Fair Trial for E.S.B.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Hmm, alas we are not all good here.

What is being suggested here is not a Fair Trail of E.S.B., it is a Fair Trial for E.S.B.
Let me clarify what I mean by that difference.

The presence or absence of E.S.B. in this Kingdom as an accused within our jurisdiction is not relevant here - it is not a trial of E.S.B.
What I am suggesting is an analysis by the Corts of two things - and it may, therefore, require two separate actions:

1) The full evidence, as presented to me in camera and partly re-presented in this thread is not public knowledge. There needs to be consideration as to whether it should be public knowledge.
The actions, as taken by this Kingdom in this (past) event also require careful consideration, to determine whether we have the right checks and balances within our structure.
We need agreement, between the people and the Corts that our actions on this occasion were (at least) arguably correct, and if not then we need sober discussion and consideration as how they may be corrected.

2) The alignment of punishment to misdemeanour in our Law is rather vague, and where it is not vague is (arguably) unnecessarily harsh. This is something which this situation has highlighted.

What is being suggested is a trial - or possibly two - without a defendant.
We are not talking about E.S.B. here, but about the situation his and other peoples' actions have given rise to.
We are not talking about whether some other penalty should now be imposed on E.S.B., but we are talking about what penalties should be imposed in the range of possible misdemeanours under our Law.

For the moment, E.S.B.'s guilt or otherwise is not under discussion in this/these suggested trial(s): what is under consideration are:

The facts of this case, and the behaviour of this Kingdom, as a community in this case, and
The requisite tempering of Talossan legal punishment to be appropriate to the offence.

If it is the collective opinion that

(a) the Administrators can do no wrong, and
(b) Talossan Law is perfect, and
(c) Talossan Law was correctly applied in this case, and
(d) no forgiveness is ever possible,

then - and only then - do we not need further consideration.

Fellow citizens, those are four highly improbable premises.

It is my opinion that we still need a sober, and public consideration of the points raised above.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Ián, perhaps part of the resistance to your proposal is the fact that any trial would be putting not only the actions of ESB, but those of KJ1, under forensic examination. Some citizens are very protective of the institution of the monarchy - perhaps even to Nixonian standards ("if the King does it, it's not illegal").

[Ceváglh Scurznicol]

I'm not crazy about the idea of a trial of someone in absentia. If people or the goverment want to make public the evidence and/or facts that led to his resigning his citizenship, and discuss the wisdom of the government's actions, it's fine with me, but don't call it a trial. Call it an Inquiry, or even more pompously, a Royal Commission.

[Istefan Perþonest]

I just don't particularly see what Ian wants as the role of a trial. If there's no plaintiff and no defendant, there is no case to be tried. What Ian wants is more like an investigative commission, which is a reasonable thing to want, but doesn't actually have a role for the Cort as an institution even if a judge heads the thing.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Mar 3, 2013 19:17:01 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

I just don't particularly see what Ian wants as the role of a trial. If there's no plaintiff and no defendant, there is no case to be tried. What Ian wants is more like an investigative commission, which is a reasonable thing to want, but doesn't actually have a role for the Cort as an institution even if a judge heads the thing.

Just what I was going to say. If people have concerns about how things were handled, the Ziu could appoint a commission to look into it. Like the Gruber Commission back when Ben blocked Anglatzara from rejoining.

[Deleted]

Mar 3, 2013 19:17:01 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

I just don't particularly see what Ian wants as the role of a trial. If there's no plaintiff and no defendant, there is no case to be tried. What Ian wants is more like an investigative commission, which is a reasonable thing to want, but doesn't actually have a role for the Cort as an institution even if a judge heads the thing.

Ditto this. What Ian is proposing can be an investigative commission, an inquiry or any number of things. But it is not a trial. Further, it is something that is beyond the scope of the judiciary's bag of tricks.

I agree with our intent, Ian, but our job as justices is not to consider the imperfections of the law and how best to resolve them. Our job is to apply the current law to cases brought before us. We lack the ability to stand up on our own and launch investigations.

If some legislators want to get together and form a commission, I don't think there would be a problem with that.

Or, if the monarchy really wants to lay it all out, the royal household could appoint a non-partisan investigative committee to issue a full report to the public after having the chance to poke around.

The latter option could be an interesting opportunity. I'm certain that a few names on that committee would be found favorable to everyone. The monarchy wouldn't hold any control over the final product, so they would be free to be as critical as they like. And then the legislators can decide what, if any, action should be taken based on that report.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Mar 3, 2013 20:52:55 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

If some legislators want to get together and form a commission, I don't think there would be a problem with that.

Or, if the monarchy really wants to lay it all out, the royal household could appoint a non-partisan investigative committee to issue a full report to the public after having the chance to poke around.

The latter option could be an interesting opportunity. I'm certain that a few names on that committee would be found favorable to everyone. The monarchy wouldn't hold any control over the final product, so they would be free to be as critical as they like. And then the legislators can decide what, if any, action should be taken based on that report.

My suggestion would be a committee that would be members suggested and appointed by all 3 branches of government. Perhaps a few Citizens who are members of none of the above, too.

That way, there would be no reason for anyone to suggest bias from any position.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

A lot of this will have to wait for a commission because there is currently no sitting Cosa to propose the legislation to form a commission. Personally, all the hand wringing about a fair trial is redundant - good luck finding a jury who has not been influenced in some way by all the attention.

[Deleted]

Mar 3, 2013 19:03:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Ián, perhaps part of the resistance to your proposal is the fact that any trial would be putting not only the actions of ESB, but those of KJ1, under forensic examination. Some citizens are very protective of the institution of the monarchy - perhaps even to Nixonian standards ("if the King does it, it's not illegal").

Gee, paranoid much?

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Perhaps here we are suggesting what in the UK is called A Judicial Review? As I have said, several times before, it is not a trial of E.S.B., either present or in absentia, but a sober consideration of the legal (and, indeed, political and governmental) situations highlighted by this sad event.

But I am not against a Commission of some sort, provided that it can be shown in its setup to be both truly unbiased and truly unrestricted in its investigative scope.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Mar 3, 2013 19:03:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Ián, perhaps part of the resistance to your proposal is the fact that any trial would be putting not only the actions of ESB, but those of KJ1, under forensic examination. Some citizens are very protective of the institution of the monarchy - perhaps even to Nixonian standards ("if the King does it, it's not illegal").

There is no action by any Talossan that is closed to consideration. All actions, by all people, are open to moral judgement.
Part of the function of the Courts in any free country - and of the Corts in this one - is to be utterly unbiased in judging the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the influential and those without voice.
True Justice is universal.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Mar 3, 2013 20:52:55 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

... Further, it is something that is beyond the scope of the judiciary's bag of tricks.

I agree with our intent, Ian, but our job as justices is not to consider the imperfections of the law and how best to resolve them. Our job is to apply the current law to cases brought before us. We lack the ability to stand up on our own and launch investigations....

I respectfully disagree.
Our job as justices is, yes, to apply the current law to cases brought before us - that is certainly true.
But our very title of Justices shows that we have a loyalty that runs even deeper than the Law and even higher than the Law.

Our duty is the exercise of Justice.

If that duty means that we have to consider, and make comments upon, the imperfections of the Law, then that is something we must do.
If, in some case, we believe that the dictates of Natural Justice contradict the current Law, then we must say so.
If, in some case, we believe that the current Law is ambiguous or in its wording does not actually express the wishes of the Ziu at the time of making that Law, or that several Laws pertaining to a single case are in conflict, then it is our duty to criticise these Laws (though it is not in our power to change them - nor should it be).
It is also our duty to interpret the Law, both when we are asked (in some case), and voluntarily, when we perceive some awkward legal situation arising.

It can be argued that because of the Cort ruling, requested by the Administrators, there is already a case concerning E.S.B. which has been brought to the attention of the Uppermost Cort (Cort Pü Inalt) (Ex parte Börnatfiglheu et al.). I am of an open mind as to whether, on the one hand, further actions are required by the Cort in this case (such as the sober considerations being proposed here, in this thread), or whether, on the other hand, we should consider the formulation and instigation of an independent Commission, free to see all evidence, and call upon all citizens (and maybe others) for their input.

I am not, however, content to see no open, legal and procedural consideration be made, and I shall continue to press for independent and thoughtful action to be taken. It has been my experience, in other countries, that the Courts make these considerations, and so it was my first impulse to suggest the Corts here, in this Kingdom of Talossa.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Shouldn't this be in the realm of the Attorney General, not the Justices?

Justices don't get to create cases. They judge the case.

[King John]

Mar 1, 2013 16:40:40 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I can confirm that - at least by his [Eric's] account - the Head of State pretty much told him: "we have the evidence, let's not draw this out, renounce your citizenship and go away and that'll be an end of it".[...]But, having said that, there is an argument as to whether it was a good thing for our Head of State to do - to tell a criminal to get lost so we didn't need to have an upsetting trial.

I didn't record the conversation, but to the best of my recall what I said was something along these lines: "You have been caught. We know about all your sock-puppet accounts. All 18 of those accounts have been suspended. The evidence is conclusive and overwhelming. I think you should confess what you did, and I think that you owe everyone an apology. I don't know what you'll want to do, or whether you'll want to renounce your citizenship, but my expectation would be that if you don't renounce, you'll be tried and found guilty, and your citizenship revoked. Furthermore, I think some of the things you did may have criminal consequences outside of Talossa. If you want to post anything on Witt, I'll make an account available to you for that."

He said, "I do confess, and I do apologize. I'll let you know what I decide to do." And an hour or two later, he emailed me renouncing his citizenship.

— John R

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 4, 2013 16:35:30 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

Perhaps here we are suggesting what in the UK is called A Judicial Review?

As I understand it, not under the laws of England and Wales, nor those of Scotland. A judicial review requires that a party, with standing, make a complaint to the court.

(The major difference between the two, as I understand it, is that judicial review applies to actions of public and quasi-public bodies only in England and Wales, while Scotland does not distinguish between public and private bodies.)