[RP] Request for Trial - Chester

Arthur_loxley wrote: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 http://img12.imageshack.us/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

Llewylyn wrote:Sir

CoA 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.

By CoA charter obstruction is a criminal offence, a crime sir.

National Law wrote: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.

You are an agent of the Law, you hold the highest office of Law in this land shy of the King.

The Law is there to help protect the people and define our society. By your interpretation and these actions your 'protection of the people' is ensuring that 'your will above all' should be upheld and your 'definition of society' is compliance of only your interpretations, with no regard for the legal procedures or precedence you are setting.

I was once told that Justices of the CoA are considered Judges in the eyes of the King, then allow me to direct you thus

Kings edict wrote:A judge must always bear in mind this fundamental principle: He must only act in the interests of the Renaissance Kingdoms game. These interests are rigorously defined by the interests of all the players (not solely of the majority of them), including the condemned. A judgement must be found that satisfies not only the plaintiffs but also the accused, who must be treated with enough respect that they are not disillusioned with the game and lose interest.

General principles of justice

A judge holds great power over thousands of Renaissance Kingdoms players ; along with that power goes a responsibility toward the other players, the game in general and the designers. If a judge abuses or misuses their power, it could gravely endanger the game's equilibrium, poison the atmosphere and damage the fragile structure that the designers made such an effort to construct. For these reasons, a judge must respect the following rules, which have the goal of framing and harmonising justice in the Kingdoms across all the duchies and counties as well as through time.

Silvermane wrote:What you fail to see is that it is a crime to the breach of procedure and not to any law.

As such the COA has full jurisdiction, sanctioned by the HOP, in imposing punishment to one that ignores or disregards such procedure.

As the COA itself has no venue to impose the said punishment on the infractions to procedures, it asks the county courts to do so on its behalf. The COA does not ask for a trial ... just the imposition of penalties disregarding PROCEDURE which is within their realm of their charter legally approved by the HOP (representatives of the county councils).

Gabrielle_ wrote:However in the case of an obstruction charge or a contempt charge levied during an open court trial, the issue of the trial is being covered within the bounds of the Humanities Act.

Thedukeofholmby wrote:If the Court of Appeals is to apply your interpretation of the Endowment of Humanity Act, it is never lawful for a seated Justice to convict some one on Contempt of Court charges. What, may I ask the venerable arbiter, is this Court's obligation; to the law or the individual? Any judgment issued is done so with the sincere understanding of the gravity of the action. All justices on this Court are well aware of their duties to uphold the law and to act in the best interests of Renaissance Kingdoms. If the justices of the Court of Appeals are not afforded the opportunity to maintain order in its Courts, what are we to do? Surely it would not be wise for a County Judge to hold a trial as to the behaviour of an individual in the Court of Appeals. Your interpretation makes it impossible for any one to receive punishment if as you say:

Hon. Llewylyn wrote:no person shall be fined and/or imprisoned

Where does this end?