[RP] Letters from the Court (As Chief Justice of CoA)

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur received news from the scribes at the Law Library concerning a contempt of court violation that Chester was asked to enforce. Sighing, he took out parchment to write a letter to the Duke of Chester.

Sir Tazatron, Duke of Chester:

The Chester Public Prosecution office was sent notice concerning a contempt of court violation by theredchef in the Court of Appeals. A contempt of court from the Court of Appeals results in a sentencing of 10 pounds per incident.

Court of Appeals Charter wrote:Article 8 – Enforcing the verdict
The CoA shall do its utmost to ensure that the verdict is enforced, contacting whomever is necessary to ensure the decision is enforced.
In all cases a verdict from the Court of Appeals is final – there is no appeal to a decision from the CoA.

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.

In the case of the individual, there were three violations that resulted in levying a 10 pound fine.



Judge Llewyllyn has failed to comply with the orders of this Court by sentencing the individual to a 1 pound fine as can be seen by the case transcript documented below:

Chester County Court wrote:
Lawsuit between TheRedChef and County Palatine of Chester

TheRedChef was charged with the act of public disorder.

The sentence has been passed

Judge Llewleyn wrote:The verdict;

The defendant has been proven guilty of public disorder.

Master TheRedChef,

After careful deliberation of this court, with respect to the charges brought against you by the Office of the PP from the Court of Appeals for the crime of Public Disorder , and with use of https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img12/3727/redcontempt.jpg leading me to review the said case of Aasha vs Chester on the dates of the 1st of June and the 3rd of June
which clearly shows two counts of 'speaking out of turn' and one count of 'defamation of the court' to be taken as 'Disrupting court proceedings classified as Contempt of Court by the Charter of the Court of Appeal


Chester County Criminal Law Act 1456
Article 9 � Criminal Offences 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.

Based on the Charter of the Court of Appeals the following represents the penalties to be applied
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.

I therefore find the defendant TheRedChef to be guilty of Public Disorder and as of this, the 8th day of July 1457 and sentences to a fine of one (1) pound due to the lack of funds you presently suffer.

I will remind you also of the Court of Appeals Charter
Article 8 � Enforcing the verdict

The CoA shall do its utmost to ensure that the verdict is enforced, contacting whomever is necessary to ensure the decision is enforced.
In all cases a verdict from the Court of Appeals is final � there is no appeal to a decision from the CoA.

*Judge Llewylyn bangs his gavel*

The defendant has been sentenced to A fine of 1 pound fine.

Prosecutor Faradorn wrote: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.

TheRedChef wrote:First defense pleading

No lo contendre.

I suggest in the future that Honorable Justice Hodgson carefully review the trial transcripts and the CoA charter before hastily making such charges. Had he done such a review, he would have found that all my motions were properly filed by pm, and could not possibly construed to be "speaking out of turn." He would have also discovered that 'defamation of court," while a novel invention, does not exist as a legitimate charge under the charter, and that a reasonable person could not have considered the post cited on June 3 as any form of defamation. Further, he would have discovered that the mandated time for making such charges is after the conclusion of the trial. The trial in question is still on going.

Prosecutor Faradorn wrote: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

The defendant didn't appear in Court.

The Court finds Judge Llewyllen guilty of obstruction of justice and sentenced to 1 day imprisonment in the county jail.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Deputy Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

He folded the letter and had a page deliver it as quick as possible.

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur was a bit angry concerning the latest appeal request. Not because it resided from Chester, but because the time limit of the appeal has expired and the Court could not review the appeal case. He took a parchment and wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House of Parliament concerning this issue. It had not been long ago that the Court had sent a letter with suggestions to amend the Court of Appeals charter, and the time limit restriction of appeals was one of the amendments that failed to pass the house.

Attention to the House of Parliament,

In the beginning of May, the Court of Appeals concluded discussions concerning some changes to our Charter that we wanted the House of Parliament to consider making; however, several amendments were not adopted. As current Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, I feel that the House of Parliament should review one particular amendment to ensure that fairness and justice prevail.

A recent appeal, Chester v. Moonfairie, was brought before the Court of Appeals, and due to the current time restrictions in our Charter, we had to deny the appeal.

Presented in May to the HoP wrote:

Current CoA Charter wrote:The appeal must be filed with the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the sentence being passed in the case. A request for appeal must be filed in the public area of the Court of Appeals, and must include a full transcript of the original case, including sentencing. Altering the transcript is illegal and should it be proven it shall be considered an Obstruction of Justice and pursued accordingly.

Once the Court of Appeals acknowledges receipt of the case, the appellant or legal representative has 5 days to present the grounds for the appeal. In duly justified cases the Public Prosecutor or the Defendant may request for a 3 day extension to this period.

We would like to see the current two five-day deadline system to be a extended to fourteen (14) days because in our experience grounds for appeal are generally provided with the initial case transcript or else the CoA prompts for them. May we suggest the following replace the above section?

Suggested change to CoA Charter wrote:The appeal must be filed with the Court of Appeals within 14 days of the sentence being passed in the case. In duly justified cases the Public Prosecutor or the Defendant may request for a 3 day extension to this period before the 14 day period has passed.

A request for appeal must be filed in the public area of the Court of Appeals, and must include a full transcript of the original case, including sentencing. Altering the transcript is illegal and should it be proven it shall be considered an Obstruction of Justice and pursued accordingly. The original case transcript should be accompanied by the Appellant's Grounds for Appeal of the original case as listed below. Should the Grounds for Appeal not be provided with the original case transcript, the Court of Appeals will request them and shall not consider the appeal until such time as they are provided.

This amendment has the following objections raised:

Lorddragon wrote:(7 - 10 days would be a better number)

Marzena wrote:Nay time set out is far to long for an appeals to be filed. CW.

Wselfwulf wrote:Abstain -- If passed this would directly contradict Amendment #1. Perhaps Amendment #1 should be tabled until Amendment #3 is decided on so the guidelines properly reflect the will of the House Of Parliament.

Faradorn wrote:Evidence can have a tendency to expire rather quickly. This is too much leeway. A three day extension however is a valid idea.

To those who have raised objections as to the length of time, please note that the King allows prison sentences of up to 10 days for level 3 or higher players. While incarcerated, an individual cannot access the forums, and the game mechanics prevent anyone with such a large sentence being able to appeal.

Please present this letter to the House of Parliament for consideration at your earliest convenience.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur had received a letter from the House of Lords regarding an investigation. He read it carefully thinking how best to reply before writing.

Lady Gabrielle, Chairperson of the Court of Appeals Review Committee:

The Court of Appeals welcomes any investigation into the workings of the Court.

Enclosed are keys to the conference room that has been prepared for the Court of Appeals investigation. The Justices of the Court of Appeals look forward to working cooperatively with your group, and hope that this review can be accomplished with minimal disruption of our offices as well as your own. It is always a pleasure to know that our work here is taken seriously, and we have great confidence that the review will find that our current and past justices have done their utmost to comply with each county’s laws when investigating and deciding on appeals from their counties.

If there is anything else I or any of the Justices can do in this review process, please do not hesitate to ask.

For Truth and Justice throughout England,



Arthur William Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the English Court of Appeals

A page delivered it to Lady Hamilton.

Arthur_loxley wrote:Arthur walked into his office to find a letter by the Judge of Chester disputing a notice of obstruction of justice. He was rather surprised at the threats contained in the letter, but in his new role as Chief Justice, he had already been threatened on more than one occasion and figured it would continue. He sat down and wrote the Judge a reply:

Sir Llewylyn, Citizen of Chester:

Your disregard for the Court of Appeals mandate has culminated in a charge of obstruction of justice by this Court. You were informed of this in the original mail by former Chief Justice Hodgson, and still disregarded the orders of the Court. If there was an issue with sentencing Theredchef, it should have been brought to the attention of the Court. Regardless, you did not follow the Court mandate and as such are held accountable by the Court of Appeals.

As has been stated, in numerous discussions, the Court of Appeals decisions with regards to contempt of court and obstruction of justice are not up for debate. These charges may be levied by the Court to maintain order. County courts are tasked with enforcing the sentences of the Court of Appeals in these situations.

It is my duty as Chief Justice to follow the Charter of the Court of Appeals. The political climate of the House of Parliament cannot factor into the decisions of the Court, otherwise cries of corruption will become true. The Court is to remain impartial with all decisions.

Respectfully,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to the Chester matter, Arthur was notified by the Duke of Stafford that there was a complaint brought by the Judge in the London Commons. He read the complaint, which was addressed to the people of England, and couldn't help but shake his head at the way his words were being twisted. He wrote a letter to address the Judge, once again:

Sir Llewyllen, citizen of Chester:

The Court of Appeals lobby is not a chamber where discussions that breed dissension and arguments on appeals are heard. A question of law has been raised in the lobby on several occasions though. Please review the following documents:

A Question of Law
Petition for Advise Worcester County Law
Violation of Human Rights
Decision of interpretation of Chester Criminal Code S1,A6.
Chester PP in violation of law, by admittance.
A question if you will.
Chester defies the King?
Cumberland Justices

It is not a lobby for outbursts, attitude, or disagreements concerning the Court of Appeal decisions:
CoA is mistaken
Oi! What decision?
Request for appeal: prior PP vs prior Judges ruling chester

As I have stated previously, your disregard for the Court of Appeals mandate has resulted in the Court issuing obstruction of justice. You were informed in the original mail by the Former Chief Justice Hodgson that failure to comply with the court order would result in obstruction of justice and a one day jail term for the obstructing party.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to the new Justice from Lancaster, Arthur was notified by his wife, a councilor of Stafford, that Sir Middletun had been confirmed. Venturing over to the balustrade of the House of Parliament for confirmation, Arthur heard as Lady Speaker Allikath closed the tally. He waited for notification, and after hours, he gave up. He took the initiative to welcome the new Justice as well as inform the Lady Speaker that the issue was already handled.

Justice Middletun,

Congratulations on your appointment to the Court of Appeals as a representative of Lancaster!

You have been granted access to the private Justice Chambers of the Court. You should endeavor to check that area for new posts at least once a day if at all possible. You are also reminded that any and all conversations held within the Chambers are confidential and should not be discussed outside of the Chambers.

Your first task as an incoming justice is to take the Oath found here. Taking the Oath is required before you may take your seat.Next you should familiarize yourself with the Court's charter and the Rules.

Let me congratulate you once again on your selection, and give you my best wishes for your appointment.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Lady Allikath, Speaker of the House of Parliament,
and the House of Parliament:

Thank you for closing the tally concerning the new Justice from Lancaster. It gives me joy to see that the people of England are willing to serve their country and support the national institutions and observe the House of Parliament exercise their power in ratification of Justices. Our Justices have long been overworked with the appeals, and a new Justice is very welcomed to share our efforts in maintaining justice in the Kingdom of England.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

With that, Arthur wrote a bulletin report to inform the citizens who visit the lobby regularly about the newest Justice appointed to the Court of Appeals.

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to the failure of Chester County to comply with the mandate of the Court of Appeals, Arthur sat at his desk reviewing documents before him. He had received news by the former Public Prosecutor of Chester that he could not comply with the orders of the Court because he was removed from his position as Public Prosecutor. Arthur had attempted to gather the information regarding the Council of Chester, and to his surprise, saw that many councilors had unassigned roles and the office of Public Prosecutor was still vacant. He wondered how Chester would be dealing with this if any crimes were reported.. Sighing, he turned his attention to the parchment before him to write to the Duke.

Sir Tazatron, Duke of Chester:

The Court of Appeals has notified you of the failure of Judge Llewyllyn to comply with the mandate of this Court in the sentencing of Theredchef for contempt of court. I am aware that Chester Council currently stands without a Public Prosecutor as evidenced below:

Council room
Count: Tazatron (DPoC)
Spokesperson: Stlayne (DPoC)
Judge: Llewylyn (DPoC)
Public Prosecutor: ?
Constable: Roby123 (DPoC)
Captain: Helius (DPoC)
Sergeant: Aeowulf (DPoC)
Sheriff: Samwen (DPoC)
Trade Minister: Widfara (DPoC)
Mines Superintendent: Lorddragon (THL)
Councillor: Salter (THL)
Councillor: LadyJennet (THL)
Councillor: Tovy14 (DPoC)

I would like to remind you that the Court of Appeals is clear concerning a case of contempt of court or obstruction on behalf of the County councilors as can be seen below:

Court of Appeals Charter wrote: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.

I would like to commend you for replacing the Public Prosecutor as it is in accordance with the Charter of the CoA; however, to my knowledge, proceedings have not been initiated against the Judge to comply with the mandate set forth by the Court of Appeals regarding obstruction of justice nor has he been removed from office until this issue is resolved.

Please confirm, for this Court, that proceedings have been initiated against Judge Llewellyn. If proceedings have not been initiated, this Court expects compliance by: Wednesday, July 22: 12:00 pm GMT.

Failure to appoint a new Public Prosecutor to initiate proceedings and remove Llewellyn from office pending the resolution of this issue will be counted as an Obstruction of Justice for the obstructing party (namely, the Duke). This will result in a one day jail term for the obstructing party. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals will elevate this issue to the House of Parliament for high treason against the Judge as per the King's Edict:

King LJS wrote: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.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to the response by Duke Tazatron of Chester, Arthur sat in his chair perplexed by the attitude of not only the Judge, but now being exhibited by the Duke. He knew that Llewellyn was part of the political party of the Duke, but he never imagined that the authority of the Court of Appeals would be challenged due to political affiliations of a county government. Sighing, he wrote a response back to the Duke:

Sir Tazatron, Duke of Chester:

It gravely concerns this Court how the people of Chester regard this issue. The Court of Appeals has not passed judgment on Llewellyn. The authority of the Court of Appeals does not extend to original jurisdiction in a court case. However, by Charter, this Court is allowed to sentence an individual with procedural penalties such as contempt of court or obstruction of justice, in order to maintain and enforce the judicial process of the Court.

Court of Appeals Charter wrote: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.

This Court would also like to remind you of the following:

Court of Appeals Charter wrote:Article 8 – Enforcing the verdict
The CoA shall do its utmost to ensure that the verdict is enforced, contacting whomever is necessary to ensure the decision is enforced.
In all cases a verdict from the Court of Appeals is final – there is no appeal to a decision from the CoA.

In all cases, the decision of this Court is final. It is not, and never has been, a recommendation that should be entertained by another appointed Judge. I believe, by your actions and that of Judge Llewyllen, that you intend to undermine the authority of this Court by introducing the Endowment of Humanity Act in this issue. The Humanity Act applies strictly to an individual and county court cases. The Act is not intended to extend to the Court of Appeals; otherwise, a subsequent amendment of the Charter of the Court of Appeals would have been made after the adoption of the Act in February, or added in May by the House of Parliament when matters of the Charter of this institution were brought forth for consideration from the former Chief Justice Millicent Lenoir.

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.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to a further response from the Duke of Chester, Arthur quickly wrote back to clarify how county courts should handle procedural penalties levied by the Court of Appeals.

Sir Tazatron, Duke of Chester:

The procedural penalties sentenced by the Court of Appeals are handled by county courts but are not of county jurisdiction. To review how Court of Appeal cases should be handled by counties, please refer to the below documentation:

Salter v. Stafford
Request for Cleification on the CoA Rights and Laws

If you request more information on the way CoA sentences should be completed, please request more assistance in the House of Parliament.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to further discussions by interested parties of Chester and the Duke of Chester Government, Arthur sat at his desk to send a reply to each and every party. He didn't know why these delay tactics by Chester Government was being employed, but he knew that this would probably not be the end of the issue. He prepared for addressing this concern in the House of Parliament and the Regent. If nothing was to be done on their part, he would have to take matters directly to the King.

Sir Faradorn, Citizen of Chester:

A procedural penalty is handled by the county courts but are not of county jurisdiction. An appeal for a CoA decision is improper as all decisions made by this Court are final. As I have shown the Duke of Chester, and will document for you again, please review how these penalties are to be handled by the county courts:

Salter v. Stafford
Request for Cleification on the CoA Rights and Laws

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Sir Salter, Citizen of Stafford and Councilor of Chester:

The heading of the case is not able to be altered as the King assigns the names according to where the proceedings are initiated geographically. Though, the Judge of Stafford that presided over your case, Lady Hamilton, followed proper procedure of the mandate of the Court. Thank you for pointing that out.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Sir Tazatron, Duke of Chester:

This Court, as we have repeated several times, is not asking or requesting you to jail a man without a fair trial. We are requesting that proceedings be initiated to enforce a penalty levied by this Court. The penalty levied by this Court is not up for debate or alteration by the local courts of Chester. Should the Judge not serve the penalty levied by this Court, he and the Duke of Chester will also be levied with obstruction of justice by this Court for their continued efforts to manipulate the judicial process of this Court.

Court of Appeals wrote: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.

I have already referred you to documentation that may make this more clear, and I will not continue to address it any longer. This Court has expressed its' views in detail on several occasions to both you, and the Judge, as well as now interested parties.

In any case, if you are unaware, Chester County has a current Justice in the Court of Appeals - Justice Lelafirebird. I am also due to travel through Chester County on my way south from Cumberland and can personally make sure that the deadline of the Court of Appeals is met with no further hindrances or delays from the Chester Government.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals

Arthur_loxley wrote:Pertaining to statements presented by the current Judge of Chester, Arthur sat at his desk to write a response. He was not sure why people were now trying to argue mitigating factors such as the intent and motive of the Judge, or use the Court's standing on a LOCAL law against them. He was sure it was politically motivated regardless of those stating it was not.

Sir Llewylyn, current Judge of Chester:

The Court of Appeals reviewed the documentation concerning the contempt of court case originating in Chester to determine the frame of mind and intent of your actions. In my mind, it is very clear as your verdict states:

Lawsuit between TheRedChef and County Palatine of Chester
TheRedChef was charged with the act of public disorder.
The sentence has been passed.

Judge Llewleyn wrote:The verdict;

The defendant has been proven guilty of public disorder.

Master TheRedChef,

After careful deliberation of this court, with respect to the charges brought against you by the Office of the PP from the Court of Appeals for the crime of Public Disorder , and with use of https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img12/3727/redcontempt.jpg leading me to review the said case of Aasha vs Chester on the dates of the 1st of June and the 3rd of June
which clearly shows two counts of 'speaking out of turn' and one count of 'defamation of the court' to be taken as 'Disrupting court proceedings classified as Contempt of Court by the Charter of the Court of Appeal


Chester County Criminal Law Act 1456
Article 9 � Criminal Offences 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.

Based on the Charter of the Court of Appeals the following represents the penalties to be applied
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.

I therefore find the defendant TheRedChef to be guilty of Public Disorder and as of this, the 8th day of July 1457 and sentences to a fine of one (1) pound due to the lack of funds you presently suffer.

I will remind you also of the Court of Appeals Charter
Article 8 � Enforcing the verdict

The CoA shall do its utmost to ensure that the verdict is enforced, contacting whomever is necessary to ensure the decision is enforced.
In all cases a verdict from the Court of Appeals is final � there is no appeal to a decision from the CoA.

*Judge Llewylyn bangs his gavel*

The defendant has been sentenced to A fine of 1 pound fine.

It was clear that you understood the Court of Appeals decision was final; however, it is strange that you chose to not follow the penalty levied by the Court of Appeals in your judgment. This is a blatant disregard of the Court of Appeals mandate. A warning was given when proceedings were requested to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor. It was clearly stated for all to see:

Chief Justice Hodgson wrote:Failure to either party to comply will be counted as Obstruction of Justice and will result in a one day jail term for the obstructing party.

Your failure, as Judge, to comply with the Court's mandate has resulted in a penalty of Obstruction of Justice being levied and sentencing of one day in jail.

On behalf of the Court of Appeals,



Arthur Loxley Tudor
Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals