| [1914] Appeal of Nakari v. North Prarie and Concrete Slab |
|
Your honourable justices,
I appeal against and seek to have the current case of Nakari vs Concrete Slab and North Prarie dismissed on the grounds of judicial misconduct and process violations. I refer to the judicial act at article 2: Judicial Conduct (1) Justices of the High Court shall a. rule upon what is written in law, and not be influenced by prejudice based on personal bias, corruption by undue influence, or discord. Justice Belschaft, during the course of the case process, has stated in the agreement of a plea bargain, that "it is a logical extension"of the laws to accept a plea bargain. Whilst a legal question on the legality of such bargains is currently being sought. Without mention of the plea bargain in the judicial act, I submit that Justice Belschaft has veered from Article 2(1)(a) in that he has not ruled upon the written law, by entering into a plea agreement and also by seeking a change of Plea by North Prarie. I further draw you attention to article 6 on sentencing within the judicial act. (1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction. In the case of Nakari v Concrete Slab and North Prarie, North Prarie no conviction has been delivered and no finding of guilty yet made by the court. As such no sentencing could take place by the Court. Further, the entering of an agreement may prejudice Concrete Slab's (the first respondent) case. As such, I submit that the Justices have failed to follow proper process, contrary to the Judicial Act. In addition , I draw your attention to the Appeals process found at Article 7. (2) An appeal may be filed by any member of the South Pacific or by any non-member with a vested interest in the case, for at least one of the reasons described in this article. (3) Appeals may be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct. For such an appeal, the assigned justice of the case being appealed is automatically recused from the appeal case. As a member of the South Pacific, I therefore seek an appeal of the case on the grounds of process violations and judicial misconduct by the presiding Justices. I thank the court for it's time
High Court of the South Pacific Notice of Reception | 1914.NR This submission has been received and has been assigned the following naming information:
Docket File Number: 1914 Reference Name: Appeal of Nakari v. North Prarie and Concrete Slab Question:
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
May it please the Court:
The law does not permit the Court to hear this appeal. While violation of process is a valid reason for an appeal (Judicial Act 7.3), the Court has yet to render a decision in Nakari v North Prarie & Concrete Slab (HCCC1902). Therefore, the question is can the Court "reverse or reevaluate a case" (Judicial Act 7.1) if there is no written decision? The law does not provide for such an appeal. It may be argued that the Court has decided some aspects of HCCC1902 by entering into an agreement with North Prarie. However, the Judicial Act states that cases may be reviewed. The Judicial Act does not provide for the stand-alone appeal of an individual decision within a case (this is not to say that a single fault cannot overturn a case at appeal, but that it is the whole case which is being appealed and not the faulty decision in and of itself). Because of this, the law does not provide for an appeal prior to the conclusion of the whole case. It therefore stands that, until such time as HCCC1902 is decided, the Court should not allow an appeal. In light of this, I urge the Court to suspend this appeal attempt until after a decision had been rendered in HCCC1902. Also, the ongoing legal question Legality of plea bargins (HCLQ1903) may have bearing on this appeal as well. As such, I urge the Court to allow this appeal only after HCLQ1903 has been decided.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
![[Image: BYEo2lg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BYEo2lg.png) Determination of Justiciability
Whereas Beepee has petitioned this Court to overturn the entire case in Nakari v. North Prarie and Concrete Slab: I appeal against and seek to have the current case of Nakari vs Concrete Slab and North Prarie dismissed on the grounds of judicial misconduct and process violations.
Whereas this Court has reviewed the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies. It is resolved with respect to this Appeal as follows:
It is so ordered. Rebeltopia
Associate Justice
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
I would like to ask the court if they can extend their reasoning request time frame, as the petiotioner has not been in NS in almost twenty days, and I think this is an implrtant case.
Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
Extension of Opinion Requests
Both Associate Justices Awe and Rebeltopia have agreed to extend the Opinion Request to no later than 26/5/2019 @ 1600 PM GMT/1200 EDT. Rebeltopia
Associate Justice
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
I thank the court for its patience.
I will endeavour to give a response in the coming days
Your honourable justices,
I once again thank you for your patience on this matter. I respectfully ask the court find justiciablity in this case. Firstly, on the matter of right of appeal Artcile III (2) of the Charter states that all citizens have "the right to a fair trial". Further Art. III (6) states "The High Court may strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter." There is nothing that limits by III(6) the actions to those of the court as to the right of a fair trial. In their brief Nat has argued that, under Article 7: Appeals (1) of the Judicial Act (contained within the spoiler), no decision has been madex and therefore no appeal can be made. As there is no way to reevaluate an open case. It is not true that no decision has been made. His honourable justice Belschaft clearly stated at this post (see spoiler) that a decision has been reached and that there was a move to sentencing. Regardless that this was not in the usual form of decisions made by the court, the decision has been reached in the mind of the honourable justice. Further evidence is that no further comment has been made on the case for the past 2 months since the decision was reached. . Nat has also argued that a single process violation may not result in a different outcome, however a process which is fundamentally flawed and fails to follow the judicial act, may however have resulted in a breach of the right to a fair trial under the Charter. A defendant (North Prarie) has noted the importance of this case. Therefore I respectfully ask that the court find the appeal justiciable and allow progression to full appeal.
(05-20-2019, 03:33 AM)Beepee Wrote: Further evidence is that no further comment has been made on the case for the past 2 months since the decision was reached. On a purely personal basis, given that I have no participation in this appeal, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. A case is decided when the appropriate ruling is posted; said ruling explains the decision that was reached and explains in detail why said decision was reached, including the evidence reviewed and the legal arguments considered.
The truth is that the case is yet to be decided because a decision is yet to be posted. Until such a time as a decision is posted, the Court is free to change its tentative conclusion, receive additional evidence for its consideration, or otherwise reconsider what it previously thought was legally sound. In addition, the case in question is on hold because the legality of plea bargains is being challenged. It would be unbecoming for the Court to use a power that is under legal review. A lack of activity for the case does not in any way constitute the presence of a decision. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Thanks for the info kringle.
Given this then, I withdraw the appeal. |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |