flemingovia:
Since Roman has submitted to the entire court that a mistrial may have occurred, I would also like to hear his reasoning as to why this might be the case?
General definition of a mistrial:
"The termination of a trial before its normal conclusion because of a procedural error, statements by a witness, judge or attorney which prejudice a jury, a deadlock by a jury without reaching a verdict after lengthy deliberation (a "hung" jury), or the failure to complete a trial within the time set by the court. When such situations arise, the judge, either on his own initiative or upon the motion (request) of one of the parties will "declare a mistrial," dismiss the jury if there is one, and direct that the lawsuit or criminal prosecution be set for trial again, starting from the beginning."
Also, in determining whether to declare a mistrial, the court must decide whether the error is so prejudicial and fundamental that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful, if not futile, and thus requiring a nugatory trial.
Boiled down to the crux of a matter, a mistrial can be called for a number of specific reasons including but not limited to, specifically, as per this particular action by the Chief Justice:
A significant procedural error;
Misconduct or procedural errors that either prevents a fair trial or produces or gives the appearance of an unfair trial;
A general or specific violation and/or denial of due process.
Let us examine these particular points in detail:
"A significant procedural error".
COE's actions is removing me as Presiding Justice on this case is an admission on COE's part but his very action that "a significant procedural error" was committed by the Presiding Justice. In this instance the "significant procedural error" that COE is admitting to in his action is that COE did not think that the trial was moving along fast enough for his liking. Hence, a mistrial has occurred and such a determination is supported by COE apparent need to dismiss the Presiding Justice and to replace said justice with COE.
Of course, COE will claim that since there is no specific rule or law pertaining to 'mistrial' that a mistrial cannot occur even with gross violations of a defendant's constitutional rights as per due process as guaranteed under the Constitution and implied in the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights having constitutional validity as though it was part of said Constitution. But we will get to that matter later on.
"Misconduct or procedural errors that either prevents a fair trial or produces or gives the appearance of an unfair trial."
Since a procedural error of significant enough severity occurred according to the Chief Justice that warranted the removal of the Presiding Justice and the Chief Justice assuming the case himself, this could be construed as not only preventing a fair trial but certainly produces and gives the appearance of an unfair trial - COE removes Justice Roman from presiding; COE appoints himself as Presiding Justice; COE, by doing so has placed himself in a position of Conflict of Interest insofar as it materially changes the way the trial is adjudicated and is, in and of itself, a gross error in procedure and possibly judicial misconduct in and of itself regardless of what the 'rules' say. It is not appropriate nor legal to apply a rule or law in a manner designed to thwart a rule or law elsewhere.
Hence, the appearance of an unfair trial and possibly an unfair trial will result because I had specifically different results in how I decided Kiwi's (The Prosecution's) motions as per the admissibility of certain elements, in part, severally, that are definitely exculpatory and irrelevant to the case by the very definition of exculpatory and irrelevant. The matter of whether or not Grosse is guilty or innocent does not rest upon evidence that points to Grosse's perceptions produced by what other people were saying. Under the disposition rendered by COE as per Kiwi's motions relating to exculpatory and irrelevant evidence. If Tim, JAL, The Easter Bunny and Jesus Christ were plotting to coup the region (jokingly or not) in a thread on the board, it is irrelevant to whether or not Grosse thought Kingborough was planning on couping the region.
Mind you, some of Kiwi's objections in his motions was absolutely correct, some were not by strict definition of exculpatory and irrelevant evidence. The decision I was planning on issuing would have reflected what was sustainable and unsustainable as per Kiwi's motions and not a wholesale overruling as issued by COE.
Changing the moderating justice because of the time the trial was taking to conduct also has the effect of changing the rules of evidence because my handling of Kiwi's motion would have a different effect than COE's will.
Obviously, COE spent a good amount of time constructing his out of hand dismissal of Kiwi's motions and prior to dismissing the Presiding Justice in this case, such and action was peremptory and technically unauthorized because he constructed his overruling of the motions in question before dismissing the Presiding Justice. That means COE acted as Presiding Justice before dismissing a Presiding Justice and thus shows a prejudicial disposition on the part of COE and supported by the fact that he assumed the role of Presiding Justice in a conflicting manner. Specifically, COE as a matter of ethics should have appointed the next available Justice or THO as Presiding Justice and not himself.
Of course there are no rules concerning ethics and the fact that COE wanted to speed up the trial so he is indeed entitled to make up any rules he sees fit no matter how arbitrary those on-the-fly rules may be.
A general or specific violation and/or denial of due process.
Then again, no trial has ever been made more fair by speeding it up. And dismissing a Presiding Justice who is going out of his way to make sure that there is to be a fair trial with a proper body of relevant evidence according to rules of evidence just to speed things up makes a mockery out of the Court and justice system. It results in McJustice with a side order of fries. And all over a 30 seconds of time and desire to make sure that the wheels of justice get a good slathering of grease so that the length of the trial is the primary concern and not whether justice is fairly arrived at.
And, as a result, we are beginning to see the tip of the opinion iceberg pop up above the waves in a comment given by Punk D in the public gallery that directly supports my above opinion as stated. To wit:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8122803&t=7133799
Also, COE makes a statement in the same thread that supports my opinion that this whole trial has become more about how long it takes to conduct a trial instead of administering fair and impartial justice. To wit:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8122823&t=7133799
Hence, since it clearly appears according to COE's actions and the above statement he made in the public gallery of the Court that the case of TNP v.Grosseschnauzer is to be adjudicated mainly on the basis of shortening the trial rather than administering fair and impartial justice, a state of denial of due process has been established. Again, no trial has ever been made fairer by abridging its duration.
Also, a major procedural error was committed by COE insofar as he removed a legitimate objection stated by a Justice who is sitting in judgment on this case and moved it to the public gallery.
My specific objection to COE's action is not only legitimate but also germane to the case being tried because it directly bears upon whether or not a fair trial or a mistrial is being conducted as a result of those actions. Under the present rules of the Court, this implies that a Chief Justice can arbitrarily do anything he or she wants because the rules say a CJ can make up the rules at will. If this is the case, then we do not have a justice system in TNP, we have a kangaroo court whereby a CJ can interfere with a case arbitrarily for any reason whatsoever.
Also, removing from the record a legitimate objection by a Justice is judicial misconduct at best regardless of the reason. That obvious censorship of a legitimate objection by a justice who is nevertheless sitting in judgment on this case clearly taints the entire legitimacy of the proceeding. Everyone saw what happened (removal of an objection) and moving that objection to another section of the court forum doesn't hide it. It just makes it look like court justices can simply edit the record if they hear something they don't want to hear or want anyone else to hear.
Again, if a Justice can remove from the official record a legitimate objection made by another justice who is still sitting on the case, we have no justice system at all and certainly nothing resembling a fair trial at this point.
And this is why I objected, on the record, in a manner germane to the case and I submit that I should be able to re-state my objection on the record and in the Court clearly and with explanation in detail as per whether or not this constitutes a mistrial, a denial of due process, a gross procedural violation and possibly judicial misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice.
I contend that if the CJ can arbitrarily alter the entire tenor and body of evidence at will then there can be no justice, only speedy delivery of politically correct justice with the speed of a trial being the main object and not the delivery of justice.
COE's action of removing me as Presiding Justice on this case makes a laughing stock of the Court, it's procedures, and indeed its very legitimacy as it relates to providing a forum for fair and impartial justice.
Now, aren't you sorry you asked that question?
Crushing Our Enemies:
From my perspective here's what happened:
1. Roman took a week to deliberate on the motion to dismiss - I told him that I would not tolerate trials being delayed because of Justices dragging their feet, and gave him a specific deadline to dispose of the motion or I would take over the trial. He did not object to that, and disposed of the motion before my deadline.
2. Roman extended discovery by 24 hours to allow more evidence to be gathered. That seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
3. After 24 hours had passed and discovery had still not ended, Kiwi posted a long list of evidentiary motions, and Elu requested another extension to respond. At the time that Roman posted to allow another 24 hours, discovery was entering its 8th day.
4. I PM'd Roman that I would not tolerate any more extensions.
5. After 2 days had passed since Roman's second 1-day extension, and discovery was nearing the close of the 9th day, I decided enough was enough, and decided to take over the trial to end discovery and shift into the argument phase.
6. Bare minutes before I posted, Roman replied to my PM that he would deal with Kiwi's motions promptly. I was not notified of this PM until after I posted.
As it turns out, if I had waited a little longer, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Nonetheless, my reasoning for taking over the trial is sound. If discovery was only extended 2 days, we should have been 48 hours in to arguments when I posted in the trial thread yesterday, but we were still in discovery. The trial needed to move forward, and Roman was AWOL without telling anyone.
If you had waited just 30 seconds longer, it would have made a world of difference, especially concerning the body of evidence and what is and is not germane, relevant and exculpatory. And 48 hours is a straw man of the most specious and factitious kind.
The trial needed to move forward COE wanted to make a point that we can conduct trials at break-neck speed for the sake of having fast trials.
The basic problem is that you want a fast trial and I want a fair trial even if it takes a while longer. And I don't want the outcome to look like it's pandering to whatever faction that is for or against Grosse.
Plainly put, you action in removing me from Presiding over this case and then assuming that position yourself has done inestimable damage to the credibility of the Court as a forum for justice. You have turned a long-running trial into something that doesn't even resemble a fair trial, not even remotely.
Frankly, I am even more disgusted at current court procedure, 'rules' and the ability of a Chief Justice to make up whatever rules in an arbitrary and capricious fashion than Flemingovia is.
You can go ahead and laugh at me, deride me and attempt to humiliate me in the Courtroom, but this is where I stand on the matter. I am utterly disgusted and disillusioned at what this Court has devolved into since I first served as a Justice several years ago. We need justice, not reckless race to a speedy conclusion ultimately resulting in a joke being made out of the Court.
