Announcement

**Snowflake** · January 1, 2004, 22:41

Dear Chairman, I respectfully ask that, since I am directly involved in this incident, perhaps I am not qualified serving as a judge. Also, to be fair, should an investigation be held into the creation of the shaddow forum? I suppose citizen Jamski has the right to ask for a trial on this matter also.

**Kody** · January 1, 2004, 22:45

Micha and Dacole are away. So that leaves Enigma as the last active enough person to take Honghu's place.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider?

**Mead** · January 1, 2004, 23:29

Originally posted by HongHu
Dear Chairman, I respectfully ask that, since I am directly involved in this incident, perhaps I am not qualified serving as a judge. Also, to be fair, should an investigation be held into the creation of the shaddow forum? I suppose citizen Jamski has the right to ask for a trial on this matter also.

I tend to agree with Hong Hu.

Althouh Hong Hu appears to have good judicial temperment and works hard, Hong Hu's participation as a Magistrate would make the proceeding subject to implications of partiality.

I suggest we go with Octavian, myself (if my questions posed to Voltaire following are answered), and another active member of the Hive; there are a few who, like myself, are not members of the government but have the ability to act as a magistrate. I suggest that Octavian and I decide amonst outselves who among the Hive faction we ask to serve as a magistrate. Once we make our selection I suggest that both the prosecution and defense be able to 'Voir Dire', (question) us as to verify our suitability.

Following is a PM that I received from Voltaire asking me to serve as a maistrate on this trial, as well as my response to him.

Please note that, as I told him in my PM reply, I would make the PM as well as any communications to me regarding this trial, available my fellow magistrates, defense counsul and the prosecution to ensure a fair and open trial.

Voltaire's PM to me and my response:

Re: Appointment to Magistrate

quote:

Voltaire wrote on 02-01-2004 01:34:
Comrade Mean, the People?s Procurator wishes to see you appointed to the position of Magistrate within the Supreme People?s court for we believe you will be fair and impartial and hence make a good judge. This appointment comes soon after the detention of Citizen Jamski and him impending trial. Please look at this thead: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/show...threadid=105456 for further detail in regard to the trial of Jamski itself. I hope you will accept this offer to become a Magistrate, your services would be invaluable.

-Chairman Voltaire
END QUOTE

Dear Chairman Voltaire

I would like to help but before I accept my nomination I would like to know a few things:
If there is no guidance presently, then we can do it so long as our authority on this case is absolute.

Are there any guidelines for the rules of procedure?
We could make them up as we go along. I favor a Western 'Common Law' based proceeding.

Do we have any guidance on determining whether he has committed the alleged crimes? (Are there various elements to the crimes that must be proven?) I favor the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

What are the maximum punishments for the various crimes?
If banishment was one of the possible punishments then, then due to the extreme nature of the punishment, that would require that a unanimous decision of all judges.

Does he have legal representation?
If not, will the court have the power to appoint one?

Has a prosecutor been appointed? Will there be one?

What is the overall authority of the court?

How do we determine guilt or innocence (is there a possible verdict of not proven?), unanimous? 2/3?

Will our decision be appeallable?

If so to whom?

I am assuming, considering the small size of our potential jury pool, the finds of guilt or innocence, and what sentence will be imposed in the event the court does find that the defendant is guilty will be determined by the three judges. Let me know if I am wrong.

Mead

PS
If there is no guidance presently, then we can do it so long as our authority on this case is complete.

PPS
Please note that if I serve as a Magistrate then I would not want to receive any PM?s from anyone other than my fellow judges on matters regarding this case. Any such ?ex parte? communications made to me will be immediately shared with my fellow judges, as well as both the defense and prosecution. I will share my thoughts on the prohibition on ex parte communications with my fellow magistrates to ensure we have an open, fair, and impartial trial.

I do not mind a PM response from answering my above questions. Though I will make a copy of your response available to the other Magistrates as well as the defense and prosecution. Once the Trial commences I would not welcome any further PM?s from you related to this case.

PPPS
I do not mind helping out, but want to know what I am getting into before I agree to commit. Please note that I do not like taking on new obligations easily because once I agree to do something I like to complete it.

**Voltaire** · January 2, 2004, 00:12

As the Head Magistrate of the Supreme People’s Court I am uncertain how to deal with this matter. I will leave it to Citizen Jamski to determine whether it would be appropriate for you to serve as a judge in this case or not, if he feels confident in your impartiality then you may continue to serve as the Head Magistrate for this case, if not then we will find a replacement.

If you insist of withdrawing yourself from the case then I cannot refuse, and will have to find another temporary Magistrate to take your place.

-Chairman Voltaire

**Octavian X** · January 2, 2004, 01:10

Comrade Chairman, I believe I've missed the two Acts you refer to in the initial charges against Comrade Jamski. Please, for the use of the court, provide links to the two Acts Jamski is accused of violating.

~Magistrate Octavian X

**Voltaire** · January 2, 2004, 02:54

The Constitutional Reestablishment Act of 2149 refers to my executive order to dissolve the government and form a new constitution, the order was given in the spirit that the Hive will remain civil and follow the regulations of the old constitution until a new one can be established. It removed the new constitution from law, but it stipulated that nonetheless obedience of it was required.

The Emergency Management Act of 2150 was the act which brought into existence what has become known as the ‘shadow’ management ministry, given that the ministry itself at the time was secret so too was the act. This act was mentioned since Comrade Jamski was in violation of it by demanding the demolition of the ministry, and as the act was an executive order it has the same power as law. Even though the act was secret it does not change the fact that Comrade Jamski violated it. First and foremost ignorance of the law is no defense. When the shadow ministry was discovered it should have been know full well by Comrade Jamski that it was created under the mandate and supervision of the Central Continuing Committee, and still he questioned the actions of the CCC. This constitutes violation of state decree.

-Chairman Voltaire
Clarification of Points, Datalinks

**Voltaire** · January 2, 2004, 03:00

Comrade HongHu, in the spirit of justice, has stepped down from her post as Head Magistrate for this case because of her involvement in it as not to compromise the integrity of the courts. Therefore the People’s Procurator requests someone to come forward and take her place, Comrade HongHu herself suggested Comrade Frankychan as the replacement.

-People’s Procurator

**Jamski** · January 2, 2004, 09:06

I will accept any court that is prepared to act independantly both of the real government and the "shaddow government".

Attorny Jamski will represent ~~the free people of the Hive~~ me again, as he did a reasonable job last time, and noone else was prepared to risk thier neck for me. Or I would accept Attorny HongHu, if she is willing.

-Jam

**Mead** · January 2, 2004, 14:23

I have agreed to serve as a Magistrate

Below is the full discussion between Voltaire and myself that we had before I agreed to serve as a Magistrate.

This discussion details several of the powers of the court, how communications will be dealt with by the court. This discussion also gives indications of how the court will proceed with its buisness.

Please be aware that the post is rather long, but it contains all the communications between Voltaire and myself on this matter.

BEGIN POSTS OF PM'S

Voltaire to Mead

Comrade Mean, the People's Procurator wishes to see you appointed to the position of Magistrate within the Supreme People's court for we believe you will be fair and impartial and hence make a good judge.

This appointment comes soon after the detention of Citizen Jamski and him impending trial. Please look at this thead: http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=105456 for further detail in regard to the trial of Jamski itself. I hope you will accept this offer to become a Magistrate, your services would be invaluable.-Chairman Voltaire

Mead to Voltaire

Re: Appointment to Magistrate

Dear Chairman Voltaire

I would like to help but before I accept my nomination I would like to know a few things:

If there is no guidance presently, then we can do it so long as our authority on this case is absolute. Are there any guidelines for the rules of procedure? We could make them up as we go along.

I favor a Western 'Common Law' based proceeding. Do we have any guidance on determining whether he has committed the alleged crimes? (Are there various elements to the crimes that must be proven?)

I favor the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

What are the maximum punishments for the various crimes?

If banishment was one of the possible punishments then, then due to the extreme nature of the punishment, that would require that a unanimous decision of all judges.

Does he have legal representation?

If not, will the court have the power to appoint one?

Has a prosecutor been appointed?
Will there be one?
What is the overall authority of the court?
How do we determine guilt or innocence (is there a possible verdict of not proven?), unanimous? 2/3?
Will our decision be appeallable?
If so to whom?
I am assuming, considering the small size of our potential jury pool, the finds of guilt or innocence, and what sentence will be imposed in the event the court does find that the defendant is guilty will be determined by the three judges.
Let me know if I am wrong.

Mead

PS
If there is no guidance presently, then we can do it so long as our authority on this case is complete.

PPS
Please note that if I serve as a Magistrate then I would not want to receive any PM's from anyone other than my fellow judges on matters regarding this case.
Any such 'ex parte' communications made to me will be immediately shared with my fellow judges, as well as both the defense and prosecution. I will share my thoughts on the prohibition on ex parte communications with my fellow magistrates to ensure we have an open, fair, and impartial trial.

I do not mind a PM response from answering my above questions. Though I will make a copy of your response available to the other Magistrates as well as the defense and prosecution. Once the Trial commences I would not welcome any further PM's from you related to this case.

PPPS
I do not mind helping out, but want to know what I am getting into before I agree to commit. Please note that I do not like taking on new obligations easily because once I agree to do something I like to complete it.

Voltaire to Mead Voltaire's responses to Mead questions are in bold.

QUOTING MEAD
Dear Chairman VoltaireI would like to help but before I accept my nomination I would like to know a few things:

Of course.

If there is no guidance presently, then we can do it so long as our authority on this case is absolute.

Given the lack of a formal constitution at present we have adopted the clauses of the former constitution informally for the time being, which means the authority of the Supreme Court in the rulings will indeed be absolute, furthermore it will be independent.

Are there any guidelines for the rules of procedure?

We could make them up as we go along.

I favor a Western 'Common Law' based proceeding.

In fact there do not exist any formal guidelines, and we do work off a precedent-setting Common Law system, Jamski was already tried under this system and thus there does exist precedent for the upcoming case.The procedure follows like this. The People's Prosecutor appointed by the Office of the People?s Procurator will speak on behalf of the people. The defendant may chose to either represent himself of appoint an attorney to defend him. The Magistrates head the case and make a ruling, 2 votes are required for the sentence to carry. The Magistrates are free to question the prosecution and defense as they please, request information to be brought before the court, etc.

The Magistrates also interview the witnesses, and the 3 magistrates will prepare a set of questions for the defendant after hearing the evidence of the defense and the prosecution but before making a final decision. Lastly, the trial will take place in public.

Do we have any guidance on determining whether he has committed the alleged crimes? (Are there various elements to the crimes that must be proven?)

I favor the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

The Hive legal system for the most part operates on common law, though any state decrees are considered legally binding.

Furthermore conservation of the good of the people and the state also fall under illegal activity. We have no formal legal code, in fact after this trial has been concluded the Hive is planning a rewriting of the constitution, as Magistrate you would be more than welcomed to submit a legal code for approval by the people, in fact I would encourage it. The common law system, though not necessarily bad, does have its shortfalls, and certain laws should be codified.

As for the degree to which the crime must be proven, that remains at the discretion of the Magistrates. Once again though formally there exists no regulation explicitly stating that the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is up to the discretion of the Magistrate in question.

What are the maximum punishments for the various crimes?

If banishment was one of the possible punishments then, then due to the extreme nature of the punishment, that would require that a unanimous decision of all judges.

Exile and banishment are indeed available options for punishment, in fact during the trial of Citizen Jamski for treason not so long ago the court recommended exile, but due to extenuating circumstances the punishment was reduced.

The People's Prosecutor may make a request as to what punishment should be considered for the accused, though the decision remains up to the magistrates. As for the unanimity of the decision, though it is not required since we have no formal legal code, it is recommended that the judges attempt to achieve compromise in their decision. Therefore if one find themselves uncertain of a decision a compromise should attempt to be reached, this is to show the people that the government is united.

Part 2
Does he have legal representation?
If not, will the court have the power to appoint one?

The court does have the power to appoint a representative for the defendant, but the defendant first must be given the opportunity to either represent themselves or chose their own representative. Only when a defendant is non-cooperative will the court appoint representation.

Has a prosecutor been appointed? Will there be one?

The Office of the People's Procurator will provide a prosecutor.

What is the overall authority of the court?

The court has the final say in legal matters brought before it, unless it is found by the Central Continuing Committee that a decision of the court contravenes the best interests of the people and the state; in which case the Central Continuing Committee may request the court to reconsider a ruling. The CCC only has the power to pardon someone for a crime, not to convict them of one when found innocent.

How do we determine guilt or innocence (is there a possible verdict of not proven?), unanimous? 2/3?

Once again, though unanimity is sought it is not required, a verdict need only have 2/3 of the votes.

Will our decision be appeallable?

The decision may be appealed before the Central Continuing Committee if it so chooses to hear the case.

If so to whom?

The Central Continuing Committee.

I am assuming, considering the small size of our potential jury pool, the finds of guilt or innocence, and what sentence will be imposed in the event the court does find that the defendant is guilty will be determined by the three judges. Let me know if I am wrong.

You guess correctly.

PPS
Please note that if I serve as a Magistrate then I would not want to receive any PM's from anyone other than my fellow judges on matters regarding this case. Any such 'ex parte' communications made to me will be immediately shared with my fellow judges, as well as both the defense and prosecution. I will share my thoughts on the prohibition on ex parte communications with my fellow magistrates to ensure we have an open, fair, and impartial trial.

You are free to do so. Once again no formal regulations exist. Though it should be made clear that communications from the Central Continuing Committee deemed confidential may not be shared with the public, though sharing it with the fellow Magistrates will be allowed.

Formally the Central Continuing Committee is the vanguard of the People, and therefore we must ensure that the interests of the People are protected and secured, but we will respect the independence of the court as stipulated by the previous constitution until a new constitution can be arranged.

I do not mind a PM response from answering my above questions. Though I will make a copy of your response available to the other Magistrates as well as the defense and prosecution. Once the Trial commences I would not welcome any further PM's from you related to this case.

As stated though the CCC will respect the independence of the courts, the courts are still under the jurisdiction of the People and hence the People's vanguard the CCC.

PPPS
I do not mind helping out, but want to know what I am getting into before I agree to commit. Please note that I do not like taking on new obligations easily because once I agree to do something I like to complete it.

On a personal note if I may, I like your dedication and attention to detail, if you would be so kind as to participate in the Third Constitutional Committee which will be called into session after the trial. You by no means have to accept, but it would be good to get your input on the new constitution. And on another note, I will give you my word that I will not interfered in the upcoming case.

Voltaire, Chairman of the Central Continuing Committee

Mead to Voltaire

Chairman Voltaire
I agree to your request to keep communications from the CCC that wants kept confidential sealed. I will however share them with my fellow Magistrates, the defense and prosecution. Restraining orders will be imposed on both the defense and prosecution prohibiting them from revealing communications from the CCC that the CCC wants kept confidential. I understand that the CCC will mark those communications it wants kept confidential.

Allowing sensitive CCC communications to remain sealed but available to both the defense and prosecution (but not the public), serves both to protect the interests of justice as well as safeguards the confidences whose disclosure to the public would injure the Hive. The court will have broad powers to levy sanctions on any party that violates the restraining order.

If the prosecution or CCC feel, and convince the court that the defendant (if he is defending himself) is not to be trusted to keep the confidences without breaking the restraining order, then the court would have no choice but to appoint trusted legal counsel to assist the defendant (and to receive and keep those CCC communication, using them to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial).

This response to you, like the prior communications between yourself and me, should me posted in the public (available only to all Hive members) forum. This way the Hiverian public will be aware that although there may be communications that are under seal and not available to the public, that there will not be any communications to or from the court that the defense does not have access to.

I am sure the public will understand that there will, of course, be communications that they should not, and will not, have access to, but that, of course, the defense will have access to all these communications to provide a fair defense for the defendant.

If the above is acceptable I agree to serve as a Magistrate.

Mead

Voltaire to Mead

If you so desire the following regulations I find acceptable, though I take issue with sharing information with the defense and prosecution, but I can live with it. The CCC will take care not to say anything to anyone it does not want disclosed. This compromise will serve both to protect the interests of the CCC in keeping save the state and the public, as well as allow the court to share in pertinent information available to the CCC.I further agree to the provision that the exchange should be made public.

In fact, if I could request of you to do the following. Codify the agreed upon regulations and functions of the court of the Hive, the code can be used for future cases. It will be the first step toward the new constitution.-Chairman Voltaire

Mead to Voltaire

I Accept my Position as Magistrate.

Mead

**Enigma_Nova** · January 3, 2004, 08:18

Originally posted by Kody
Micha and Dacole are away. So that leaves Enigma as the last active enough person to take Honghu's place.

Yeah, like THAT guy would have an unbiased opinion.

**Enigma_Nova** · January 3, 2004, 08:28

Originally posted by Jamski
I will accept any court that is prepared to act independantly both of the real government and the "shaddow government".

Attorny Jamski will represent ~~the free people of the Hive~~ me again, as he did a reasonable job last time, and noone else was prepared to risk thier neck for me. Or I would accept Attorny HongHu, if she is willing.

Well, I disagree with your ideology, but you damn well have a right to express it.

Now if only someone could direct me to the 'law' thread...
While I disagree with the abolition of the elite forum, it goes too far to suggest that dissent be punished.

Jamski, while having a position I personally disagree with, and manners I find repulsive, nonetheless has a right to express anger about his exclusion.

The actions of this court merely show that we in fact are -not- a democracy game but rather seek to hold together a rigid structure (which apparently failed as the Shadow dissolution proved)

While I support a caste society I do NOT support a society that punishes those of lower caste or those that dare to dissent to the upper class. Such would defeat the point of having multiple views to debate, and in turn undermines our ability to grow and adapt as a society.

Not knowing any of the Hiverian or DG 'laws' I am ill-advised on this matter (feed me links) but know that no man should be punished for expressing dissent with a rigid system run by those that think of it as godly.

...I consider it a personal insult that you would prosecute Jamski. I will show you reason by which your insult was very unwise.

**Enigma_Nova** · January 3, 2004, 08:46

@_@ Damn law is confusing. That's why I'm doing Physics and Math.

So I'm ignorant of all this interpersonal stuff...
Where can I be 'filled in' on all this talk about prosecutions and a CCC? Quite frankly I don't know what this is about...

So Jamski is charged with what again?
Why is punishment nescesary?
Are the laws even well-founded or useful?
I am very suspicious of this type of thing. Modern law is based on Judeo-Christian values, which I find foolish and erroneous. I, in fact, can invent a new and better type of system free from the insanities of the past
(Though mune to the sanities of Detached Introspection)

**Jamski** · January 3, 2004, 09:36

Jamski, while having a position I personally disagree with, and manners I find repulsive, nonetheless has a right to express anger about his exclusion.

Ok, I need some amusement in my life. I'd like Enigma_Nova to be my attorney, PLEASE see, I have manners - which of course are part of the Judeo-Christian values you find so foolish and erroneous.

-Jam

**Enigma_Nova** · January 3, 2004, 14:12

Don't appoint me just yet. I know bugger all about any legal system, and I'm not sure where you guys keep your 'constitution'.

BTW can I have the Shadow Forum Act complete and in full, plus any relevant ammendments?
I may not know law but I know logic, and as distant as those two are you can win debates with either of them.

Announcement

People’s Procurator Emergency Order

People’s Procurator Emergency Order

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment