Author Topic: [CLOSED]AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen  (Read 2473 times)

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
[CLOSED]AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« on: 14 January, 2015, 09:04:11 PM »
By the power given to me by Our King and with sole intention to protect the order and follow the laws of Kingdom of Saxony, High Court by own initiative start this prosecution against crimes committed by Götz v.Berlichingen, subject of Kingdom of Saxony.

I give the ground to Prosecution represented by Martin Wagner, Chancellor of the Kingdom, to present accusation against the Defendant. This must be done in 24 hours.

For Defendant  24 hours are given to find a lawyer who will represent him in this session. If he fail to do so Defendant will must defend by himself.
« Last Edit: 20 January, 2015, 12:31:32 AM by Ernst Weber »

(RIP) Martin Wagner

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #1 on: 15 January, 2015, 08:56:20 AM »
Your Honor,

To avoid problems previous judge has with court sesion performing because of incompetence and lack of knowladge abour court procedure I plad this court sesion to be proceded as example for strict following the rules.

I will also take freedom to answer some questions Defendants has about procedures, and ask you for pardon if you prefer to do so personaly.

As it is stated here: http://wiki.medieval-europe.eu/index.php?title=The_Trial there is a tree steps to open court procedure.

I. If so the Judge then opens that trial in the appropriate Kingdom Court of Law sub-forum.

It is done as we can see here.

II . He would then notify both the Defendant and the Prosecutor via PM of the trial along with a URL link to the pertinent trial post.

It is done. All accused receive a letter:

Quote
Subject: Call to court

Text: Dear Sir,

You are called to the court of Kiev to answer to accusation in violating of Saxony laws.

This is the link to the court session: (URL of court session)

This text is provided to us from our collegue from Kiev so there was a understandable copy-paste error with mentioning court of Kiev. But it is acceptable  because the main goal of letter is to inform accused about opened court session and providing hiwm with URL (something previous Judge fail to do according case archives)

III. Also the Judge of the Kingdom where the trial is taking place must use the in-game functions of the Court House building menu to create the Crime Procedure. In the form he needs to fill out:

    The name of the Defendant
    A summary of the crime(s) he is accused of
    The URL link to the Trial

Once submitted, the Judge can go back to the Court menu to view and administer the Crime Procedure.


All trials was opened in Court building in game. I dont know why defendants think that they must be visible for them, but if it so they must report to admin technical malfunction. Cases are opened in game in 10 minutes period after forum topics are created and administration can check and confirm it.

Now , your honor, I would like to plead for procedural issue. I see that you wish to combain two phases of court :

Quote
1: Starting the Trial:

The Judge starts the Trial. He must present the Defendant and the Prosecutor and ask them if they want to appoint an Attorney (Defense) or a Barrister (Prosecution).

The Defendant and the Prosecutor must declare if they want to appoint someone or not, and tell the Judge who they are appointing.
Also, if the Defendant and the Prosecutor can’t find lawyers and can’t speak the native language of the Judge or of the other Parts, they can ask to have a “Basic English” trial, so that it could be understood using common translating tools.
This whole step must be done within 24 hours from the Judge’s opening post.

and

Quote
2: Opening remarks by the Prosecution:

The Prosecution should open the trial with a presentation of the facts of the case, and a listing of what laws were broken by the Defendant. All evidence should be presented at this time and may take the form of a Screenshot (see sidebar).
The Prosecution can call up to two Witnesses, who will present their witness.
This whole step must be done within 24 hours from the Prosecutor post.

I ask you to not do so , as I say previously, because of my wish this court session to be an exemplar. I ask you for permision to have my 24 hours to present my accusation only after Defendant name his lawyer or state thet he will defend by himself.

I hope my plead will be accepted.


(RIP) Götz v.Berlichingen

  • General group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #2 on: 16 January, 2015, 03:42:16 PM »
I accept the assignments of my fellow Saxons to represent their interest before this court, and I may as well speak for myself!

Regarding the already advanced point in time of your trial duration and the given guidelines I reject the suggestion of granting some extra 24 hours to the prosecutor


I may point out that it has been almost 45 hours since the beginning of these trials, way over 50 since restrainment, and the accused have still not been properly charged with any crime whatsoever.
« Last Edit: 16 January, 2015, 04:31:16 PM by Götz v.Berlichingen »

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #3 on: 16 January, 2015, 05:48:29 PM »
Citizen Götz v.Berlichingen,

You are not a judge and you are not in position to accept or reject procedural pleads. According the Codex of Trials in first phase “Starting the Trial” which can continue 24 hours Prosecutor and Defendant must be named, which is done. Also this is the phase in which Defendant can name his lawyer. “Opening remarks by the Prosecution” is separate phase following the first one. With intention to shortening time of the trial I try to do this two phases simultaneously, but the plea of the Prosecution is just and I cant decline it.

As the procedure was freezed by highest authority I will give to all defenders 6 more hours to name their lawyer if the want. If they dont court will expect from them to defend themselves.

(RIP) Götz v.Berlichingen

  • General group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #4 on: 16 January, 2015, 06:43:38 PM »
This is most certainly right, your honor, I am not a judge.
But you are mistaken to believe the prosecutions request cannot be denied - it is rather the opposite!
Proceedures state:
Quote
A trial schedule may be shortened or increased if all the involved parties agrees.
and I do not agree in increasing the schedule even more than it already has!
If your timeline allows for another 6 hours for the defendants to name legal representation, the same amount of time shall be granted to prosecution to present their charges.

Since, up to this point every entry was repeated for every single trial I request to combine all cases into one, in order to reduce efford and space for all those involved.

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #5 on: 16 January, 2015, 08:30:50 PM »
As I do not count the time in which Higher authority freeze trial sessions so I will refuse your request again. If you are disagree you can ask compensation from Higher authority for time you stay in restrain during trial temporary suspension.

Also I must decline your request for combining all cases in one as we both dont know the details of accusation and can't speculate that they will be all the same. Also such procedure is not described in Codex of Trials and I prefer cases to be performed separately for more suitable court archive organization.

Also 6 hours I give are for benefits of defendants - as soon they name a lawyer or declare self defense I will declare end of first phase and give the ground for Prosecution to present accusation.
So for now I ask you just to confirm if you will appoint a lawyer or will perform self defense.

Also I just warn you that from now , with intention for maximum shortening of this trials so potential innocent people to not suffer extended restrain, I will not comment you procedural request separately from the trial procedure. So if you speak without granted permission according Codex of Trials I will fine you. If then you are granted with permission to answer a question of present your remarks and you use it for procedural debate by this you will not have additional opportunity for remarks and your speach will be counted as line of defence.

Quote
Whoever speaks without permission can be fined 100 silver coins at the Judge's discretion

This is equally true for Prosecution. If there is any procedural questions you can sent them to me as personal message

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #6 on: 17 January, 2015, 02:10:05 AM »
Since citizen Götz v.Berlichingen not used the right to appoint a lawyer, he will have to defend himself.

Prosecution have 24 hours from this moment to present accusations against the Defendant.

(RIP) Martin Wagner

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #7 on: 17 January, 2015, 10:12:31 PM »
Your Honor,

On 8 Nov 1314 AD Kingdom of Saxony, ruled by Marius Von Schliefen, declare a war to Grand Principality of Kiev. This is the date was the beginning of the most terrible period in history of Saxony. Ex-king Marius become an enemy of mighty and resourceful country populated with brave and pride people, and with this act make whole Saxony a target for their vengeance, especially after conquering of kievan province Pinsk with its population. All this acts of Marius`s government was not provoked in any way from peoples of Kiev. As Marius himself state in his letter to His Majesty king Radost , he start this war because he have some issues with Prussia. The connection between issues Saxony-Prussia and aggression against Kievan territory is unclear. But outcomes from this actions are very clear - religious riots, repressions for over 50% of saxonian population, creating of concentration camp in Pinsk, and in the end revolution.

All this create suffering and inconveniences for all people of Saxony - those who live here many years in peace and serenity and those  who become citizens of Saxony in result of Saxon aggression.

In this Prosecution see a violation of National Security Act, as all actions of Marius`s, and after that Herald`s government have as result disturbance of the peace and internal security of Saxony.

Defendant Götz v.Berlichingen was Judge of Bremen in both governments and one of most effective tools of the tyrants for oppressing people of Saxonia. Ignoring the Codex of Trials and with numerous procedure violations he pronounce verdicts by tyrant orders even for crimes which accused have no chance to perform. For example:

Svatomir Brodnik to
- a fine of 1.000 silver for the attempt to undermine the ecclesiastic administration in Bremen combined with 3 days incarceration.
- a fine of 1.000 silver for the attempt to undermine the ecclesiastic administration in Lueneburg combined with 3 days incarceration.


Svatomir Brodnic is born 2 Nov 1314 AD and temple in Lueneburg was destroyed on 25 Nov 1314 AD. By so Svatomir was 23 days old in the moment then temple was destroyed. But as we know till 30 day from the birth he technically can not participate in such activity.

Many others who was recognized as guilty but was less than 90 days old do not receive -50% to fine as it is required according Codex of Laws, and after they do not pay enormous fines they suffer extended imprisonment for all the sum without -50%.

This people are:


Magnus Galte
Viktor Romanov
Stepan Kishka
Pyotr Zurov
Foma Bodin
Svatomir Brodnik
Aleksandar Donskoj

Also when peoples of Saxony, when their patience came to the end, rose up against the hated ruler, Götz v.Berlichingen was at the forefront of the defense of the tyrant. The prosecution believes that only the partners of the king in his nefarious deeds against the people dared to raise a hand against the ordinary people who want to restore justice, peace and serenity in the country.

All this allow Prosecution to believe that  Götz v.Berlichingen is guilty in violation of National Security Act as via establishing a genocide on saxon citizens via unjust and biased judgment he aroused popular discontent and disturb the peace and/or internal security. Prosecution ask maximum punishment to Defendant - 1000 sp fine and 3 days imprisonment.

As completely separate case, after people overthrow the tyrant, Götz v.Berlichingen take advantage from the chaos and ignoring King`s pardon perform mass imprisonment. In result 14 citizens was locked in prison of Pinsk for 25 hours (including transportation time Bremen-Pinsk).

Prosecution see in this open revolt against legitimate government and new violation of National Security Act. So Prosecution ask for additional fine of 1000 sp and 3 days of imprisonment, plus compensation for the victims:

Case: jailed prisoner unjustly. The prisoner didn't loose a stat point during his stay
max(2000, age (in days) * the number of excess days held * 2 silver coins)

Mary Kuznetsova 432 days old - 864 sp
Svatomir Brodnik 73 days old - 146 sp
Vanjka Susanin 432 days old - 864 sp
Drwall Van Loon 728 days old - 1456 sp
Viktor Volkov 165 days old - 330 sp
Boris Gromov 182 days old - 364 sp
Martin Wagner (me) 57 days old - 114 sp
Stepan Kishka 114 days old - 228 sp
Pyotr Zurov 108 days old - 216 sp
Magnus Galte 137 days old - 274 sp
Vladimir Artrald 485 days old - 970 sp
Vladimir Kalita 148 days old - 296 sp
Alexei Grozn 219 days old - 438 sp
Ivana Susanin 156 days old - 312 sp
------------------------------------------------------
Total: 6872 sp

So Prosecution ask total punishment for Götz v.Berlichingen of fine of 2000 sp and 5 days imprisonment, plus compensations of 6872 sp.

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #8 on: 18 January, 2015, 12:17:48 AM »
I give the ground for Defence. Citizen Götz v.Berlichingen can present his plead.

(RIP) Götz v.Berlichingen

  • General group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #9 on: 18 January, 2015, 09:24:40 AM »
Your Honor,
Mr. Wagner,
my fellow Saxons,

what we've been presented here, by the travailing prosecutor, is merely any evidence of Götz v.Berlichingen having actively violated any current Saxon law at all. In fact, his words testify Berlichingen's constant struggle to improve the well-being of the people of Saxony!

Actions that result in possible re-actions which potentially result in somebody else committing a vague crime based on evidence heard through the grapevine and 'indirect evidence' still concealed from the auditory should not suffice to condemn a man for treason and justify the penalty applied for by the prosecution!

If it is the intention of the prosecution to codemn a man for being loyal and true towards King and Kingdom and serving at his best executing the office he's been burdened with than I challenge you you show me one good man on this world!
The simple fact alone that you do not coincide with his methods doesn't make them a crime.

As member of the government Götz v.Berlichingen surely had no intentions, whatsoever, of weakening or destabilizing the former, nor had he ever disturbed the inner peace of the realm. Whatever unresolved personal issues may stand between the accused and Mr. Wagner are not subject for the public to solve!

Complains about the verdicts he, as judge, has returned should have been brought up before the Supreme Court, which had sancified the ruling in this particular case, as can be reviewed here. Most certainly were they not intended to destabilize the legal government.

Concerning the charges of taking advantage of the chaotic situation your hostile takeover has caused by means of unjust deportations and open revolt I refere to the legimacy of the previously mentioned verdicts sanctioned by higher levels of authority. Since every imprisoner was legally prosecuted and/or violated another law (in this case banishment) according to law applicable to this very day there was nothing illegal about arresting the convicts listed by the prosecutor.
In fact, it would have been an act of treason had I not done so!
You will recognize that the order to do so were given between 10:29 and 10:34 on that fateful day



of your illegal uprising, while the still challenged amnesty order was issued over 2 hours later, at 12:40.

As such, none of the arrested was 'unjustly' imprisoned and, hence, there are no claims for compensation to be satisfied.

Since no sign or evidence for a crime has been presented I don't see any reason at all as to why charges against him should be held up or why Götz v.Berlichingen should be held captive any longer and I suggest releasing him immediately and request compensation for his losses.

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #10 on: 19 January, 2015, 12:13:07 AM »
Generaly I understand the position of the Defence, but there are some moments needing clarification:

- case of Svatomir Brodnik, accused and declared guilty for crimes he ha no posibility to perform
- case of Martin Wagner, who was sent to  prison of Pinsk without finished trial or final verdict
- cases of violation of Codex of Trials for deminishing of fines for citizens under 90 days age.

I want to know are this actionas are a resoult of your incompetence as a Judge or was part of your intention to make this people suffer as much as you can make them?

I will await your answer in your closing remarks. Now I give the ground to Prosecution for 24 hours.

(RIP) Götz v.Berlichingen

  • General group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #11 on: 19 January, 2015, 02:05:25 AM »
Dear Mr. 30-days-old-snooty-nosed-little-upstart Weber,
exactly the opposite is true!

We've been playing along for the sake of the game with your little charade of set-up trials until this point.
But this court has significantly violated proceedured all along these trials and I intended to present my charges to this court in my final speech. But since you insist on stretching the restrains way over every limit and keep prohibiting my person from orderly conducting my defence at every given chance I will request other institutions to put an end to this farce.

I accuse you of holding fake trials with no substance at all only to intimidate my clients and everybody involved.

I have carefully documented all your failures and those of the prosecution and will present them to the honorable masters of the Supreme Court to have you answer to them,  leaving it to their valued judgement to resolve these cases.

It's a pitty to watch you fail even on this level of the game but, to be blunt, noone was expecting any different from you to begin with.

(RIP) Martin Wagner

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #12 on: 19 January, 2015, 08:38:38 PM »
You Honor,

Prosecution must aknowledge thet inprisonments have place to be before the act of amnesty, but still we think Defendant is guilty for other cases of unjustice and abuse of authority, which even you Honor notice. Here is the correction of asked penalties:


So Prosecution ask total punishment for Götz v.Berlichingen of fine of 2000 sp and 5 days imprisonment, plus compensations for Martin Wagner (me) 57 days old - 114 sp.

(RIP) Götz v.Berlichingen

  • General group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #13 on: 19 January, 2015, 11:17:57 PM »
As I've mentioned in other places before,
Laws need to be

standardized, universal, comprehensible and consistent


Comprehensible and consistent,
however, are what the remarks of the prosecutor and his accusations, brought up against my client, lack!
Mr. Wagner speaks of
Quote
incompetence and lack of knowladge abour court procedure
but clearly he himself should take another reading of what his hand wrote before his mind was burdened to think about it. He speaks of these trials as an

example for strict following the rules

and later, in the very same speech not only admits that this court, and with it these trials, are by no means independent and in pursuit of justice for the people of Saxony, but that it is simply an extension of the greedy green tentacle, languishing in the East, to bring upon the defendant the wrath of Kiev!

This text is provided to us from our collegue from […] mentioning court of Kiev.

He has undoubtedly proven that his comprehension of
Quote
knowladge abour court procedure
needs a little disentanglement. Not only does he quote the rule that exposes his own negligence by not meeting his own deadlines,



he also appeals for an unprecedented expansion of virtually another 24 hours

I ask you for permision to have my 24 hours to present my accusation only after Defendant name his lawyer or state thet he will defend by himself.

I hope my plead will be accepted.

We have all enjoyed your little lecture on the
Quote
tree steps to open court procedure
for it has revealed yet another strain of noninitiation of

consistency

that these trials are subject to, as Mr. Wagner did present three necessary steps to open a trial. What he must have forgotten is to mention the 4th step in opening a trial!

IV.
Quote from: wiki
Also, in order to keep the defendant from leaving town during his trial, the "victim" (or the Judge, when opening the trial) can contact the Guard Captain, who may at any time choose to perform a Restrain act upon the defendant in order to keep that defendant within the country for a period of up to xxx hours.

Maybe the prosecution simply finds no importance in following rules during his 'exemplary court sessiom' or it was of no matter for his statement...
But I rather believe it was not mentioned to conceal from the public that this 4th step was
conducted some good 9 hours[/u] in advance of what prosecution called the I.st step!

Rules applied: yes...
Rules applied (as should have been expected): NO!!!

But how can one expect a nonpartisan trial if the judge himself participates in not obaying to any rule him and his kind proclaim to know so well?

Standardized and universal,
should a legal system be, in order to practice justice against everyone, offering equal oportunities for all who appeal for it's protection.
But we were also presented examples of how lip service to [qutoe]following the rules[/quote] is not only payed by the prosecution but also by an institution that claims for itself the

sole intention to protect the order and follow the laws of Kingdom of Saxony

while actually twisting and turning the law, bending it until it fits this system's only true purpose – to find a way of disciplining those you stood up, proud and determined, against the minions of Kiev, who would not be kept in thrall!

Ordery brought up references to this court to investigate clear violations of that same Saxon law this court pretents to represent were placated! As an example I present this Formal Request for Initiation of Criminal Prosecution and the carefull reader will instantly know the nature of this courts spirit!
(rem.: assigned claims mentioned in the above only rest until termination of present cases)

This same spirit revealed itself again when the defence objected to severe violations of proceedures during this case, when prosecution called for extention of the timeframe. Naturally enough that objection was overruled! It is clearly stated:

Quote from: wiki
Trial Duration
[…]  A trial schedule may be shortened or increased if all the involved parties agrees.
which was clearly not the case!

An exemplary collection of sophisticated explainations for the just decisions of this institution goes:

So I decide that facts […] do not merit the opening of a Trial.
[…] and I will not return to this discusion again

[…] you are not in position to[…]

]
[…] so I will refuse your request again.
Also I must decline your request […]
Also such procedure is not described in Codex of Trials […]
Also I just warn you that […] I will not comment you procedural request […]
[…] I will fine you.

Your history is well known, gentlemen, you are the scum that keeps creeping through our sewerage, never to know out of which pivy you will be spewn out next to infect the next kingdom from within!
And now you are charging us with the crimes you've committed, deeds you've always disavowed.
Helplessly you're reaching, insisting on the same filthy lies which you've tried to beguile the world with and which you've told so many times that noone blelieves them anymore but yourselves.

I call this rediculous and the final judging will be on you!

(RIP) Ernst Weber

  • General group
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/023 The people against Götz v.Berlichingen
« Reply #14 on: 20 January, 2015, 12:31:12 AM »
I am tired fo you, Götz v.Berlichingen. I several times ask you to address your procedural pleads to me in PM or to administration. Also I warned you to not speack in the court withour my permision and what will follow if you disobey.

You Last speach I will consider as your  closing remarks with which you deliver bad service to your client. You was apointed to prove precariousness of accusations not to dispute this court legitimacy. As you fail to do your job I am forced to accept Prosecutor`s plea.

Götz v.Berlichingen is recognized by this court as GUILTY for violation* of National Security Act and sentenced to pay a fine of 1000 sp and 3 days imprisonment, also he will pay a compensation of 114 sp to Martin Wagner and fine for violation of court descipline of 700 sp (for 7 interapts in active trila procedure). Defendant have 12 hours to deposit fine to Court building, after that he will be inprisoned. If he do not willingly give up himself, arrest order will be issued and passed to Guard Captain.

*As both accusation are for violating of the same law I decide both to be combined and Defendant to be punished once for both.

By this I proclaim this trila closed.