Mall
TNPer
Was Romanoffia's rejection of the petition to the broader Court located within this appeal the decision of the entire Court or merely his own? Per TNP law:
Clarification
- Thread starter Mall
- Start date
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
That only applies to requests for reviews that do not pertain to ongoing cases or proceedings; it also does not apply to motions made in the course of trials.Mall:
This pertains specifically to an ongoing trial and would interfere with the Presiding Justice's duties, powers and responsibilities.
Denied.
If you have any motions or requests for clarifications that apply directly to TNOP v. JAL, please address them to the Presiding Justice there, not all over the forum like a whining little brat.
Your attention to this matter will be appreciated. Please follow due process and procedural rules.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Uh, that sort of sounds like a ruling on the law and a Court opinion, except for the fact that only one Justice is making that "ruling".Romanoffia:
This all seems highly questionable, legally speaking.
When I read Mall's appeal in the other thread, quite frankly, I felt that much of it belonged within the actual trial itself.
This "clarification" seems like "double post". The trial itself appears to be moving towards out-of-control but it would be nice if that didn't move to the review area as well.
This "clarification" seems like "double post". The trial itself appears to be moving towards out-of-control but it would be nice if that didn't move to the review area as well.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Read the Court Rules. Presiding Justices have the authority to do exactly that. In fact, the CJ can create new rules on the fly where no such rules exist.Blue Wolf II:
It's in the rules and the rules are the rules and those are the rules and we must obey the rules because that's what the rules say and those are the rules.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Doesn't making up arbitrary rules mid-trial undermine the legitimacy of the Court?
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Not at all. It's been done many times before in order to assure a trial occurs and moves on. This rule change (or loosening of the rules, to be exact is very calculated and not arbitrary because it is having the effect of moving this trial forwardBlue Wolf II:
The 'legitimacy' of the Court has no relevance here.
Court Rules clearly state that the CJ can create rules where no specific rule exists. Before, we had a trial that was going nowhere and now we have a trial that is proceeding once again on schedule.
Hence, if in the name of Justice and Due Process it becomes necessary for me to allow or require the Defence or Prosecution to address me as "Your Honour The Right Perfect Bastard Romanoffia", then I will allow or require it. Sometimes you have to dig through tonnes of sh*t to find a nugget of gold, but alas, the gold is bound to be in there somewhere. Of course, by 'gold' I mean the actual and relevant facts or lack thereof.
In other words, what the Hell does it matter if I tolerate or encourage otherwise disruptive behaviour on the part of certain individual is it results in the truth being arrived at? As long as the results are legitimate, no one burst a hemorrhoid and bleeds all over their breeches, who the Hell cares?
Unconventional, certainly.
And besides, everyone around here needs to lighten up a bit and have a little fun with it all.
You may now address me as "The Honourable Right Perfect Bastard Romanoffia" or "The Honourable Mr. Romanoffia, Right Perfect Bastard."
If you call me "Sweety Pie", I will kick you square in the pills.
Blue Wolf II is correct. This particular statement has no basis in either law or previous court ruling.Romanoffia:
To answer Mall's original request for clarification, the rejection from Romanoffia was his own and not made on behalf of the Court. A three-member decision will be rendered shortly.
This is becoming absurd, so iLock.