have ths chance to say "sure they've condemned matthuis. have you seen who was the judge? could have it gone differently?"

that's the point.

you HAVE the chance to give everyone the sensation it COULD have gone differently.

But considering it seems i'm the only foolish one who happens to see the problem, i'm honestly ready to shut up.
 
Haor Chall:
Ah, Polts, we've missed you.  :hug:
Click to expand...
I'm sure your aim will be better next time!! :P

Woo Woo!! All aboard the Judicial System..err..Express!! Woo!! Woo!!

Rusty-Train_tn.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top