[Private]Mall's Request

[Romanoffia]

Mall's request:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1.) Moot point since the Court has not done this.

2.) The Court has only dismissed repeated motions to dismiss based upon the fact that each motion to dismiss was just a repeat and restatement of the first motion to dismiss, in which instances said motions were groundless. The Court has the right to dismiss any and all motions that are repetitions of the same motion.

3.) The Court has not denied anyone the right to a fair trial. The trial will continue our of fairness and the right of the defendant to have a fair trial. In fact, the actual trial has not even begun yet (viz.: this is the pre-trial phase.

4.) TD's admission to the RA is irrelevant to TNP v. JAL and is moot.

The Court notes that all motions were considered, even those that were dismissed. The Court as a general rule will not hear repeats of a motion that was previously dismissed.

The Court fails to understand the logic of the Defense, who demands a fair trial, also demands that no trial be conducted.


----------------------------------------------------------

That said, the alternative is that I dismiss this case with prejudice so that the AG can bring it again. Be aware, that if this happens then we set the precedent that the Defense can turn a trial into a circus, remove any judge from the bench it wants on bogus claims and preempt the possibility of even having trials in the future. It would establish that a defense could simply nullify any charges against any defendant by simple bad behavior and simple refusal to cooperate.

Should that happen, then we might as well do away with the Court altogether because if Mall and TD get away with this tactic, then it's the end of the Court, the Constitution and anything resembling a legal system.

Here's the kicker, if I recuse myself or am otherwise required to recuse myself as Presiding Justice, bias on part of the Court is admitted despite the fact that no such bias exists; and then the next claim will be that no fair trial can be had because of such an admission. And as such, a precedent for preventing the prosecution of any criminal charges would impossible and the Court would be nothing more than a farce.

So, let's present a unified front on this instead of letting Mall and TD make a mockery of everything. We cannot permit people to bully the court as a legal tactic or strategy.

Again, if we let Mall and TD get away with this, then we might as well just abolish the Court altogether because that will be the effect.

The alternative is that I dismiss the case with prejudice and let some other poor bastard sit on the case, some poor bastard who I assure you will get the same treatment I am receiving at present.

 

[SillyString]

I think we know pretty well where you stand on all of this. But because they're now making appeals to the wider court, Ator and I are going to have to figure out where we stand.

 

[SillyString]

Roman, can I ask that you not dismiss things that you've already dismissed and have been appealed to the full court? People do have the right to appeal to the panel, and it won't look good at all if you post to reject something and then Ator and I need to come back and overrule that.

The more we can decide on together as a team, the easier this will go.

 

[Romanoffia]

Actually, I am contemplating dismissing the entire case on the grounds of incompetent council and sending it back to the AG and have done with it.

Everyone wants to see Mall and TD win the fight, so why not give everyone exactly what they are begging for?

That way, someone else can handle the whole matter and I can wash my hands of it and Mall and TD get their way and everyone is happy at the shame the legal system is as a result of Mall and TD trolling.

I am washing my hands of this case.

 

[SillyString]

If you want to wash your hands of this case, you can. Ator and I are both capable of taking over trial moderation. That would, I think, be preferable to letting things run amok.

 

[Romanoffia]

Oh, no. I have decided to continue moderating this case. I will use any legitmate means to get a trial concluded even if those methods are unorthodox.

Also, on Mall's request, the CJ can make rule changes on the fly as needed if you read the rules.

Besides, if you look in on the trial, the method to the madness is working.

 

[SillyString]

The CJ can create rules where none exist. That's not actually equivalent to saying that the CJ can change existing rules that were agreed upon by the Court, and it definitely doesn't mean that the CJ can create rules which violate rights granted by the Constibillocode.

When the Court Rules say that appeals can be made to the full court when decisions are rendered by one person, the CJ can't just say "nuh uh" just because they're the one moderating the case. The court as a whole has to decide to accept or reject.

 

[Romanoffia]

I'm not trying to be a hard-headed bastard here, but you are making a reallllllllllly big mistake here that will backfire.

The problem is that a series of inane appeals can be made by the defense or even the prosecution to the point that they amount to nothing more than repetitive appeals on the same issue over and over again. It's a delay tactic and when someone incessantly makes false claims of bias because they legitimately don't get their way, they appeal and appeal again as a means to disrupt a trial.

In any real court of law worth its weight in shit, if a Judge denies a dismissal motion on the grounds on 'insufficient evidence' once, any and all further motions for dismissal on the same grounds are null and void and are by the very definition of, contempt of court.

What we have had here is a situation whereby I decided that there is sufficient evidence to continue this trial. Mall and TD got upset because I denied the motion. Then, because they didn't get their way, they claimed that I was biased against the defendant because I refused to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Then they demand a recusal on the basis of a straw-man argument of 'bias' and then hurl insults of a most contemptible nature against the court, which is disruptive.

Now, consider this point of logic - If the court has determined that there is sufficient evidence to continue a trial it would only be logical that such evidence does not simply evaporate suddenly producing a condition of insufficient evidence. And considering that there is sufficient evidence and it has been determined that there is sufficient evidence as the result of a denial of dismissal on those ground, for the defence to incessantly make the same motion to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence after a state of sufficient evidence has been established is nothing more than contempt of court at worst and idiocy and obnoxiousness on the part of the defence at best.

Hence, it is logical after the first denial of a specific motion on specific grounds for a judge to deny subsequent identical motions thereafter in a blanket form.

The very fact that you even entertained Mall's appeal makes you specifically and the court generally look stupid for entertaining idiocy created and designed to annoy.

Now, what is going to look even more silly is if the Defence, after depositions and evidential submissions that are admissible under rules of evidence and logic, turns out to be correct that there is indeed insufficient evidence to the point that a conviction is impossible; and in which instance if the Defence moves to dismiss at that point (the beginning of the trial phase) on the grounds of insufficient evidence, I won't lose any sleep over doing so. As the presiding justice I have the sole authority to dismiss a case without any consultation with the greater court should insufficient evidence be the case.

The problem here is that on one hand, the decisions of the Court are final which means no appeals of decisions by the Court. On the other hand we have provisions for appeal that in effect nullify all final decisions of the Court at every step right up to and including the final verdict. And you have fallen right into Mall and TD's trap on this one.

We have procedural rules and I would like to think that the greater court has some sense of logic when it comes to repeat motions and motions made at procedurally wrong times.

What you are doing now with Mall's request is this:

The evidence says that the color red is red. The Defense makes a motion that red is not red, but green. It has been established that red is indeed red by logic and reason and therefore the motion that red is actually green is denied by the court. Then the prosecution claims bias and appeals the decision that red is red in an attempt to prove that red is actually green and the presiding judge is biased against all things green because while it has been determined that red is actually red, the presiding justice is somehow biased because he refuses to see something as something which it clearly is not.

Then the defence appeals their assertions that red is actually green and you entertain a request that is clearly designed to make the court look like a bunch of jackasses for even entertaining the thought that red is actually anything but red.

And then the defence makes the same motion again and again that red is actually green and you will somehow feel required to entertain pranks designed to reaffirm that you can be bullied because the defence thinks you are an idiot. And frankly, entertaining their request essentially proves it in the eyes of anyone with two brain cells to rub together because you entertained pure idiocy in the first place.

And the irony is that no matter what you and Ator decide regardless of what I have to say about it is that you two will get raked over the coals and made a mockery of by public opinion and I will come out smelling like roses because I now have managed to get Mall and TD to be eating out of my hand.

Now, if you and Ator give Mall his way, you look like an even bigger pair of numpties because everyone will eventually see it as Mall having put one over on you in a most epic fashion. And both of you will be seen as people who will do anything to bend to political considerations rather than the dispensing of justice and proper order to arrive at justice.

And in the mean time, I manage to conduct a trial under the most extenuating of circumstances to it's appropriate conclusion either way to a metaphorical statement on my part of I told you so.

Political motivations in jugements legal do not even enter into my realm of thought. I do not do the wrong thing just to satisfy loud-mouthed anarchic complainers whose goal is to cause disruption. I do not bend to the opinions of a mob just to satisfy political conditions. I do not make decisions according to public opinion which in my humble opinion is exactly what you are doing here whether you wish to admit it or not.

But I am not worried about political fallout of any Court decisions I have no say in constructing, especially since my concerns are largely going to be ignored anyway. And if asked about it, I will express this fact.

Again, nothing personal here, but you are about to make a realllllllllllly big mistake if you are not careful.

 

[SillyString]

The full court has to consider appeals. It doesn't have to grant them or overturn the original decision, but it does need to decide as a body.

Additionally, motions to dismiss aren't permitted after the period for pretrial motions ends. So the Defense cannot later motion to dismiss, they have to do it now. It's one of the problems with the current court rules, but it is the rule.

Both sides have the right to appeal matters to the full court, which yes, can cause frustrating delays when taken to extremes. But that's better than the alternative of providing no way to overrule a justice who is legitimately biased and making wrong decisions (not saying or implying that's the case here - it's just not an impossible hypothetical to contemplate. I know there are people I can't be unbiased for, for example).

 

[Romanoffia]

I disagree about motions to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence being invalid after the Pre-Trial phase - mainly on the grounds of logic.

Face it, most indictments in TNP contain insufficient evidence to even warrant a trial but we generally accept those indictments for trial.

The pre-trial phase doesn't concern itself with evidence since no real evidence other than the claims of the Indictment are presented. Therefore, there is no real evidence to be considered during the pre-trial phase.

This is a flaw in our entire system and it mainly hinges on a 'pre-trial' phase existing in the first place.

The pre-trial phase needs to be either eliminated or be places after Discover as it is done in real Courts and for all the same reasons and logic it is that way in real Courts.

The result is that the whole of TNP legal matters and the Court are based more upon who to satisfy public opinion and not in the administration of impartial justice.

Now, again, as I have noted, I have put a lid on Mall and TD as per their shenanigans in the Court Room. Please don't do anything to change that.

And, for the record, I am being bombarded with attempts to influence my handling of this case, not only from all sides but also from the greater court, that the case is on the verge of being contaminated to the point that it will result in a mistrial on the grounds that such pressure is contaminating the evidence and procedure.

Also, be aware that if I am forced to relinquish presidency over this trial by any way shape or form, I will be forced to explain the matter publicly in order to vindicate my actions. Of course, this means that I either recused or was removed due to political concerns involving satisfying public opinion being more important that justice. And, of course, a simple statement to that effect would create a situation where not only this trial but all future trials would be nothing more than a sham involving the Court doing whatever the loudest complainers want to force the court to do.

I have people threatening me in all directions to do what they want or they will try to recall me as a Justice. Believe me when I say, no one, even those who are threatening me want that to happen mainly because of the precedent it will set and the immediate results of that precedent. I think I have sufficiently made that clear to you elsewhere.

Rest assured, Mall and TD would make mincemeat out of you and Ator in this case. They have the ability and tenacity to do it and I have absolute faith in them that they are quite capable of doing so. They know how to game the system and will not hesitate to do so and they will. The worst part is that anything you do to try to stop them will only damage you. I, on the other hand have found a way to keep them civil and carry out this trial to a verdict. And all my detractors will look like utter fools no matter how this plays out.

I have all possible contingencies covered so that I come out of this smelling like roses. No matter how it turns out other than the process I have started, I get the last laugh and the detractors get bitch-slapped my their own hands. It's just a matter of whether or not the greater court has the spine to stand up and do what best preserves justice as opposed to just caving in to public opinion.

Frankly, I would rather stand up and preserve justice than be a spineless jellyfish and just cave in to troll tactics. At least I have my self respect and dignity instead of the momentary praise that appeasers have and which will lead to their downfall.

If I do recuse myself, it will be under the stated conditions that I cannot conduct a trial under all manner of threats are intended to influence the Court and that this particular trial can never be tried fairly due to the failure of the entire legal system to deliver impartial justice without Justices being under a constant threat of recall or other abuse.

I can prevent a mistrial. However, if I am no longer presiding justice or leave the court, I will most assuredly be called as a defence witness to testify about what I am being subjected to. And that will result in the total collapse of the legal system if I am honest in my answers. I'm trying to save the Court and the legal system but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the efforts because of all the abuse I receive for trying to do the right thing.

You do whatever you feel you need to do and I will do whatever I need to do to see that Justice is impartially served regardless of where I happen to be at any given time.

Either way, I assure you justice will be served in the smallest and largest sense of the term.