[RP] Let Justice be Served

Llewylyn wrote:[rp]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commons,

I have noticed in the Court of Appeals, High Chief Justice Loxley has publicly posted a letter declaring me, as Judge of Chester, guilty of Obstruction of Justice and sentenced me to a day in Jail.

He has presented his facts and reasoning behind this judgement here

I wish to complain on two points if you will allow me this grace.

Firstly the sentencing and imprisonment of an individual without trial is expressly against national Law

The Endowment of Humanity Act
Article 2. Right to Trial
No person shall be fined and/or imprisoned without first having a trial as defined by his Majesty the King.

Secondly, as Lord Loxely has pointed out several times, the Chambers of the CoA are for the requests for appeal only and are not open as a discussion chamber. He has therefore presented a charge with which I can not reply to directly and with the declaration of guilty which I also can not answer is creating a possible bias in those that can only read one side.

I respectfully submit that the CoA, a chamber of Law needed by all to ensure that fair justice is severed, has itself performed an act that it is to protect against. That 'justice' is not served at the end of a sword in a fair and civilised society. That the rights of the individual, no matter the reason, should be observed.

Yours humbly

Llewylyn of Chester

[/rp]

shamu wrote:you have a right to heard in court, after all victims do have rights.

Lazy wrote:Actualy, I'm surprised he didn't press for something harsher given the Kings statements on Judges.

Arthur_loxley wrote:A page from the Court of Appeals comes forth and hands the Judge a letter from the Chief Justice.

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

(OOC: CoA charter does not allow for 'something harsher', Lazy. )

Marzena wrote:"Seriously isn't it time to stop bending COA to this nonsense? It is time for COA to do as it was supposed to, not as it wants to. The case should have been heard."

TheRedChef wrote:This is getting to be a bit much. Llewylyn was acting in accordance with the Kings edict on the Judicial Charter which allows certain discretion, the Court of Appeals own ruling in Rotbottem v Chester, the endowment of humanities, and what can be regarded as a reasonable interpretation of the CoA Charter.

This is all about 9 pounds. An amount I will gladly hand over to forestall this matter.

Lizabet wrote:I think the problem isn't the 9 pounds. It stems from the fact that a sitting Judge disregarded the ruling of the CoA and did not uphold his responsibility. It's about accountability, not money.

Lorddragon wrote:

Lizabet wrote:I think the problem isn't the 9 pounds. It stems from the fact that a sitting Judge disregarded the ruling of the CoA and did not uphold his responsibility. It's about accountability, not money.

*Dragon has a slight moment of dizziness and has to drop a pence to ensure that gravity is still working properly....*

Lady Lizabet, you are right. It goes far deeper and broader then a simple 9 pounds.

Rotbottom wrote:Drop another penny or two, LD.

For the Court of Appeals to attempt to issue any charges, no matter the "Statement on Judges" made by His Royal Highness, without allowing the accused his time in court is an awful violation of the Humanities.

Further, Llewlylyn is entirely on the side of Law in this matter, as I presented in the Balustrade.

Perhaps Arthur Loxley needs to admit he was wrong for once, and retract the charges that have been made illegally against this man of Cheshire. Then, perhaps it'd serve Justice best for Arthur Loxley to be held accountable for his violation of the Humanities and the previous legal decisions established as Actual Common Law by the Court of Appeals.

Rot Bottom

Marzena wrote:

Perhaps Arthur Loxley needs to admit he was wrong for once, and retract the charges that have been made illegally against this man of Cheshire.

"Again Cheers! Though come now Loxley admit he ever makes mistakes?"*gasps* "When something below our feet freezes!"

Wolfaxe wrote:I don't ever recall any court that found someone in contempt of court ever having to file charges - merely passing a sentence. By refusing to do his duty required by the court of appeals to take care of something they are only required to do because of a simple flaw in the justice system Llewylyn appears to me to effectively also be in contempt.

I see no reason that charges be filed just to allow him to make a mockery of justice. Truthfully by acting this way he casts some doubt on his ability to perform his duty as an unbiased Judge, especially by refusing to serve his sentence in a fair ruling by a higher court. He took his stand against them and made his statement and got his point accross , so its time to pay for it properly.

Lorddragon wrote:

Rotbottom wrote:Drop another penny or two, LD.

For the Court of Appeals to attempt to issue any charges, no matter the "Statement on Judges" made by His Royal Highness, without allowing the accused his time in court is an awful violation of the Humanities.

Further, Llewlylyn is entirely on the side of Law in this matter, as I presented in the Balustrade.

Perhaps Arthur Loxley needs to admit he was wrong for once, and retract the charges that have been made illegally against this man of Cheshire. Then, perhaps it'd serve Justice best for Arthur Loxley to be held accountable for his violation of the Humanities and the previous legal decisions established as Actual Common Law by the Court of Appeals.

Rot Bottom

*Dragon drops a pocket full of change....*

What has this world come to?!?!?

Lizabet wrote:Chester County has been asked to file these charges against PP Lellwelyn, as per the CoA Charter. They have so far failed to comply with this edict from the CoA. Does that not make the PP, Judge, as well as the Duke liable for Contempt of Court charges? They are dragging their heels to follow the law against one of their own. This could also possibly cross over to charges of Abuse of Power.

Marzena wrote:"Gee a lot of threats of abuse of power around England these days... One wonders why HOL hasn't completed that discussion on a new national militia... LJS edict stated we had to have a national court to oversee all counties... It did not state we had to have a COA... I would recommend we form our new national courts, and rip the COA carpet from beneath it's feet.

The COA is corrupt. For many months a lot of people have come forward from all over the nation. When will they stop forcing, and start fixing? I do believe Chester should fight, and take the appeal to the king. Many of this nation will side with them."

Lorddragon wrote:

Lizabet wrote:Chester County has been asked to file these charges against PP Lellwelyn, as per the CoA Charter. They have so far failed to comply with this edict from the CoA. Does that not make the PP, Judge, as well as the Duke liable for Contempt of Court charges? They are dragging their heels to follow the law against one of their own. This could also possibly cross over to charges of Abuse of Power.

Lady Lizabet, i hate to correct you... but Llewylyn is the Judge of Chester. This would be his second running as such.

Llewylyn wrote:

Wolfaxe wrote:I don't ever recall any court that found someone in contempt of court ever having to file charges - merely passing a sentence. By refusing to do his duty required by the court of appeals to take care of something they are only required to do because of a simple flaw in the justice system Llewylyn appears to me to effectively also be in contempt.

I see no reason that charges be filed just to allow him to make a mockery of justice. Truthfully by acting this way he casts some doubt on his ability to perform his duty as an unbiased Judge, especially by refusing to serve his sentence in a fair ruling by a higher court. He took his stand against them and made his statement and got his point accross , so its time to pay for it properly.

Wolfaxe,

The reason behind the charge of obstruction is not in question, I admit that in the CoA Charter there is provision for such. My point is that there was no trial for this charge, no chance for my side to be said, no request for information on any mitigating thought / actions.

In short, The CoA has the right to up hold its charter and to pass 'charges' based on such, I question to its ability to pass a sentence without trial.

Lizabet wrote:Please refer to the following Article from the Current Court of Appeals Charter outlining Contempt of Court:

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.

A careful reading will show that anyone found guilty of obstruction of justice will be imprisoned for one day once the case is decided by the CoA. There are no provisions stated anywhere for a trial for any of these criminal offenses. It is left to the discretion of the CoA. The offending PP or Judge is also to be removed from office until this sentence is served.

Judge Llewelyn was asked to file charges against a citizen of Chester per CoA charter. He did not do so, a clear case of obstruction of justice. He is still the seated Judge of Chester and Duke Tazatron has not removed him from his position as required by Charter, nor filed the Contempt of Court charges against him.

Whether you agree with these Charter rules or not, they are legal and completely within the right of the CoA.

Judges and PP are both powerful positions with much authority. As such, they are held to a higher standard of behavior. It is to them that we look to enforce our laws and punish the guilty. When they themselves ignore the very laws they are charged with upholding, they should be expected to accept the consequences of their actions.

Beemo wrote:I agree with Lady Lizabet on this. This is a procedural penalty. Judge Llewelyn didn't follow proper procedures and it is within the CoA to point that out, contempt, and expect the penalty to be applied. When you failed to do that then next step is taken. Which is another procedural penalty.

The procedures are presented before each court case. You agree to them when you present yourself to the court at the start of the case. I fail to see why a trial is needed to prove you didn't follow procedures.

This is a joke and seems to be another attempt to destroy the CoA. Accept your punishment and move on. If you can't follow procedures in a court room then there is no place for you in the court system.

Lazy wrote:In addition, he has worked with his authority as a Council member to have parliment take action and redefine such an action.
This is contemptable and unacceptable. Such a abuse of power is clearly not an acceptable action.

My statement that the CoA was rather lenient is clear. the Kings verdict on the actions of a judge and the requirements of there and very clear.

" 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."

The Court of appeals could have asked that additional steps be taken. The strictures of being a judge are very tight, its not a position where you are allowed to create law except specificly where there is no law in which there is none written. You are to uphold the laws, and not bend them because you disagree.

This is ALL within the Edicts of the King.

Which supercedes laws of county, or country.

Faradorn wrote:Faradorn rushes in to the commons after hearing what is being discussed

"Well. People say that a precedent was set in Rotbottom v Chester on contempt. While I am not commenting on the indictment against the learned judge, I will, for the sake of clarity, state that the decision in Rotbottom was with regards to Chester law on contempt."

CCCLA 1456 wrote:“All evidence for any charge is to be passed to the Public Prosecutor for investigation.”

Justice Deekay wrote:The appellant claims he had no trial in respect of the contempt, and no charge was passed to the Prosecutor. He was not allowed to offer any defence.
This Court agrees that this was an error of law, under the law of the County Palatine, on the part of the Judge. Therefore the conviction for contempt should be quashed.

"The decision means that under Chester law, even contempt charges under Chester law must be taken to court. This however, is national law which has no such clause. What do we do when the CoA charter says one thing and the endowment of humanity says another? What is a trial as described by the king?

I will say this though. I'm glad I'm in another county right now. Filing the contempt charge against TheRedChef was interesting enough for me. But Red, come on, no case to contest? Thats what a rat pinned into a corner pleads, you are neither rat nor were you in a corner.

I'm going to give some advice on this. My view is to avoid a scandal. It is no longer my job to argue the law on criminal prosecutions.

I suggest this go through a proper legal process either of county court, to CoA, to HoL (I was informed the HoL will handle complaints against a CoA decision?) or that the PP petition the regent.

Deekay wrote:

Faradorn wrote:
... I will, for the sake of clarity, state that the decision in Rotbottom was with regards to Chester law on contempt.

Justice Deekay wrote:The appellant claims he had no trial in respect of the contempt, and no charge was passed to the Prosecutor. He was not allowed to offer any defence.
This Court agrees that this was an error of law, under the law of the County Palatine, on the part of the Judge. Therefore the conviction for contempt should be quashed.

Deekay is delighted that someone has both read and understood the Court's judgment on contempt - and appreciated that it related to Chester Law

Lazy wrote:The CoA oversees the County courts, as such there rules would be those in which would be required to be enforced.

Again, its a counties laws which have the flaw that needs correcting.

Rotbottom wrote:Although I find him corrupt, and believe he is available at the whim of his political allies, Llewlylyn is in the right in this situation, very clearly.

The Court of Appeals, in RotBottom v Chester, found that Chester Law requires a legal trial, A FAIR TRIAL, as defined in the Humanities, for anyone accused of any crime, including Contempt of Court.

Now, what the Court of Appeals has done is shoved this small pigeon of a man between a rock and a hard place. The CoA is trying to force Llewylyn to violate a law, and in doing so has violated it's own recent findings to which there has been no precedential alteration.

Here are the choices before Llewlylyn:

- Oblige the CoA's call for a GUILTY FINDING WITHOUT TRIAL in this situation, which has a secondary consequence of violation of the Humanities, by not providing a fair trial, but has a primary consequence of violating the CoA's findings in RotBottom v Chester.

- Oblige Chester Law, which is in contravention of the CoA's call for a GUILTY FINDING WITHOUT TRIAL, and requires a fair trial for all accusations, in line with the Humanities.

- Find out if the CoA has the power to find guilty without trial for a crime of contempt before taking action.

He's opted for the last, which will allow him to ensure he is making a sound legal decision. To deride him or threaten him over this is silly.

It's a matter of Law important to all. Can the Court of Appeals, a body that has no judicial power other than in a capacity of oversight and appeal, find someone guilty without a trial, which is outside the bounds of the Humanities and King's Edicts. I say not, as to allow any body that power is just insane.

Just because today, I have full faith in the impartiality (if not the intelligence) of the Court of Appeals as a body, does not mean tomorrow the situation will be the same. I would hope that all of England's citizens prefer a narrow interpretation of power and reach of every legislative body in our Land.

The effect here, if Llewlylyn goes along with these demands of the CoA, is to set precedence that says the Court of Appeals can overrule the parts of the Humanities and King's Edicts which allow every accused person to be tried in a court of law and offer defense on their own behalf. This is a mistake.

Although, again, I think his impartiality can be purchased not with gold but with favor in many forms, Llewlylyn is here putting his reputation on the line for what he sees as legally right, and in this case, it may be a risk poorly taken, but one well worth standing up and fighting about.

The other side of the coin, which is equally applicable, is that he should be punished under current law for his violation of the dictates of the Court of Appeals.

All law should be applied blindly, with no matter to who is involved. And until the day that a comprehensive set of laws that rules from one end of England to another (a day I hope never to see!), there will be situations such as this arising, where one body's corpus is contrary to another body's corpus and we have to decide which one hold's more sway.

Be careful in your decision, because tomorrow, it may effect you.

Rot Bottom

Faradorn wrote:Again, Rotbottom v Chester said Chester law does not allow for a Chester law contempt of court conviction to have effect without it going to the prosecutor first to indict. The decision had nothing to do with national law.

Lizabet wrote:I think we are all missing one point. For the sake of argument, let's say that a trial on a county level commences and he is found not-guilty of contempt charges. This would in effect be reversing the decision made by the CoA. This is against our laws as there is no appeal from the CoA. Their decisions are final and absolute.

The current CoA Charter is one that has been discussed in the HoP, voted on, and passed. It is a Charter that governs a national institution. If there is a question of which law supersedes the other, national laws always take precedence over county laws.