Re: [RP] Let Justice be Served

[arthur_loxley]

Go ahead. Muck up a system that has worked for 3-4 yrs without issue until now.
It don't matter to me anymore. It is not like the charter has not had that same provision for the entirity of it's existance and never had been questioned before.

So sure.. go ahead.. the grass is greener complex sinks in fully and as the fence is hopped, the rest suffer. Have fun!!

Hands over a knife and a mallet.
There are the tools, smash out the teeth and geld the CoA.. make it useless. That will serve the people of England very well in the light of justice.

[arthur_loxley]

Surprised by the baroness' outburst, she quickly and quietly replies. "Lady Gabrielle, I wouldn't dream of gutting the CoA. Why, I am defending it in another situation because I know it's an institution that is desperately needed. Just because we have had words in the past, don't think that my suggestion is to somehow get back at you."

Looking levelly at the woman, she continued, "You above all other people, because of your expertise in writing charters should know that we need details. Perhaps their wouldn't be all this brouhaha if it had been addressed in the first place. I would write an amendment, but I don't have the expertise... not like you do. So, please take away your tools.. I don't think anyone wants to gut the CoA."

[arthur_loxley]

Liza sighs at people who just refuse to see what is right in front of their faces. Giving Gabby an understanding look and sharing her frustration, she decides to give it one more try herself before leaving them to their circuitous arguments and debates.

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.

Please note the operative word here is "may". Nowhere does it say must be or will be or shall be or anything else commanding a trial. The word "may" leaves it up to the Justice's discretion. If they decide that a trial is not necessary, they have every right to do so and hand down a punishment without one.

[arthur_loxley]

Unable to stop her laughter, she cleared her throat. "Lizabet, I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not a justice may levy a charge of contempt of court. Yet, there needs to be a clear cut course to follow otherwise it reduces the effectiveness of the CoA because one person can say, "I did that and there were no consequences, why did he get charged with essentially the same thing."

"Personally, I would be satisfied that if the person being tried for contempt had an option to speak in order to defend his actions, and that option was clearly noted, then I think the issue could be resolved."

[arthur_loxley]

Gabby hands over another transcript explaining it in yet another way,
this time from the Lady Speaker of the House.

Everyone seems to ignore one very real fact.
Due to circumstances [OOC - in game mechanics] no citizen can actually be fined or jailed or punished at all(except eradication but that is beyond our control) without having a trial.
That is why the CoA is dependent upon the countys to render the penalties for contempt and obstruction in their court rooms.

There is a trial. The defendent can give testimony and call witnesses.
The judge renders a decision.
That is a trial.
The decision of contempt or obstruction by the CoA is the irrefutable evidence hence the judge is compelled to find a guilty plea as he/she would in any other case where the evidence was irrefutable.
The sentence is laid out by national law in the form of the HOP ratified charter of the CoA.

The procedure is and always has been simple and direct. The counties are required by law to comply to the procedure and penalties are indicated.

[arthur_loxley]

Appreciating the fact that Lady Gabrielle researched and found another way to clarify what she is trying to say, she read it with an open mind. Finally looking up, she placed the parchment upon the table. "Yes, I recall hearing what the lady speaker said, however, others have indicated that a trial doesn't occur, but sentencing does. Isn't that what has happened in the two cases where Contempt of Court was handed down? I believe Salter feels that way, and perhaps even Llewylyn. I am not saying this to be argumentative, but to ensure that the rights of all are addressed. If the CoA rules are that a trial needs to be held for contempt of court, then we should follow the rules. It just makes sense that there would be another layer to protect the rights of the accused."

Addressing both Lady Gabrielle and Liza Wolfe, she absentmindedly scratched her forearm. "We all know that in our world bias can be extreme. I would feel comforted if people had an opportunity to have their concerns addressed and in the case of Lord Salter and Llewylyn, I don't believe they had the privilege of speaking up in defense of the charge of contempt of court."

[arthur_loxley]

Liza smiles at Gabby and shrugs. Sometimes you just have to admit defeat. After all, it is only one person's opinion. The majority seem to be able to understand. It's pointless to continue, but if you choose to, I wish you luck. She flicks a glance at Kerri and looks back to Gabby. I think you're going to need it, she adds with a chuckle. Nodding and giving Gabby a warm smile, Liza leaves the room.

[arthur_loxley]

Why don't you review the case transcripts and count how many times Lord Salter was warned of being in contempt before being held accountable for just ONE of many instances. Then tell me that he was treated without due process and recompense of rights by the ajudication received. You can not... if you look at ALL the facts instead of taking pieces out of context.

On the other hand, I have already been on record that since the issue dealing with Sir Llewylyn was as a result of action outside of the open court of the CoA, he was due his day in court.... Which if you review the transcript of that... he was given. Again, only could be seen if looking at the BIG picture, Your Grace.

In other words then, the alleged problem is rectified in the fact there never was a problem, save the one imagined by fixation and not realization of the big picture.
So then, Your Grace, what is it you are intending to fix?

[arthur_loxley]

"Thank you, Lady Gabrielle, I will read the transcripts. Thank you for your time."

[arthur_loxley]

"We all know that in our world bias can be extreme. I would feel comforted if people had an opportunity to have their concerns addressed and in the case of Lord Salter and Llewylyn, I don't believe they had the privilege of speaking up in defense of the charge of contempt of court."

Everyone has the opportunity to address their concerns. That is why there are so many venues, HoP, HoL, London Commons and even your own county inns. What this has been is beyond addressing concerns.

[arthur_loxley]

Please excuse my using another post and repeating myself, but my comment seems as relevant here as is does in the HoP

In my mind, a trial is the examination of facts presented by two sides using witnesses and evidence to a judicial body, who in turn must use those facts and the agreed law to pass a judgement and sentence.

The IG mechanic of a trial used to enact the judgement of the CoA does not constitute a trial in this sense because the facts or arguments presented in this case have no bearing on the actions of the Judge standing due to the Judge having to uphold the wishes of the CoA justice.

In the case of Contempt or Obstruction, where the accused is not present in any court except to accept the punishment placed upon them, there is no judicial trial.

It is my belief that in order to observe the right of the individual over the possible abuse of Law, that all County Courts who accept the CoA as a superior court allow within their Legal Corpus the application of the CoA Charter as a local corpus as if a judicial treaty. In the case mentioned above, where a 'charge' of Contempt or Obstruction wishes to be raised by the CoA then they should, as in local Law, have a Bill of Indictment raised against the accused using the CoA Charter as Legal Corpus to be Judged in said county. This would NOT be the Local judges taking any precedence or authority from the CoA but granting the citizens the rights to a fair trial.

In the unlikely event that the Judge rules the case as dismissed (taking that most justices give plenty of warning and reasonable interpretations of the CoA Charter), being a County Case it is within the remit of the CoA to request an Appeal of Judgement with the CoA Court.

In this suggestion, the rights of the individual are observed, in that a trial is performed, and the power of the CoA to bring to Law any who breach the Charter is also maintained. What is removed is the ability to take someone from their home in the dead of night, and throw them into a dark cell for no other reason than on the word of one person. That would be unacceptable in any civilised nation

[arthur_loxley]

The actions you describe would eliminate the powers of the Court of Appeals.

It directly undermines there authority and infact places the powers soley into the hands of the people who may have created the original problem.

Your common sense is not legal structure. Local law would not take precident over a nationaly recognized charter of powers.

[arthur_loxley]

Good point, I see where adding something in the Local Law binding to the CoA charter would be a possible wrong move as it would give the Local Law the right to remove it.

Then could the CoA start a case specifically for the cases of Obstruction or Contempt for those who are not at present in court? (i.e. In my case) so that a fair trial may be heard.

Additionally, and this is nothing more than a legal querry, would you say, looking at the Kings edicts that any case has the right to appeal?

[arthur_loxley]

Llewylyn,

Please read the Court of Appeals Charter. It specifically states:

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.

Contempt of court – Situation where an individual fails to show proper respect and behaviour in court. Contempt of court includes but is not limited to –
Use of foul and/or degrading language in court
Failure to respond to a court summons
Disrupting court proceedings

These are considered criminal offences.

Article 10 – Procedural Penalties
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 cases will be handled by the County courts.

Contempt of Court may only be levied for behavior inside the Courts of the Court of Appeals.
Obstruction of Justice may be levied for behavior inside or outside the Courts of the Court of Appeals, but relating to events from the Court of Appeals.

In your case, it was related to Theredchef's contempt of court case because you did not comply with the Court's mandate. You fined the individual 1 pound fine based on his purse, instead of 10 pounds as sentenced by the Court. In essence, the judicial process of the court was manipulated based on your actions.

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.

You sought clarification in numerous places: Law Society and the House of Parliament. You were informed by several people, including myself, on how penalties from the Court of Appeals are 'handled'. You were even directed (and shown) a recent case concerning Salter v. Stafford. All of this was ignored and you abused your position as Judge to alter the sentencing of the Court of Appeals decision.

Remember, you were also warned by the letter from the former Chief Justice that failure to comply would result in obstruction of justice, specifically relating to Theredchef - Contempt of Court case. For you to state that no fair warning was received is a lie. HoP Members, Law Society Members, and even myself (Deputy Chief Justice) answered your queries regarding the procedure of enforcing these penalties by the Court. You were even accused of manipulating the system in the House of Parliament:

What you are doing, is atempting to manipulate the parliment into allowing you to not do a duty as required. Which is abuse of power. Not a good action for someone who's duty is to sit in judgement.

As far as your 'legal querry', which I suspect has to do with your obstruction of justice 'case' (you should really refer to it as a penalty or infraction), the answer is yes/no. In the case of county trials, any case has the right to appeal. In the case of Court of Appeal penalties, the case has no right to appeal as the Charter clearly states that the decision of the Court is final and it is not a case. It is a procedural penalty levied by the Court to maintain order.

Stated as a legal mind, not as the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals.

[arthur_loxley]

Arthur,

I speak only for myself.

In response to your exact post right before mine, please understand, no one doubts that some volume of opinions have opined that the way you describe is how "things are handled". However, if someone, even one person stands up and says "Ho there! This isn't right!", as reasoning, intelligent human beings will do so now and again, it is the obligation of all to listen to them. Take a moment, remove the blinders of your own human foibles, listen to what they have to say and see if they may be right, especially... especially in situations where power is at odds.

Llewylyn, and other subjects of the King like myself, have said, "Ho there!" Stop and listen why.

Few have actually tried to reason with the man, and I say he's probably right! Isn't that reason enough for a representative government to take a look at what he has to say? Consider in this act that he is acting on behalf of at least one constituent, I, Rot Bottom, who holds land in Beeston, Cheshire. He's on the Council there, and he's representing to the House of Parliament something a citizen brought to you. That's how I see it, and I'm the citizen in question. Hell, he can be the citizen in question - he doesn't lose his rights as a citizen of Cheshire because he sits on the Council there.

Again, bluntly, no matter how hard you try to push upon anyone else your "way things are handled" down the throat of someone who believes it to be injust. Tyranny comes in many forms, and any bullying is just that. Chester law clearly says that no one can be found guilty without a fair trial. You forced Chester to break her own Laws, through her representatives and that's foul.

In the course of it, you specifically Arthur Loxley, have berated Llewlylyn, a sorry excuse for a man at this point, and made it seem to appear that he is acting not out of some serious standpoint and possibly accurate legal viewpoint which is in fact protecting a County's sovereign rights, but instead out of some nefarious, corrupt assault on the liberties and powers of the Court of Appeals.

This man did well in his duty to the citizens of Chester, and the Chester Legal Corpus, as Judge. Well done Llewlylyn. You corrupt sodden breadhead.

Rot Bottom

[It may be poignant to note, I am a man who sharks out corruption and have pressed for soi-disant Duke LadyJennet to prosecute this man on multiple charges. I think my opinion of his viewpoint is an negatively biased as can be, and even I see he's right.]

[arthur_loxley]

Rotbottom,

I think you've touched on one of England's problems with your little speech. Tolerance and a willingness to listen. Some have it, some don't.

[arthur_loxley]

Actualy, have you read ANY of the numerous threads in the parliment, LSE, or other areas?

Several people walked in, with no previous knowledge and tried to explain things, and understand his situation.

In fact, here is the list from parliment.

Thread - Clarification of CoA Rights and Law....

Dragonflame = Support CoA

Site_emmel = Support CoA

Myself = Support CoA

Allikath = Support CoA

Correus = Mixed. (its actualy rather technical, you would need to read it)

Silvermane = Support CoA

Thread Amendment to Section 9 of the CoA Charter

This thread ended up being hijacked and moved away form the discussion and into the same area as the other threads...

Salter = For (Chester PP)
Lizabet = Support CoA
Lynna = Support CoA
Samwen = For (Chester Sheriff)
Marzena=For (Cumberland TM)
Notjack5 = Support CoA
Millicent_lenoir = Support CoA
Lorddragon = For (up north)

That does not include voices here, in multiple threads.

I have to say, I think this is a case where someone has decided they are right, and the word usage is such within the structure to allow twisting of the definition, even after the limitations of mechanics were introduced.

but you can all read the threads, and see for yourself. I even Encourage it.

[arthur_loxley]

It is interesting though how it can be clearly taken by the PP in the first instance and then for some reason it all went haywire. As I had said previously, if you want something changed go through the channels to fix it, don't make matters worse by trying to fight it. Even those that request a hearing at the CoA have served their sentence first.

This would never have come to a charge and a night in jail at all for Judge Llewylyn if he had followed through correctly then inquired and questioned it after.

Bill of indictment;

Your honour,

I bring to the court a copy of the following missive from the Court of Appeal. It is my intention to execute the contents of the said missive.

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img12/3727/redcontempt.jpg

It would seem that the three violations constitute one charge of contempt, for which a fine is to be levied by this court.

Prosecutor indictment

It is not the place of the county court to question the charge. Both the proseuctor and judge must process this as guilty.

The defendants plea of no contest is also not recogniseable in the law. Is it used in other legal systems?

Defamation of the court easily falls into the requirement for 'proper decorum in the courtroom'.

Has the defendant got a quote from the mandate for the matter that apparently charges for contempt must be filed after the case?

Once again, it is not for Chester to decide upon the guilt in the matter.
Last defence pleading

[arthur_loxley]

Sir Lazy,

Firstly, if I may, this is not about my situation per say, as I have served my day in Jail. But about future cases, the fact this has been raised by myself in particular is, however, because I witnessed it.

You have pointed out that several who answered when the question was hypothetical showed a similarity in interpretation, I have a few mails suggesting the other way. But the majority, as you say, supported a single interpretation of 'intention of the Law' and yet I did not follow this 'advice'. If you would like to know why for personal interest, it is because I asked for written empirical proof of the intention as I did not see the justice in your advice. Some may consider that wrong, but my opinion of the way Law is handled is that a Guilty verdict should only be declared when there is 'no reasonable doubt'.

This, so far, was the subject of 'Prima Justice', the ability for the CoA to call a trial, judge it and pass a sentence. It is not the subject I raised here which is the Right to Trial according to the Humanities Act.


The Right to Trial discussions, as shown by your approximate list of names (LD is Chester by the way), is divided on its opinion. You have pointed out the location of those that support the idea of a trial, and several seem to be from Chester, though this is unlikely to be for any personal support of myself as I have served the sentence passed by the CoA and do not seek redress for it, I do seek to ensure that in future this confusion is avoided and the rights of an individual observed.

To this I will agree (probably for a first time) with master Rott Bottom, if there is a question on the clarity of law it should be looked into being clarified. I seem a little confused as to why we would not, there is nothing lost by making the Law clearer so that everyone understands it and not just some (even if the some may be a majority)

I have to say, I think this is a case where someone has decided they are right, and the word usage is such within the structure to allow twisting of the definition, even after the limitations of mechanics were introduced.

Exactly, the word usage allows a twisting. Let use work together to find better words, whatever they may be.

[Sponsored content]