Request for Review: Fair Trial

Blue Wolf II

Blue Wolf II

A Wolf Most Blue
-
-
TNP Nation
Blue_Wolf_II
As demanded by the Court, I am resubmitting my Request for Review regarding a probable Bill of Rights violation that has arisen as part of the Court's handling of the Tomb trial. I will be submitting this request using the Court mandated cookie-cutter template what was invented to "reduce confusion". I apologized to everyone for being forced to submit this abomination of literature.

I hereby request that the Court review the following <government policy>:
<Court Ruling made Jun 20 2015>
Click to expand...
I believe that the above <policy> has violated the following portion of the Bill of Rights:
<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...
I believe that it has violated the Bill of Rights in the following way: <The Court ruled without hearing any argument from the Defense. This allowed not one single word to be spoken on behalf of the accused and ensured that the Court would only hear one side of the argument, the Prosecution. As such, the Defendant was deprived of their right to a Fair Trial, as no one can argue that a "trial" where the Court allows for only one side to present their case can ever be considered "just and fair". Additionally, it opens the door for abuse, as Defendants who do not enter a plea are automatically considered "Not Guilty". If they do not show up to their trial and are essentially tried "in absentia" then they will get no defense at all and will almost assuredly be found guilty by default.>

I cite the following ruling by the Court in support of my request, issued by Justice <Crushing Our Enemies> on <Jan 14 2014>:
<The court realizes the difficulty of moderating a trial in which the defendant does not participate, but it is not appropriate to issue a default ruling in favor of the plaintiff when that occurs. In cases where the defendant is unable to participate in trial proceedings, or even select their defense attorney, it would be appropriate for the court to delay the trial until the defendant is able to appear. However, if it can be demonstrated to the court that the defendant is able to participate, but chooses not to do so, it would be appropriate for the court to appoint a defense attorney and continue the trial in their absence. There may be other legal and constitutional ways to handle an absentee defendant.>
Click to expand...
This ruling supports my request in the following way: <establishes that there was already a Court precedent that cases should not be ruled upon without affording a defense to the Defendant, even if that Defendant is not present or chooses not to participate. Also established a precedent of the Court appoint defense attorneys.>

This <government policy> has specifically violated my <right> to: <a fair trial>
It has violated my <right> in the following way: <one can not expect to receive a fair criminal trial if the Court continues to make judgements without hearing arguments from both sides.>
Click to expand...
 
The precedent cited within this R4R outlines events that did not occur in TNP v. Tomb.

Tomb was able to participate and did so.

Tomb was able to enter a plea of 'Not Guilty' and did so.

Tomb was able to appoint his own defense counsel and did so.

At no point did Tomb indicate he could not move forward with the trial after his requested and granted delays were dealt with.

At no point did Tomb indicate that his appointed defense team had been wholly removed and that he was unable to appoint new counsel.

The Court can not assume that a defendant is not represented if that defendant could participate, does participate, and names his own counsel.

The defense was not restricted in any way, shape, or form from posting a defense. They chose not to. The defense is not obligated to provide a defensive statement and the Court is not obligated to make assumptions about the defenses motivations for not doing so.

This request for review should be rejected by the Court on the continued grounds that no BoR violation could have taken place in this manner because the defendant was active, did participate, entered his own plea, and named his own counsel. Again, the Court can not force the defense to present argumentation, but the opportunity to do so was very evident.

EDIT: Also - Happy Birthday, BWII
 
Since apparently we're commenting on this, I would like to point out that Blue Wolf was not on trial in TNP v Tomb so his right to a fair trial was certainly not violated.
 
Eluvatar:
Since apparently we're commenting on this, I would like to point out that Blue Wolf was not on trial in TNP v Tomb so his right to a fair trial was certainly not violated.
Click to expand...
Sure it was. Tomb v. TNP established that the Court may rule on any criminal matter after hearing an argument only from the Prosecution, thus opening the door for a Bill of Rights violation to occur for anyone tried in the future.

I don't believe I have to wait to be put on trial, and my right to a fair trial more explicitly and immediately threatened, to ask for this policy to be reviewed for Rights violations now.
 
To clarify, as Attorney General I was giving my official position on this particular R4R. Not simply providing 'commentary'.
 
Which is irrelevant, because my request concerns the policy laid down by the current Justices, not by the Office of the Attorney General. Your involvement in this request, as Attorney General, is peripheral, at best.

Ivan, you have no more right to post here on this matter than any other citizen does. However, citing Court procedure, I don't think you, as a citizen, should be posting commentary here at all. If you are later asked to post as the serving Attorney General, that would be a different matter, but as I said, this matter doesn't directly concern your office, for the moment.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Which is irrelevant, because my request concerns the policy laid down by the current Justices, not by the Office of the Attorney General. Your involvement in this request, as Attorney General, is peripheral, at best.

Ivan, you have no more right to post here on this matter than any other citizen does. However, citing Court procedure, I don't think you, as a citizen, should be posting commentary here at all. If you are later asked to post as the serving Attorney General, that would be a different matter, but as I said, this matter doesn't directly concern your office, for the moment.
Click to expand...
Actually, as Attorney General I have standing in any and all R4Rs brought before the Court. My position is that of legal counsel to the government, chief prosecutor, and general manager of the prosecutorial process, which this most certainly pertains to.
 
Attorney General, this is not a criminal matter. There is no "chief prosecutor", there are no "prosecutorial processes".

While it might be true that you could be called on to provide "legal counsel" to the three Justices of the Court, they can literally call upon any citizen to provide such counsel but have yet to do so here.

I would please ask for you to refrain until the Justices specifically call upon the Attorney General's office for "legal counsel". I would also ask that those posts which are unrelated to this request be split out into another thread.

Thank you.
 
It has been too long. BW, the Court will no longer yield to your attempts to derail justice.

This R4R is denied. The petitioner does not have standing before the Court in this matter. Furthermore, further R4R's regarding this trial by anyone who does not have anything to do with this case will be ignored.
 
It's been very clear from the start that I am not asking the Court to rule on the Tomb vs. TNP case, only the decision that arose from it. I am not appealing the Court decision on Tomb's case, and if Plembobria had bothered to even glance at the request, that would have been made abundantly clear.

Since Plembobria doesn't even understand what the Request for Review is challenging, I am appealing to the Court as a whole under Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Adopted Court Rules.

Hopefully they will understand that this matter is not a request challenging the ruling on the Tomb case and hasn't been from the start. It is a request to review the policy of allowing a trial to finish through to competition without hearing an argument from the Defense.
 
Blue Wolf II:
It's been very clear from the start that I am not asking the Court to rule on the Tomb vs. TNP case, only the decision that arose from it. I am not appealing the Court decision on Tomb's case, and if Plembobria had bothered to even glance at the request, that would have been made abundantly clear.

Since Plembobria doesn't even understand what the Request for Review is challenging, I am appealing to the Court as a whole under Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Adopted Court Rules.

Hopefully they will understand that this matter is not a request challenging the ruling on the Tomb case and hasn't been from the start. It is a request to review the policy of allowing a trial to finish through to competition without hearing an argument from the Defense.
Click to expand...
TNP Court Rules:
Chapter 3: Decorum

Section 2: General Conduct

1. All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists.
Click to expand...

Is this the grounds you meant? Because I can not see how this is relevant.

That said, there is no grounds for this request as precedent has not been set. The defendant is not obligated to present a defense and in any case, in this specific instance the defendant did present a defense by posting his plea of 'not guilty', which is the only defense necessary. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, no nation is obligated to testify, no nation is required to present evidence that they did not commit a crime.

Regardless, the R4R has been denied. I am certain you can (and probably will) submit another, but the bottom line is that you are asking the Court to review something impossible. It can not review an instance of a defendant choosing not to present argumentation in their defense because the defendant is not legally obligated to do so in the first place.

If the opportunity to respond and present argumentation had been withheld, I would support your position, but the defendant was active and had an active and present defense team at least to the date of the verdict.
 
plembobria:
You are not an affected party, Blue Wolf.
Click to expand...
That's not applicable nor grounds for denying my appeal, Plembobria.

According to the Court's own rules, the appeal must now be considered by the Court as a whole.

Or are we just going to ignore the rules whenever it fits the agenda of the day?

Ivan:
It can not review an instance of a defendant choosing not to present argumentation in their defense because the defendant is not legally obligated to do so in the first place.

If the opportunity to respond and present argumentation had been withheld, I would support your position, but the defendant was active and had an active and present defense team at least to the date of the verdict.
Click to expand...

Again, I do not understand the Court and Attorney General's obsession with confusing my request with an appeal.

I am not, I will put special emphasis on this, I am not appealing the Court's verdict in Tomb vs. TNP. I am not challenging the Guilty verdict, I am not asking the Court to review Tomb's case.

What I am asking is for the Court to review, in all future case, if the Court may rule Guilt or Innocence without having to hear from the Defense.

So, again, if you think this is an appeal of Tomb's trial, you are wrong.
 
And again, I am aware that this is not an appeal, because it isn't presented as an appeal.

What I am confused about is your obsession with stating that the defence was not heard. It was. Tomb posted 'not guilty'.
 
Irrelevant.

The case still opened the door for citizens to be tried without a Defense argument. This would allow people who are tried in absentia, who automatically plea "Not Guilty" by not showing up, to be ruled upon with no one speaking in their Defense, a grave misjustice. It would also mean that people who plea "Not Guilty" but then don't show up for their case can similarly be ruled on with no one speaking in their defense.

That policy directly contradicts a Court Ruling made by then justice COE, which I cited in the first post. A Request for Review to resolve this contradiction is needed to clarify Courtroom procedure.

As far as Tomb's case, to reiterate, this Request for Review doesn't effect it. Even if the Court ruled to overturn their policy due to it being a Bill of Rights violation, Tomb would still have to appeal personally in order for him to get a new trial. Plembobria can kindly take note of that.
 
No, it does not contradict the ruling you cite because the defendant was able and did take part in the trial. The current situation is not the same as that in the ruling. If Tomb had been tried in absentia then the Court would need to take that ruling into consideration. But, that isn't what happened here. Unlike the ruling you mention, Tomb submitted his own plea, appointed his own defense, and participated in the trial.
 
Ivan, you seem to be purposefully confusing Tomb "being around" with Tomb being defended. Tomb got no defense and he never explicitly stated that his wish was to not be defended. Just the opposite can be inferred, since he appointed three people to represent him. Clearly he wished to be defended, but wasn't. Had he stated he didn't want to be defended, Ivan, you might have had a good point, but he didn't, so you don't.

None the less, the meat of the issue here is that no one spoke on his behalf, not even his appointed defense team. This lack of a defense directly goes against the position the Court had already taken in an earlier Request for Review.

It has been show that the Court feels that a Defendant no longer needs to be given a defense in cases of the accused being absent, silent, neglectful, or in other similar circumstances. I submit that such a stance is both in contradiction with prior Court rulings and a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, this policy can not be allowed to continue and must be stopped. The law is clear.
 
The Court can not be aware of what Tomb might have discussed with his counsel. The Justices are not psychic. What is clear is that Tomb did enter a plea, did appoint his own defense counsel, and did participate in the trial. That is fact. It is also clear that defense is not obligated to present argumentation because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. That too is fact.

Your argument is entirely speculative. And it does not set precedent because the law is clear in that defense does not have to testify. In the future, if a defendant is present and takes part he or she will get the opportunity to present a defense. If he or she chooses not to do so then that is their right under our law. This ruling in no way implicates that a defendant will not be given that opportunity.
 
Can I request a Justice close the two R4R topics at this time as they have already been rejected and everyone seems to be arguing in circles at this point? Thanks.
 
I have an appeal in process that must now be considered by the whole Court and can not be dismissed by any one Justice alone, in accordance with Court Rules.
 
BW is correct. He cited the wrong chapter of the court rules. (Chapter 3, instead of Chapter 4.)

Chapter 4 Section 2.1:
The petitioner in a rejected request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may appeal a decision made by an individual Justice to the Court as a whole for consideration.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, the entire Court must review the rejected R4R but that does not mean this thread should remain open so that various parties (myself included) can continue to post the same argumentation in cyclical fashion while it does so. The appeal of a rejected R4R doesn't mean the R4R remains open during that process, just that the Court reviews the decision to reject it.
 
I will close this thread until such a time as the whole court has reviewed the appeal. This is not an indication of rejection, but rather to keep you two from arguing with each other.


Edit: Justice Kialga and myself do not see how your right to a fair trial has been violated. The court will not entertain the review of the hypothetical violation of your rights, but at this time your right to a fair trial has not been violated. If at such a time, and flemingovia forbid such a time comes to pass, you do have your right to a fair trial violated, that future court can hear your arguments. As such, we support the rejection of your Request for Review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top