- Joined
- Aug 17, 2024
- Messages
- 43
Requesting this post be locked and reviewed by FIB, GOV, and/or Senior State Curators!
Time and again, we find ourselves held at the whim of these individuals, who blatantly disregard the law and show that they care not for procedure or process.
FIRST POV
Point 1: Not being allowed to speak to the facts pre-trial.
Timestamp 1:45:
"Court not started" What???
The prosecution is allowed to speak on the facts of the case, but we as the defendant's legal counsel were not, under the claim the "court has not started". Considering that this court trial should not even be happening based on the way this was handled by the prosecution, this is blatant disregard for procedure. Corruption
THE LAW IN QUESTION
Civil Code 2.2
Investigation 2.2.1 An investigation is a set of measures to clarify the circumstances associated with an offense, to establish the situation and nature of the crime, as well as those responsible for the crime (interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence, etc.).
Evidence Code 2.1
Definition of an Investigation.
2.1.1 An Investigation is defined as any actions or measures taken by a Law Enforcement Officer in order to clarify the circumstances, nature and relevant facts associated with an offence and the gathering of this Evidence for presentation to the Court or in a Case File. No investigation or order for one was ever done or completed by the SCJs. Corruption.
Civil Code 5.1
Immunity from Detention without a Warrant.
5.1.1 In the event that a person with full immunity status is suspected of committing a crime, or is caught red-handed, all evidence is sent to the Attorney General (Minister of Justice) to file a motion to initiate an investigation with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court either issues a warrant to authorize the investigation or refuses with an explanation. Only 1 supreme court Justice (Ace Rogers) had ever signed the document, and as per the lawyers Code:
Lawyers Code 5.5.2 Any Session of the Supreme Court shall consist of at least two Supreme Court Judges. Corruption.
Civil Code 14.2.7.
Pre-trial proceedings, as well as investigations of criminal offences against a First Person cannot be initiated without an appropriate order from the Attorney General or the Supreme Court. Again, it has ONLY ever been the AG Mohil Yami, and SCJ Ace Rogers who have their names on ANY of these documents. Corruption.
Lawyers Code 5.6
Powers and Rights of the Supreme Court.
5.6.1 The Supreme Court has the following judicial powers:
a) The Powers of a Judge of the Lower Courts.
b) The Authority under law to issue any Legal Documents (Indictments, Subpoenas, Orders and/or Warrants against a First Person of the State. Only 1 SCJ DOES NOT COUNT AS THE SUPREME COURT. Corruption.
Point 2: Proof the Supreme court did not read or see the case file prior to a criminal trial taking place
Timestamp 5:10: SCJ Hasn't seen the file?
Timestamp 10:00: Clip confirming they have seen the documents and refuse to end the trial:
youtube.com
Based on all procedures in the law, the Supreme Court was responsible for reviewing the case file prior to a trial even occurring. Going off the previous point, civil code 5.1 states that the SUPREME COURT (Not 1 SCJ, at least 2 are needed) should have reviewed, and come to a decision on how to proceed rather than going straight to trial. Instead, here we are, currently fighting for the defendants innocence AT TRIAL.
The fact that they looked at the case file in question and deemed it fully valid shows blatant corruption.
Point 3: Documents being submitted, and refusal to show the same documents to us.
Timestamp 20:25-21:25:
youtube.com
Under section 1.3 Rules and principles of Discovery in the Lawyers Code:
1.3 Rules and Principles of Discovery.
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery is a principle in law to ensure that any Legal Proceedings are
conducted fairly between all Parties.
a) A Lawyer must be granted full access to any Case Files and/or evidence against their Client
and this request cannot be refused.
i) Where a Lawyer has not been granted access to this information, a Lawyer may
petition a Judge of the Court in order to gain access to this information.
Clear as day, you can hear the prosecution DENY me to see the document, on the grounds that "Immunity documents are for the judges only and you may see it after"
Not only does this make zero sense, it is also blatantly illegal to do so. And once again, considering both judges accepted this and chose to continue is blatant corruption by all parties.
When I attempt to point this out, I am ignored: Not allowing me to speak, again
Point 4: Demands proper English in the courtroom, fails to do so
Timestamp 25:25-28:10
How is this even allowed? I understand mistakes, but this is beyond grammatical errors and issues in speech.
Point 5: Again, pointing out the fact this court trial SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING, ignored and forced to continue. Corruption
Timestamp 38:50-39:30
Point 6: Asking the DEFENDANT to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. Corruption.
Timestamp 39:40-40:50
Section 8.3 in the lawyers code regarding Defence
8.3 The Defence.
8.3.1 The Defence represents the Defendant or Accused in Court and will present arguments against
the Charges or Claims through testimony and presentation of Evidence.
a) The Defence is not required, by the Principle of Innocence and the Principle of the Burden of
Proof, to prove that Defendant or Accused is innocent of the crimes but must still prove any
Claims (eg: an Affirmative Defence) they make to the Court.
Multiple times have I proved my claims that this entire trial should not be happening, and multiple times is it disregarded. The fundamental principle of the law is "Innocence until PROVEN guilty" If that wasn't the case, we should be tossing people left, right, and centre into cells when we feel like it.
In the FIRST section of the civil code:
1.5 Principle of the Presumption of Innocence
1.5.1 The Presumption of Innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any
crime or action is considered innocent until proven guilty.
1.5.3 A suspect or accused is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof of the
prosecution and refutation of the arguments presented in defence of the suspect, or the
accused lies with the prosecution.
1.5.4 All doubts about the guilt of the accused, which cannot be eliminated in the
manner prescribed by this Code, shall be interpreted in favour of the accused.
1.5.5 A conviction cannot be based on assumptions.
1.6 Principle of the Burden of Proof
1.6.1 Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims
and objections, unless otherwise provided by law. If necessary, the court determines what
circumstances are relevant to the case and which party must prove them.
Point 7: Using a meeting that was not taken under oath, attempting to use it as evidence against the defendant. Corruption
Timestamp 40:50-41:38
youtube.com
SECOND POV:
Point 8: Explanation of the invalidity of the entire case file and court trial, again ignored and forced to continue, instead of postponing until mistakes can be rectified
Timestamp 1:00-3:35
At 3:30 in the second POV, you hear me call for an objection, to which it was once again ignored.
Point 9: At my request to approach the defense, I asked the Prosecution to re-iterate what was said about the signatures. Again, corruption. ANYTHING involving a first person MUST require the supreme court (2 SCJs)
Timestamp 4:30-4:50
Point 10: Multiple meetings had been held regarding availability, and from our end, we accommodated the court THREE times due to the judge not showing up. They are aware and have been aware since the day I became a lawyer that I am not typically available for the times mentioned during the week. On top of the fact that earlier that day we had a meeting with the AG, giving him prior notice of our lack of availability tomorrow. However, the judge again just re-iterates "this is a court order" despite the fact we told him that legal counsel would not be present for the defendant.
Timestamp 5:30-7:12
Based on the aforementioned points, and the rank of the individuals involved, it has become extremely difficult to pursue this ICly, with procedure being disregarded, the law not being followed, and blatant corruption from all parties, and thus I ask an admin who is well versed with the IC city law (As mentioned at the beginning of this post) to please investigate the matter based on the evidence provided.
Time and again, we find ourselves held at the whim of these individuals, who blatantly disregard the law and show that they care not for procedure or process.
FIRST POV
Point 1: Not being allowed to speak to the facts pre-trial.
Timestamp 1:45:
"Court not started" What???The prosecution is allowed to speak on the facts of the case, but we as the defendant's legal counsel were not, under the claim the "court has not started". Considering that this court trial should not even be happening based on the way this was handled by the prosecution, this is blatant disregard for procedure. Corruption
THE LAW IN QUESTION
Civil Code 2.2
Investigation 2.2.1 An investigation is a set of measures to clarify the circumstances associated with an offense, to establish the situation and nature of the crime, as well as those responsible for the crime (interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence, etc.).
Evidence Code 2.1
Definition of an Investigation.
2.1.1 An Investigation is defined as any actions or measures taken by a Law Enforcement Officer in order to clarify the circumstances, nature and relevant facts associated with an offence and the gathering of this Evidence for presentation to the Court or in a Case File. No investigation or order for one was ever done or completed by the SCJs. Corruption.
Civil Code 5.1
Immunity from Detention without a Warrant.
5.1.1 In the event that a person with full immunity status is suspected of committing a crime, or is caught red-handed, all evidence is sent to the Attorney General (Minister of Justice) to file a motion to initiate an investigation with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court either issues a warrant to authorize the investigation or refuses with an explanation. Only 1 supreme court Justice (Ace Rogers) had ever signed the document, and as per the lawyers Code:
Lawyers Code 5.5.2 Any Session of the Supreme Court shall consist of at least two Supreme Court Judges. Corruption.
Civil Code 14.2.7.
Pre-trial proceedings, as well as investigations of criminal offences against a First Person cannot be initiated without an appropriate order from the Attorney General or the Supreme Court. Again, it has ONLY ever been the AG Mohil Yami, and SCJ Ace Rogers who have their names on ANY of these documents. Corruption.
Lawyers Code 5.6
Powers and Rights of the Supreme Court.
5.6.1 The Supreme Court has the following judicial powers:
a) The Powers of a Judge of the Lower Courts.
b) The Authority under law to issue any Legal Documents (Indictments, Subpoenas, Orders and/or Warrants against a First Person of the State. Only 1 SCJ DOES NOT COUNT AS THE SUPREME COURT. Corruption.
Point 2: Proof the Supreme court did not read or see the case file prior to a criminal trial taking place
Timestamp 5:10:
SCJ Hasn't seen the file?Timestamp 10:00: Clip confirming they have seen the documents and refuse to end the trial:
✂️ Confirming document and continuing regardless
34 seconds · Clipped by Leo · Original video "20-10-2024 Court Trial for Bam Part 1" by Leo
youtube.com
Based on all procedures in the law, the Supreme Court was responsible for reviewing the case file prior to a trial even occurring. Going off the previous point, civil code 5.1 states that the SUPREME COURT (Not 1 SCJ, at least 2 are needed) should have reviewed, and come to a decision on how to proceed rather than going straight to trial. Instead, here we are, currently fighting for the defendants innocence AT TRIAL.
The fact that they looked at the case file in question and deemed it fully valid shows blatant corruption.
Point 3: Documents being submitted, and refusal to show the same documents to us.
Timestamp 20:25-21:25:
✂️ Documents being submitted, refusal to give
60 seconds · Clipped by Leo · Original video "20-10-2024 Court Trial for Bam Part 1" by Leo
youtube.com
Under section 1.3 Rules and principles of Discovery in the Lawyers Code:
1.3 Rules and Principles of Discovery.
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery is a principle in law to ensure that any Legal Proceedings are
conducted fairly between all Parties.
a) A Lawyer must be granted full access to any Case Files and/or evidence against their Client
and this request cannot be refused.
i) Where a Lawyer has not been granted access to this information, a Lawyer may
petition a Judge of the Court in order to gain access to this information.
Clear as day, you can hear the prosecution DENY me to see the document, on the grounds that "Immunity documents are for the judges only and you may see it after"
Not only does this make zero sense, it is also blatantly illegal to do so. And once again, considering both judges accepted this and chose to continue is blatant corruption by all parties.
When I attempt to point this out, I am ignored:
Not allowing me to speak, againPoint 4: Demands proper English in the courtroom, fails to do so
Timestamp 25:25-28:10
How is this even allowed? I understand mistakes, but this is beyond grammatical errors and issues in speech.
Point 5: Again, pointing out the fact this court trial SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING, ignored and forced to continue. Corruption
Timestamp 38:50-39:30
Point 6: Asking the DEFENDANT to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. Corruption.
Timestamp 39:40-40:50
Section 8.3 in the lawyers code regarding Defence
8.3 The Defence.
8.3.1 The Defence represents the Defendant or Accused in Court and will present arguments against
the Charges or Claims through testimony and presentation of Evidence.
a) The Defence is not required, by the Principle of Innocence and the Principle of the Burden of
Proof, to prove that Defendant or Accused is innocent of the crimes but must still prove any
Claims (eg: an Affirmative Defence) they make to the Court.
Multiple times have I proved my claims that this entire trial should not be happening, and multiple times is it disregarded. The fundamental principle of the law is "Innocence until PROVEN guilty" If that wasn't the case, we should be tossing people left, right, and centre into cells when we feel like it.
In the FIRST section of the civil code:
1.5 Principle of the Presumption of Innocence
1.5.1 The Presumption of Innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any
crime or action is considered innocent until proven guilty.
1.5.3 A suspect or accused is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof of the
prosecution and refutation of the arguments presented in defence of the suspect, or the
accused lies with the prosecution.
1.5.4 All doubts about the guilt of the accused, which cannot be eliminated in the
manner prescribed by this Code, shall be interpreted in favour of the accused.
1.5.5 A conviction cannot be based on assumptions.
1.6 Principle of the Burden of Proof
1.6.1 Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims
and objections, unless otherwise provided by law. If necessary, the court determines what
circumstances are relevant to the case and which party must prove them.
Point 7: Using a meeting that was not taken under oath, attempting to use it as evidence against the defendant. Corruption
Timestamp 40:50-41:38
✂️ Using testimony NOT TAKEN UNDER OATH
47 seconds · Clipped by Leo · Original video "20-10-2024 Court Trial for Bam Part 1" by Leo
youtube.com
SECOND POV:
Point 8: Explanation of the invalidity of the entire case file and court trial, again ignored and forced to continue, instead of postponing until mistakes can be rectified
Timestamp 1:00-3:35
At 3:30 in the second POV, you hear me call for an objection, to which it was once again ignored.
Point 9: At my request to approach the defense, I asked the Prosecution to re-iterate what was said about the signatures. Again, corruption. ANYTHING involving a first person MUST require the supreme court (2 SCJs)
Timestamp 4:30-4:50
Point 10: Multiple meetings had been held regarding availability, and from our end, we accommodated the court THREE times due to the judge not showing up. They are aware and have been aware since the day I became a lawyer that I am not typically available for the times mentioned during the week. On top of the fact that earlier that day we had a meeting with the AG, giving him prior notice of our lack of availability tomorrow. However, the judge again just re-iterates "this is a court order" despite the fact we told him that legal counsel would not be present for the defendant.
Timestamp 5:30-7:12
Based on the aforementioned points, and the rank of the individuals involved, it has become extremely difficult to pursue this ICly, with procedure being disregarded, the law not being followed, and blatant corruption from all parties, and thus I ask an admin who is well versed with the IC city law (As mentioned at the beginning of this post) to please investigate the matter based on the evidence provided.
