[Private] FOI for deliberation logs in TNP V. Grosseschnauzer

[Romanoffia]

As per an FOI for the release of the deliberation logs in TNP v. Grosseschnauzer:

No, no. no. no. no.

1.) The FOI request and request that the Court 'further detail' their line of reasoning in deliberation is essentially asking us to violate double jeopardy by re-examining a not-guilty verdict which cannot be appealed under the rules of double jeopardy.

2.) Asking for a reexamination of the Court's decision as published and a detailed explanation of the reasoning of that decisions via a refinement of the decision or publishing of a log of private deliberations is asking the court to set a precedent that not guilty verdicts can be re-examined which is a violation of double jeopardy and, in this case, a request that the court legislate from the bench by setting an after-the-fact precedent through clarification or granularization of a decision beyond the scope and content of the published decision.

3.) Court deliberations are conducted in private via IRC or other means and are not public, and especially so since such deliberations were conducted in an IRC channel specifically created with limited access for the sake of privacy of deliberations and no prior consent was given for publication of such logs. To publish the logs of deliberation it would require the unanimous decision of all participants in order to be published.

I do not give permission, as a participant in what is unmitigatedly a private deliberation, for these logs to be published as per the provisions in TNP Law concerning the publication of private communications.

4.) Publication of the deliberation logs would call into question the very validity and integrity of the Court by allowing someone to question a not-guilty verdict by causing it to be re-examined again which in and of itself is a violation of double jeopardy regardless of the effect on the verdict.

5.) Separation of Powers between the three branches of government must be maintained as per Court Deliberations. If the Court permits their deliberations which are conducted in private as per practice and law, then the Court will be placed in the position to be coerced by the Legislative and Judicial branches of government thus violating the principle of separation of powers that is required in any Democracy and/or Republic.

6.) Asking a Court Justice or a Jury (in TNP, the Court also serves the role of a Jury) to explain their deliberations at all is tantamount to asking someone the color of their feces and what they ate to make it that color and to decide what other people can eat and when and what they can defecate.

And that is my opinion on this matter.

 

[Flemingovia]

I do not entirely agree with you.

First, the essence of the request was not for a the verdict to be re-examined. It was for the verdict to be explained in greater detail. I think both sides believe that the verdict was the right one, on the charges filed.

Second, the FOI request was suggested by a hearing officer as the way to obtain more detail on the ruling.

Third, While the principle of double jeopardy is sound, and protects citizens from abuse by a corrupt court, we need also to consider the rights of the plaintiff in the face of an incompetent or indifferent court. Just recently in Flemingovia vs Grosse, the court gave a summary judgement without even bothering to examine any evidence. this was unfair to all parties, yet the double jeopardy rules prevent any re-examination of the case. This was unfair especially to Grosse, who was dealt summary justice, and to myself, who was denied proper examination of the case and redress. My point is that double jeopardy sometimes stands in the way of justice, rather than ensuring it.

in the case of FOI requests concerning court deliberations, as a general rule I think it is a good idea that such discussions are kept in camera. However, I can see situations such as the above where there has been a suspected miscarriage of justice where it might be better for the matter to be opened up for public scrutiny. after all - it is ultimately the public's court.

 

[Romanoffia]

Double Jeopardy only comes into effect when a not-guilty verdict is found. A guilty verdict can be reexamined in criminal cases, but not a not-guilty verdict.

I can't agree that Double Jeopardy rules interfere with justice in any instance as double jeopardy protects only a person found not guilty. If someone is found guilty, nothing about Double Jeopard interferes with a reexamination of a guilty verdict. If Double Jeopardy errs, it errs on the side of caution on behalf of the exonerated.

The simple truth of the verdict which essentially upholds the legal definition of "Fraud" in the purest sense was that Grosse's actions, while slanderous and fraudulent were so in a civil sense but did not materially amount to "Fraud" in the criminal sense. Put in simple terms, "Fraud" would have been if Grosseschnauzer had done something materially to alter an election such as manipulate election results in the counting process or somehow denied someone the right to vote in order to influence an election. Fraud, in criminal terms is a material offense, no simply the uttering of a falsehood.

Also, Fraud requires that a person willingly do something deceptive with malice of forethought which materially causes harm or benefit to another person in an unlawful manner. Uttering something that one believes to be true isn't fraud, it's slander or libel which is not criminal but civil in a manner that it is an issue of equity and tort law. Also, the TNP law that pertains to Fraud, proper, does no cover slander or libel because:

1) Fraud is the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right and even if we include other principles involved with constructive fraud, extrinsic fraud and fraud in the inducement, Grosse's statements do not fall into those categories.

2.) What Grosse did is clearly slander/libel/defamation which is not covered under TNP Law in any way, shape or form, and the existing precedent is that charges of slander/libel/defamation have always been rejected by the Court because the law is silent on such tort offenses mainly because they are usually common law issues and common law offenses have never been recognized as a basis for legal action in TNP.

In detail, what Grosse did, not being fraud, would follow under the term of Defamation by Slander or Libel:

1. A defamatory statement;

2. Published to a third party; in this instance, the general public on TNP Forum.

3. Which the speaker knew or should have known was false;

4. That causes injury to the subject of the communication.

This is what Grosse should have been charged with had their been a specific law that covered Defamation in all of its forms. And, since Kingborough by his own admission suffered no damages as a result of Grosse's statements, it is certain that Fraud was not committed nor was slander nor libel actionable if there was a law concerning Defamation in those forms.

As it is, the definition of Fraud (even as it is improperly defined in TNP Law) was not met by Grosse's statements.

The problem is twofold -

1.) Fraud is mis-defined in TNP Law to the point that it is nearly impossible to prove as the law was written even applying the strict definition in a legal definition and too narrowly defined under TNP Law definition.

2.) TNP Law needs to recognize offenses as defined under Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law such as Slander, Libel, Defamation and all other forms of tort and injury. The legal code doesn't even have to specify each and every possible offense, only that Common Law is applied in terms of potential offenses commonly found in Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law. In other words, we can simply recognize Common Law principles and torts as a whole without having to detail each and every specific tort under Common Law (when someone does something shitty, it is easily recognized and there is always a point of Common Law that can be applied to such an offense).

Right now, Under TNP Law, one can freely commit slander/libel to one's heart's content because Defamation is not covered under TNP Code. Which is to say that if someone does something really shitty like saying bogus shit about someone that they know is not true just to damage that person's reputation (or do so with no effect) then no offense is committed at all because we don't recognize defamation as an offense.

Remember (and I didn't even consider this in deliberations), I had someone utter slanderous statements right here on this board in a public section of the forum and it initially cost me a seat on the SC (actual damages, and yes, Fraud because it denied me my right to be admitted to the SC due to a genuine case of Fraud) yet the Court refused to hear the case because they did not deem it 'Fraud' and that 'slander/libel' is not covered under TNP Law in any way shape or form. I believe Hile set that precedent for refusing to hear a Fraud complaint I filed with the AG a year or so ago. The Court essentially said that statements that are 'slander/libel' did not constitute fraud.

Hence, what Grosseschnauzer did also did not rise to the level of Fraud by any definition, nor violated any law at all. And I think the final published decision exactly reflects the facts and the line of reasoning in deliberations. Any further explanation would result in the same conclusion.

Actual deliberations conducted by the Court have always been held in private and there is no precedent for making such logs public. And, what if the deliberations were conducted via voice communications, and ephemeral, people would complain that the court is not being transparent. The Court is not supposed to be transparent in their deliberations just as juries are not liable to explain their decisions and neither can be compelled under any TNP law, including FOI to release or restate such deliberations. In fact, if any one of the Court does not give permission for a deliberation log to be published, it cannot be published and that claim is absolutely supported by TNP Law as to what constitutes a public vs. private means of communications in IRC or other chat formats.

If the Court ever acquiesced to publishing logs of deliberations when no such law requiring the Court to do so, it would be tantamount to the court submitting itself to a lesser position than the Executive and Legislative branches of government and have the effect of nullifying an independent Judiciary.

And, specifically, by practice and law, the Court isn't even required to issue an opinion at all with a verdict.

And, for that matter, the Court is entitled to issue an opinion or not as a deliberate act so as to not set a precedent that would essentially re-write a law to mean something entirely different than what the law specifically says. It would be a violation of the Spirit and Letter of the Law and in fact be a textbook definition of legislation from the bench.

If push comes to shove, I would be willing to write a specific opinion concerning the publication of Court deliberation logs and why is will not be done and personally take the heat for it. And it would be fairly air-tight in terms of logic, reason and rational so as to leave no doubt of the right of the court to not make it's deliberations public after the fact.

 

[Flemingovia]

That is interesting. Does this mean that the case of Flemingovia vs Grosse could be reopened?

 

[Romanoffia]

That's actually an interesting question. I can't seem to find the trial thread in the archives, but I am finding the matter intriguing because of the comment you made in the AG forum:

In the case of Flemingovia vs Grosse, I believe the court acted illegally and in disregard of it's own rules and procedures, in delivering a summary and cursory judgement without considering at all the evidence or the arguments of the case. This was prejudicial both to the plaintiff and the defendant.

If the judgment was summary in nature, it would have to follow a logical rule such as this:

Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.

Essentially, if the judgment was summary in nature, it would require an actual motion on the part of one party or another and that the non-movant would have to be in a position of not being able to produce or access a substantial quantity of factual information. Which means, a summary judgment can only occur if someone moves for such a judgment and the other party agrees to allowing the court to deliver a summary judgment in the event that both parties agree that there is not enough factual evidence to allow the court to act as a 'fact finder', per se.

Now, if the court used the term 'summary judgment' and there was not motion for a summary judgment, then it is technically a mistrial - and, summary judgments are not permitted in any rational legal system in a criminal case.

This brings up an interesting issue - a defendant who is found not guilty can be retried if there was a substantial procedural violation of any kind that rises to the level of violation of due process or results in an irregular process (that is, rules changed on the fly or rules ignored by the court).

But the interesting question is, if a defendant is found not-guilty as a result of totally irregular procedures or as a result of violation of due process, can that decision be overturned as a result of a not guilty result being due to a failure to deliver due process in a fair and impartial way?

The answer to this is most likely no, but there is a really big 'however': one would not be able to get a re-trial if there was a not-guilty verdict BUT if it can be proved that the Judges, the Court or the AG conducted the trial in a corrupt fashion, then the Judges, agents of the Court or the AG could be held liable for other criminal charges that are tantamount to corruption or dereliction of duty, or even the constitutional violation of failing to deliver or denying due process.

Now here's the real kicker, under Common Law/Anglo Saxon Positive Law in the US and Commonwealth Nations (and 99% of all nations in RL), if a Judge has been deemed corrupt or in dereliction of duty in a given case, then all of his previous cases in which a defendant was found guilty would then automatically be ripe for re-examination and retrial.

Actually, if a Justice of the Court (or Justices as it were) delivered a clearly corrupt decision via violation of procedures, etc.,,, such a situation, ironically given the recent case, would fall squarely under the TNP (and RL definition, for that matter) of Fraud, with all the bells and whistles. And it would be a genuine case of Criminal Material Fraud under principles of every legal system in existence in the world (possibly with the exception of tribal justice in Borneo Headhunter tribal courts in which case every would get cannibalized just to settle the matter).

Now, in TNP legalize all it would take is to convince just one Justice by presentation of all the material evidence and supported by a really good argument that corruption or fraud did indeed occur in the rendering of a judgment - which would mean a complete going over of the "transcripts" (which is everything that appeared in the trial thread, in detail, including evidence that was disallowed, but not the actual deliberation of the justices involved which is by definition ephemeral).

The only people that would swing for it would be the justice who presided (as the other justices are only permitted to deliberate on the evidence the presiding justice permitted into the record). But a defendant who was found not guilty would get off Scott free provided they were not involved in the corruption.

The ultimate result is that it would probably set a couple of really interesting precedents because it would require the court to state on the record their reasons for either taking up or rejecting such a complaint.

It would be interesting to look at provided a law or constitutional point could be logically and rationally applied to what evidence of wrong doing could be found in the actual transcripts of a trial. A tool for order (meaning rules in general) can be wielded as a weapon if placed in particularly creative hands - and that is the nature or legalistic machinations and all part of the 'game'.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Roman, I am confident that Flem was using the term "summary" rhetorically, and not in the technical sense you have construed it, and this topic has wandered far off course. Please refrain from discussing the pending review before the court with the petitioner >_<

As regards the FOIA, I am disinclined to issue any further explanation, nor do I want to see the logs released. Personally, I don't think every trial verdict needs to be a legal review of the definition of the crime the defendant was charged with. I think the verdict we released was sufficient for the purposes of a verdict in a criminal trial, and it does not mean that every time someone says "I believe" that they are immune to fraud. It simply means that in this case, Grosse was not guilty, which is what a not guilty verdict is supposed to do. I think if people want to know more about the definition of fraud, a request for review is in order, not an expansion of a verdict in a criminal trial.

Also, I believe it would be illegal for McM to release the trial deliberations without us explicitly giving him the text of the deliberation, since he is not allowed into the private archive in his capacity as delegate. I think it was improper for him to read that thread in the first place. Besides the issue that the court might not be subject to FOIA requests...

 

[Romanoffia]

As regards the FOIA, I am disinclined to issue any further explanation, nor do I want to see the logs released. Personally, I don't think every trial verdict needs to be a legal review of the definition of the crime the defendant was charged with. I think the verdict we released was sufficient for the purposes of a verdict in a criminal trial, and it does not mean that every time someone says "I believe" that they are immune to fraud. It simply means that in this case, Grosse was not guilty, which is what a not guilty verdict is supposed to do. I think if people want to know more about the definition of fraud, a request for review is in order, not an expansion of a verdict in a criminal trial.

Also, I believe it would be illegal for McM to release the trial deliberations without us explicitly giving him the text of the deliberation, since he is not allowed into the private archive in his capacity as delegate. I think it was improper for him to read that thread in the first place. Besides the issue that the court might not be subject to FOIA requests...

I agree on both points.

I suspect that an FOIA requrest for the deliberation transcripts like asking for the walls to repeat a conversation they heard, hence, it is ephemeral and essentially non-existent for all practical terms. Also, since by nature, court deliberations are in private, asking for their release is like asking the court to release evidence not entered into the official transcript (evidence that was objected to and removed from consideration, etc.).

It would be clearly illegal for the Delegate to unilaterally on his own decision to release the logs of the deliberations as it would be a clear violation of separation of powers and be tantamount to denying the independence of the Judiciary.