Re: [RP] Let Justice be Served

[arthur_loxley]

Master Lazy,

This is not about the Contempt of Court, but the Obstruction of Justice without trial

the mechanics require cooperation, the judge refusing to cooperate is in violation of the mandates of the king
As such the mandates of the king allow for and include the removal of the judge, additional fines against the judge, and up to eradication of the judge.
Abuse of power is a very dangerous line to follow in the game.

Kings edicts here
http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=40812&sid=eCraYdmBkIp7BVK6c0CjfgOzZ claims

The Count appoints and dismisses the council members to the different positions, to his taste.

There is no mention that anyone other that the count / Duke has the power to change a councillors position.

and here
http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=68918&sid=eCraYdmBkIp7BVK6c0CjfgOzZ

A judge who repeatedly fails to uphold the present Charter, who ignores warnings from the Court of Appeal on this subject, or who profits by abusing his power, may find himself tried for high treason by Parliament (or the Court of Appeal on its behalf). The maximum penalty in a case of manifest abuse, subject to Royal assent, is eradication.

Which calls 'repeated' failings and warnings on the 'repeated' failing from the CoA - not relevant in this point I believe.
Profits from Abusing his power - I fail to see any profit no do I see any abuse as I am not in control of this case.

Thank you for reminding me of the Eradication rules, if I have missed the part that you feel I should be eradicated for please do PM with it.

Lady Allikath,
I will admit I had not thought the CoA Charter as anything but Law, if it is a ToS can someone therefore decline it ?

Lord Salter and Lady Gabbie
This was raised in the Law Society here
http://forum2.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=322303&sid=AahYgxeqthyPubS3R8GVjqWYi (Forum2 -> The Law Society -> Halls of the Law Society ->
First Justice by the CoA

)
where High Justice Loxley suggested the wording as such

Article 10 – Procedural Penalties

The Justices of the Court of Appeal have the right to sentence an individual in breach of this charter within the Courts of Appeal.

Those guilty of Contempt of Court shall be fined up to 10 pounds per incident.

Those guilty of obstruction of justice shall be imprisoned for one day. Furthermore those guilty of obstruction of justice may not appear in court representing another person for a 30 day period. These penalties will be laid after the case is decided.
If a county Public Prosecutor or Judge is charged with contempt or obstruction, the Count(ess) of said county must appoint a new Public Prosecutor to file charges. The accused may no longer hold position of Public Prosecutor or Judge, until the case of contempt is resolved.

In all instances these sentences will be handled by the County courts.

(Bold section to mark changes suggested)

This makes the section a lot clearer, if the intention is to pass a punishment without trial.

Master Phil,

Very nicely put and well presented.
However, I find it hard that your premise, that it is not a crime, therefore not under the Humanities act, yet is a sentence passed down by a court slightly confusing.

Are you suggesting that a Contempt of Court finding is outside of any Law book?

To all in General,

May I point out, I was not in a CoA court when I was 'passed a punishment', as Master Phil may put it, I had no warning other than the written Charter. To take this to the extreme, and I do so just to emphasise the problem in the Charter, not to ridicule CoA.

The HoP / commons is at present calling the CoA Justice corrupt and asking for a review of their actions, based on Article 9 and 10 of the CoA Charter, if we take that the CoA believe they are not corrupt and are acting correctly

Article 9 – Criminal Offenses Against the Court
Obstruction of justice – Situation where an individual tampers with evidence, bears false witness or otherwise obstructs the normal course of justice this include officials who use their position to attempt to circumvent or manipulate the valid judicial process of the Court of Appeals.

(bold section to draw notice)

The HoP could all be found Obstructing the CoA and all sentenced to a day in jail with no ability to argue it as its [list=1][*]not a Law
[*]not contestable
[*]and a power granted to the CoA by the HoP therefore the HoP agree to abide by it.

As I have said, this is ridiculous and no Chief Justice would attempt it for fear of political and judicial suicide, but the point is the same for 'passing a punishment' without trial, or asking if there was a mitigating circumstances.

What is more, as pointed out by Lady Gabbie, I am not in control of this situation, the choice of the County Duke, the PP, the CoA and this house are. so the entry in the CoA dated 18th July

Again, I must reiterate that failure to comply with the mandate of this Court will result in obstruction of justice against the obstructing party. This Court will elevate this issue to the House of Parliament for high treason against the Judge if compliance is not met by Wednesday, July 22: 12:00 pm GMT.

Where the the Chief Justice is increasing my sentence to what amounts eradication without trial and for actions outside of my control points out a serious problem if any Charter passed by this house permits it.

(Please excuse the length of my reply and the naming within as I have little time at the moment to respond promptly and I would like for a clear unambiguous law / charter)

[arthur_loxley]

I am curious though Llewylyn why you did only fine for 1 pound instead of the 10 pounds as stated in the letter from the CoA and submitted in transcript.

[arthur_loxley]

Thank you Lady Lynna,

You, along with Justice Ploate are the only ones who have actally asked for my side(outside of the Chester council).

For the sake of not repeating myself, may I point you to my answer to Justice Ploate.

http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=755383&sid=eCraYdmBkIp7BVK6c0CjfgOzZ

Forum1 -> English Court of Appeals -> Request for trial

However, I would like to point out, that the clarity of the Charter and the Rights by national law is the main topic not my personal case.

[arthur_loxley]

Do tell? Mysterious changes?

There have only been two small changes in the Charter from February - June's postings of the charter, both which were duscussed, voted on and passed in the HoP in May.

Has not been a judge or public prosecutor within the last 30 days

Said wording it removed, per posters words, by act of Parliment.

Has not been a judge or public prosecutor within the last 30 days

Has not been a judge or public prosecutor within the last 30 days;

One of many small changing flows I am picking up on. I'll show others when I have time. Though really when did Parliament return it to the approved application?

[arthur_loxley]

Honestly I am not sure what you are referring to, that makes no sense or is it the semi colon on the end that was not there and now is?

[arthur_loxley]

The change .. insignificant is a semi-colon. What is the point?

The add or removal of useless piece of punctuation?

[arthur_loxley]

"I seemed to smudge the mark of the other two examples. Those are all pieces of the Selection of the CoA Justices from the listed Charters of COA. Clearly there was an act by Parliament that removed that section, rather by mistake, or what have you. Has there been an act by Parliament returning it?"

edit for Gabby.

"It is the removal and addition of the entire line."

[arthur_loxley]

Well goodness seeing it is over 12 months old I am sure we should call who ever was speaker of HoP, the Chief Justice at the time and anyone else involved and start asking questions as to why wasn't this included excluded or whatever it is you would like to have seen to. : )

[arthur_loxley]

It was voted out here:
http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=106285

And voted back in here:
http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=356495

[arthur_loxley]

Thank you Lady Lynna,

You, along with Justice Ploate are the only ones who have actally asked for my side(outside of the Chester council).

For the sake of not repeating myself, may I point you to my answer to Justice Ploate.

http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewtopic.php?t=755383&sid=eCraYdmBkIp7BVK6c0CjfgOzZ

Forum1 -> English Court of Appeals -> Request for trial

However, I would like to point out, that the clarity of the Charter and the Rights by national law is the main topic not my personal case.

Thank you,
Personally I wouldn't have taken a ruling from the CoA and ignored it by giving my own penalty, but that is just me.

The Charter does say that the decisions of the CoA are final so there really isn't any recourse, which is the way it should be. The Rules for the CoA are there to be abided by, they have been discussed, voted on and passed by the elected Councilors of England who are the members of HoP. With that said, for changes to occur we need to go through those same channels to change things, therefore, we don't have the right to do something or not do it then ask questions later.

Best to do it then have it fixed.

[arthur_loxley]

"Thank you Lady Gabby always willing to help correct the issues in a pleasant manner and professional." Eyes flicker towards the other lazy and cold before return bright and content to Gabby. "There is still differences that have no explanation know to me. I shall attempt to return to this subject when I have time. I am out of time for now."

[arthur_loxley]

Thank you,
Personally I wouldn't have taken a ruling from the CoA and ignored it by giving my own penalty, but that is just me.

The Charter does say that the decisions of the CoA are final so there really isn't any recourse, which is the way it should be. The Rules for the CoA are there to be abided by, they have been discussed, voted on and passed by the elected Councilors of England who are the members of HoP. With that said, for changes to occur we need to go through those same channels to change things, therefore, we don't have the right to do something or not do it then ask questions later.

Best to do it then have it fixed.

The interpretation is unclear and I used my best judgement at the time after seeking advice for a written clarification. My decision is in question or at least in the format take by the Chief Justice I am wrong without question.

As for doing it and then questioning, I full accept that cause of action for myself and should a new county Judge question as I did, then I will advise that they should comply and we can continue clearing this up. But as Judge at the time I was not offered this option by Master Red, I had not even approached him with it in all honesty, so used the guides laid down by the King to provide a fair judgement.

I agree that the decisions of the CoA are final by the Charter, but I am still unclear as to some points, like a jail sentence without trial, and that little use of the word 'handled' as pointed out by Lord Salter. I 'handled' the case I believe.

Either we live by the exact words of the Law, in which case the CoA has no exact words allowing such a course or we live by the intention of the law, in which case do we really allow jail and fines to be handed out without a trial?

[arthur_loxley]

If I may, let me sum up the issue as I see it and I believe most others see it.

In the case of a Contempt or Obstruction verdict during an ongoing trial
The county is obligated to render the judgement of the higher court through the county court system.

In the case of an Obstruction charge outside of the CoA courts
as in the CoA filing a charge of obstruction due to a county not fulfilling what is proscribed by the charter of the CoA, then a day in court is needed to determine guilt or innocence. I didn't list contempt because one can not be in contempt of court unless in a court, by our (RK) standards of justice. (Yes, I know RL is different.. but this is RK not RL)


Our systems can neither be perfect nor writ to be.. to expect such, even if we were all bona-fide lawyers, would be folly.
I understand where Llewylyn was conflicted and I praise him for bringing up the issue, but we must come to the foregone conclusion and end this.

Thank you.

[arthur_loxley]

After reading, re reading and reading several times over the questions asked and charters pertaining to, Lynna makes her way back to the commons.

There seems to be some confusion and I have my own thoughts in the way I interpret things as does everyone else. So I can honestly say I am not questioning anyone elses interpretation, just pointing out how i come to my own interpretation.

The King makes it very clear in his edict on Justice and note to the Judges of this Kingdom.
The National Law on the Humanities act is not a Kings edict so His Judges instructions over rule.
Judges should be very aware and careful when handing down their verdicts and sentences. This is their duty and they have to abide by the rules set out.

The King tells you

The prejudicial question
A judge who is uncertain about interpreting the present Charter, the state of the Law, adequate punishment, etc., may put a specific question to the Court of Appeal of the Kingdom through a mail, providing the state of the case and the RK link to the trial to the Prosecutor of Appeals, who deals with these questions at his discretion. If the Court is asked by its Prosecutor, it then has 7 days to furnish an opinion. The opinion of the Court indirectly restricts the original judge, for if he does not follow the Court in his verdict, he increases the chance of his judgement being reviewed in an appeal.

If you don't understand anything in the edict to Mail yes that's mail , not jump up and down and argue in the forums of the CoA. If you are sent instructions from the CoA, if you have a question ask, don't do it then say well I didn't because of ....

Secondly,

Any judge who (i) repeatedly violates the provisions of the present Charter, (ii) disregards the warning statements from the Court of Appeals or (iii) takes advantage of his/her position may be prosecuted for High Treason in front of the Parliament of [Paris], or, failing this, the Court of Appeals. The maximum sentence for said crimes is eradication, in severe cases of obvious abuse acknowledged by royal authorities (the admins). A person can not be judged twice for same the act by the same jurisdiction level. This is enforceable in the entire Kingdoms of England and Scotland, by the will of the Crown

.
If several letters need to be sent about one incident I would think this is several warnings to do what was asked of you by the CoA. That includes all those that ignore it and keep delaying the issue.

You aren't going to have your head chopped off but it is a possiblity. because the CoA does not have that Power it still has to go to the HoP and those people will be tried for High Treason or it will then be taken back to the CoA and you will be trialed with the result given to the King for the maximum sentence of eradication.

Unfortunately there would be no case of innocence here as it was clearly stated, at the Judges discretion, he made his own fine, instead of carrying out the instructions of the CoA. Then argued about about it again after. Along with others who have not followed instructions.

This is my interpretation anyway.

You only have one recourse here to change any of it and that is to go directly to the King and tell him that you don't think his Judges Edict is fair.

[arthur_loxley]

Boy, I would LOVE to see the kings face when a judge complains that his edict to them is unfair....

You have few who say you are correct. Even me, who is usualy one of the first to support an underdog and a oposition view can not offer any form of support.

you are fighting this in parliment in several threads, here in several threads, and in the regents castle.

You gain more new opposition, then new support.

I think, perhapse that should put the idea that you've maybe made a mistake into the thoughts of some people. Yet, I've doubts that you will start to think any time soon in that way.

[arthur_loxley]

Master Lazy,

I fear I will not be complaining to the King on his edicts today as I don't see them as unfair.

I will admit to a mistake however, I did not read the CoA laws close enough before any such cases started to point this out before anyone was even charged. Such is the Law that its flaws only become apparent when in use or mis-use.

Lady Lynna,

I see your interpretation, and it did give me pause. I will not answer my thoughts here though because the the court does not wish or require it. And there is the rub, there is no answering of accusations, no justification of action, there is no Trial.

What I did or why, has not been asked by the court. The subject of this discussion is the right to trial, on the very Humanities Act passed by this house one that you seem to suggest does not always apply. If, in the eyes of a Judge, there is no reasonable doubt then there is no need for a trial or hearing of any kind?


Should you wish to continue to discover more on the actions behind the sentencing I will be more than happy to take that to another area.

Yours

Llewylyn of Chester

[arthur_loxley]

Councilor Llewylyn, I can see your point as well and appreciate from previous comments of yours that it's not about your personal case. Really though, we have a situation that, yes there is a Humanities Act, a National law that was discussed, passed and voted on by the HoP. It isn't going to change the law that the King has set down in his edict on Justice and Judges and there is no arguement to be had unless , as I said you go directly to the King and say Your Majesty, England a Humanites Act a National Law, it goes against your edict here in this particular instance, any chance you can change it or make an amendment. And if he said Sure let me look at it then fine but until then I can't see how any of these discussions is going to amount to a different outcome.
The Kings edict's overrule.

Maybe if we are going to be having National Laws that over rule our County laws or need to be taken into account when we write our County laws, they Should be signed off by the King. Possibly we need to add a clause to cover this in the Humanities act, I don't know how else it can be fixed other than suggestions of what might eleviate this from happening again.

One more question?
Scared to ask Has the CoA sentence been administered yet or no ? You really don't have to answer that I was just curious :wink:

[arthur_loxley]

Judge Llewelyn, I can understand your frustration and I can see your point. However, there is a very clear chain pertaining to our laws:

Kings Edict > National Law > County Law > Town Regulations

The problem comes from the fact that both the Humanities Act as well as the CoA Charter fall under the National Law and are based upon King's Edicts.

This can be debated ad nausea and I think it already has, in multiple threads. What we're left with basically is if the CoA has the authority to uphold order in it's courtrooms and is it's authority absolute and final? Because if you take it's decisions and bring them to a trial, you are undermining it's authority.

To alleviate the possibility of this happening again, we need to do several things. First and foremost is to amend the CoA Charter to make crystal clear the County Court's responsibility in cases of Contempt of Court. Then Counties need to bring their laws in line with this, as well as the Humanities Act. I know it would seem much easier for the CoA to simply change it's Charter to allow trials to be held for these cases, but as I said that would undermine the entire authority of the CoA and that is not in the best interests of England. They must have the power to keep order in their courtrooms and to enforce their decisions.

[arthur_loxley]

The problem comes from the fact that both the Humanities Act as well as the CoA Charter fall under the National Law and are based upon King's Edicts.

Yep! There's the problem! The courts also need to be able to maintain order and whatever is put in this charted amendment that needs to be done needs to consider this. It does also need to consider the kings edicts, as always. You won't get an answer from the current charter using the court's adopted way of interpreting the law.

[arthur_loxley]

*adjusts something a bit to read properly...*

Kings Edict > National Law > County Law > Town Regulations > people > weird people > Crazy People > Lazy....


Thats about acurate .... =)

[arthur_loxley]

Lady Lynna,

Please accept this short answer for now, and I will, no doubt come back to this two days from now.

Sentence is due to land tomorrow. I am not trying to avoid the Law, I am trying to make it clearer.

To Lady Lizabet,

My point exactly m'lady, this was never truly about my personal situation, but about the rights we grant and possibly ignore.

Lord Lazy,

I fear you place yourself far to poorly for my liking Sir, Let justice be heard for all sides, the discussion of Law is never wrong, but its use can be.

Yours, most respectfully

Llewylyn of Chester

[arthur_loxley]

Ok.. I am going to say this one more time...

When an appeal is being heard it is an agreed fact that it is an open trial.

When entering the court the people entering agree to the following:

Rules for the Courtroom
1. Proper decorum must be maintained at all time in the courtroom and other areas of the CoA. Offenders may be tried for Contempt of Court should they violate this standard.
2. Persons may only speak in a courtroom when called by a Justice. Speaking out of turn will be not be accepted, and may be considered contempt of court at the Justices' decision.
3. One representative must be chosen as the official spokeperson (or voice) for each side. That person will make their side's opening and closing statements and will speak for their side. Former CoA justices who have been privy to information discussed in Justices' Chambers concerning a CoA case are forbidden from serving as counsel for either party in that CoA case. NOTE: Witnesses may still be called, but each side must have an official representative to perform questioning of the witnesses or to correspond with the Justices.
4. Requests to call witnesses, etc. will be sent to the case's Lead Justice only. However, all 3 justices on the case have the right to call a witness.
5. Objections are the only exception to the posting-out-of-turn rule. Once an Objection is posted, no one may speak in the courtroom until the Lead Justice for the case hears the objection, and the 3 justices determine if it is sustained or overruled. All Objections must also be PM'd to the Lead Justice at the time of it's posting. Objections against the justices, including the Lead Justice, must be PM'd to the Chief Justice.
6. Justices reserve the right to strike anything from the record. However, this must be done by quoting the part to be struck and saying so. No editing of posts in a courtroom is allowed.

With me so far?

Ok Open Court.. Understood rules.
Break rules get ajudicated by the open court (ie: the Justices) as being in contempt.
Charge sent to county to be applied via court system. Not retried.. applied.
Notice there was a trial... the open court.

Thank you. Why anyone can't seem to grasp this SIMPLE concept is beyond me.

[arthur_loxley]

"Lady Gabrielle, perhaps people can't get this simple concept because of what the first rule states. Pay close attention to the bold section in the following parchment."

1. Proper decorum must be maintained at all time in the courtroom and other areas of the CoA. Offenders may be tried for Contempt of Court should they violate this standard.

"So, what does this mean, exactly? When a person is "tried" isn't there a trial? Yet, I am hearing that if the CoA charges someone with Contempt of Court, there is the expectation a sentence will be handed down via the county court system."

"And what if the person being charged is a noble and would like to exercise his right to a jury of his peers? There are ambiguities and I believe that is the reason some don't get this simple concept, as you put it."

[arthur_loxley]

Well, then maybe if heard from another's lips rather than mine.

Llewylyn wrote:

For those who are charged with Contempt of Court within a CoA trial, they are informed by the Justices that there is a line and not to cross it, most reasonable Justices inform of a breach in protocol and offer the chance to retract or amend. There is, in essence, a chance to reply to the charge suggested in a CoA Court by the Justice. From all the cases I have seen in here over the last three months, all Justices have show restraint in the face of possible Contempt charges and have repeatedly warned clearly what the error was and how it will be dealt with.

In essence, within the CoA court, the justice is 'holding a trial' on this instance of contempt where the accused has the right to refute or acknowledge it.

There.. understand now, Your Grace?

[arthur_loxley]

Sighing, she replies, "It matters not whose lips I hear it from Lady Gabrielle, and while I respect Llewylyn's answer, I still see that it can be confusing because he states, '....most reasonable Justices inform of a breach in protocol and offer the chance to retract or amend. There is, in essence, a chance to reply to the charge suggested in a CoA Court by the Justice.' "

"Personally, I'd like to see some rules developed and then placed in the charter regarding how a Obstruction of Justice is dealt with and will also address the issue of a noble being able to have a trial by peer if so desired. Or, indicate a trial by peer doesn't pertain to this charge?"

[Sponsored content]