Urgent Request for Review: Re TNP Vs. King Durk the Awesome

I would like to file an appeal to the wider Court requesting a series of issues which have cropped up in the current trial. Due to the urgent nature of the trial I request that the full Court put a halt to the trial until these matters are settled since their resolution is crucial to the completion of the pre-trial phase and indeed the rest of the trial.

Issues 1: Does the Court have the power to violate Article 7 of the Bill of Rights regarding the Nation's right to select their counsel?

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Click to expand...

The bolded section is the area in question. In the current trial the presiding Justice has threatened to remove the Defense on the following grounds:

And, yes, the Court does have the authority to remove disruptive or incompetent defence attorneys and provide the Defendant with new and competent council.

Click to expand...

It seems to be the case that the Bill of Rights is explicitly clear, the Court has no right to decide for the defendant whether their Defense is competent. The current defense team was clearly appointed by the Defendant in the trial thread.

Issue 2: Does the presiding Justice have the power to preemptively dismiss all motions for dismissal in the pre-trial motions?

The presiding Justice has declared that all pre-trial motions will be rejected.

The case will not be dismissed. It is going to trial.

Click to expand...

This seems to be a very obvious issue although I am admittedly unsure of which laws it violates, perhaps because I am having difficulty determining which laws and rights it doesn't violate.

Issue 3: Does the Court have the power to violate Article 7 of the Bill of Rights regarding the Nation's right to a fair, impartial trial?

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Click to expand...

The presiding Justice has openly called into question the impartiality of the other Justices involved in the trial, meaning that there is no way that the the Court can legally try the Defendant.

Believe me when I tell you, I am the Defendant's best bet for having a fair trial based upon the facts.

Click to expand...

Thus the Court has stated that the Court, as a whole, is biased. The presiding Justice then dismissed the motion to dismiss charges relating to this. Can it then be concluded that the Court can override the Seventh clause of the Bill of Rights in this instance?

Issue 4: Does the Court have the right to violate the 9th Clause of the Bill of Rights regarding the right to equal treatment?

The BOR states that

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

Click to expand...

The Court has previously ruled that it may allow individuals to skirt the laws of the region when it is in the region's best interest.

As for the specific case of Treize_Dreizehn, the Court rules that his original admission to the Regional Assembly was not lawful...

Therefore, Treize_Dreizehn's membership in the Regional Assembly is not revoked.

Click to expand...

However the presiding Justice was unwilling to hear arguments relating to this matter as demonstrated here. Please note that the motion was dismissed without consideration, rather than considered as legitimate and then dismissed. If Treize Dreizehn has the privilege of being granted immunity from regional laws in a certain instance then the 9th clause of the BORs requires that the Court acknowledge such a possibility in other cases and provide a reasoning for accepting or dismissing such a claim.



The Defense team thanks the Court for its consideration of these pressing matters and stands by for comments and questions. We do request that Romanoffia recuse himself in these matters. Thank you.

To entertain this request would be prejudicial to an on going trial and thus deny the defendant due process and the right to a speedy trial.

Review for Request...............................

Rejected.

I'll note that there was a request for the above Justice to recuse themselves from this matter for obvious reasons. If the Court as a whole could take a look that would be excellent. I hereby petition the Court to overturn the above rejection.

Mall:

I'll note that there was a request for the above Justice to recuse themselves from this matter for obvious reasons. If the Court as a whole could take a look that would be excellent. I hereby petition the Court to overturn the above rejection.

Click to expand...

And once again, I am the Presiding Justice in this case. I am the sole arbiter as to what is relevant to this case in terms of motions and evidence. The 'wider court' has no say in what goes on in this trial as they only deliberate upon the evidence at the end of the trial.

Again, I am the Presiding Justice and what I say is what will be.

Request......................


Denied, again.

Also, the Court will no longer entertain any requests for review of any issue involving ongoing trials due to the potentially prejudicial nature of rendition of such reviews.

Nice try, don't waste your time making the same motions more than once.

This is a dead issue. My word here is final on this request for the above stated reasons.

If you have any requests for review of procedure or points of law, please make them in the trial thread. You have 24 hours before Pre-trial ends and Discovery begins.

I will only deal with such motions and reviews pertinent to TNP v. JAL in the appropriate trial thread.


Please not that for your records.


Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Mall:

If the Court as a whole could take a look that would be excellent. I hereby petition the Court to overturn the above rejection.

Click to expand...

The Court will have a response shortly.

Yeah, I was going to say, I didn't think a single Justice could outright refuse to hear a Request for Review on behalf of the entire Court, even if that person is the Chief Justice, and even if it is relating to a Criminal matter.

I'm not even sure Roman should be involved in this process, considering the Request for Review is about the legality of a decision he just made. It would make sense if he recused himself.

No, I'm not going to recuse myself in an way shape or form.

Since I am the target of this request by Mall, I have every right to my say in this matter and to defend myself. Wouldn't want to deny anyone of their Constibilicode rights now, would we?

I don't believe you are the "target" at all, rather this is just a Request for Review on your decision, something which happens from time to time to a lot of Justices.

You seem to be taking this as a personal attack, Roman.

Keep in mind, though, you can defend your actions in a briefing to the Court while recusing yourself and allowing a temporary replacement to be appointed. Staying on for this case don't just grant you your legal right to be heard, it also gives you the self-serving ability to make a ruling on the legality of your own decision, one you made not even a day ago.

That's a conflict of interest and a pretty blatant abuse of power.

Blue Wolf II:

I don't believe you are the "target" at all, rather this is just a Request for Review on your decision, something which happens from time to time to a lot of Justices.

You seem to be taking this as a personal attack, Roman.

Keep in mind, though, you can defend your actions in a briefing to the Court while recusing yourself and allowing a temporary replacement to be appointed. Staying on for this case don't just grant you your legal right to be heard, it also gives you the self-serving ability to make a ruling on the legality of your own decision, one you made not even a day ago.

That's a conflict of interest and a pretty blatant abuse of power.

Click to expand...

Uh, no.

The issue of disruption of the trial has been fairly solved. Check the trial thread.

The Defence will have the opportunity to register a Motion to Dismiss should they have a legitimate belief that there is either a lack of evidence or insufficient evidence or no evidence at all at the beginning of the trial phase. I assure everyone that should it be the case that the evidence is lacking or otherwise insufficient, said motion will assuredly be entertained by the Court at that time.

Also, if you actually look in on the trial thread, you will find that I have gone so far as to allow the Defence Team to hurl all the invective, accusations and abuse at the Court that they want to. In fact I am encouraging them to do so in the name of completing this trial one way or another.

No sitting Justice in the history of the Court has ever displayed this level of tolerance for shenanigans that I have allowed.

In fact, Mall has noted that he is looking forward to the trial phase in light of the magnificently self deprecating lenience I have extended to the Defence.

I can assure everyone a most entertaining trial with lots of invective and abuse that will result in a delightfully captivating trial for anyone with a sense of humour.

(Notice that I am mostly using British spelling and orthography where possible in deference to Flemingovia and other Brit types on the board. Defence, Defence, Defence!).

So, Mr. Wolf, get with the program, grab some popcorn and feel free to hurl invective at the movie screen.

I prefer to throw my popcorn at the projector room.

I think you're missing the fact, Roman, that this is not about the "issue of disruption of the trial" but rather seeking clarification if the rulings questioned in Mall's original post were legal or not.

You clearly think so Roman, or at least I would assume you do since you made the rulings, but your fellow Justices may disagree.