Author Topic: [CLOSED]AZ: 1314/031 The people against Marius Von Schliefen  (Read 2279 times)

(RIP) Martin Wagner

  • General group
  • Baby Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/031 The people against Marius Von Schliefen
« Reply #15 on: 19 January, 2015, 08:41:54 PM »
Your Honor,

As Defence say nothing to invalidete accusation I have nothing to add.

(RIP) Götz v.Berlichingen

  • General group
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Honour: 0
Re: AZ: 1314/031 The people against Marius Von Schliefen
« Reply #16 on: 19 January, 2015, 11:19:09 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: 1314/031 The people against Marius Von Schliefen
« Reply #17 on: 20 January, 2015, 12:18:30 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.

Marius Von Schliefen 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. Defendant have 12 hours to deposit fine to Court building, after thet he will be inprisoned.

By this I proclaim this trila closed.