Re: Arcacia V. Ollingdale

by JJ 30th May 2010, 00:13

ha! Ray, u crazy!

by **woodb3kmaster** 30th May 2010, 06:12

Nate, he already has: https://aoin.darkbb.com/pending-cases-f115/arcacia-v-ollingdale-t2356-12.htm#21342

by **Saathoff** 30th May 2010, 06:18

Thank you Ollingdale and Arcacia. Mr. Thomas when you would hold such closed court cases, did these so-called terrorists have any lawyer or someone defending them in the case? If so, did these lawyers even try to help defend these people? If not, why didnt these terrorists have the proper lawyer that all Equal court cases should have?

by **Thomas** 30th May 2010, 10:40

~~It's Mr Simpson Nate, the PM of Ollingdale is representing his country.~~ Smile

EDIT: The PM has had to return to Ollingdale ahead of the Summit in Holidia, so the Court Case representative will be Lord Nicholas Churchill, who is the head of the Ollingdale Security Service, which includes OS1 and OS2.

Despite having court sessions held in private due to security issues, every person is entitled to have a lawyer present, and if they do not want one someone will be applied to them. This is the same with every case in Ollingdale, and the lawyer must try to defend the terrorists - it is their job and if they don't try and help then they will be removed from the case and replaced. They may be terrorists, but they still need to have legal representation.

by **Saathoff** 30th May 2010, 23:04

I was just going by your username sorry Smile

Thank Mr. Churchill. According the AIN Constitution Article 6.6, you did breach the constitutions word. I can understand where Ollingdale is trying to come in and protect its country. Id like to hear Arcacia's view on Ollingdale trying to protect its citizens by breaching Article 6.6

by **anarchy0029** 30th May 2010, 23:43

Juror from Kingdom of Hypertrophy requests:

After looking at the opening arguments. I would like to see the clarification of the the Constitution Article 6.6, because it is only a general guideline of the AIN Constitution. No specific information. But I would like to hear Arcacia's clarification.

by JJ 31st May 2010, 00:05

just can we make sure all jurors have my skype id (jbmcloyd) so we can deliberate when the time comes. Thank you.

by **Daniel** 31st May 2010, 05:22

The fact that Ollingdale sees it's breach of the constitution as the only way to properly protect it's people is short-sighted. I am reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and shall lose both."

The jury has asked for a clarification on the definition of Article 6.6. That is very simple and I refer to my opening argument where I stated that the article guarantees to everyone the right to be treated equally by legislators and the judiciary. Ollingdale, by the use of this policy, does not treat everyone equally. These cases are held outside of a normal court and as such, are not subject to the same laws and statutes that govern a court of law. It is rather like having a game of Monopoly where one player makes up the rules as they go along.

This type of "kangaroo court" is not in the public interest. It is to the detriment of the public that they are allowed to continue. They serve only to muddy the waters of the Ollingdalean judicial system, and by association, the judicial systems of every member nation of the AIN.

One cannot ratify a constitution and then pick and chose which parts of the constitution they follow and which parts they chose to disregard. Otherwise, there is no point to having it at all.

This case is not about whether Ollingdale's breach of the constitution is in the public interest, but whether the breach was made at all. They have no less than admitted that they have. In their own words: "We do not take this breach of the Constitution lightly - it was a hard decision to make and the heads of the relevant departments of my Government spent many weeks deciding what to do in this matter."

It was not an oversight, it was not an accident. In passing this legislation, Ollingdale has admitted that they deliberately swept Article 6.6 aside and acted in direct contravention to the constitution which they had ratified only a few months earlier.

by JJ 31st May 2010, 05:35

Ollingdale... defend yourself..... and GO!

by **woodb3kmaster** 31st May 2010, 07:05

Pardon me for asking, but is there still room on the jury? I've been following this trial and I'd like to be part of the process.

by JJ 31st May 2010, 07:10

yes there is room on the jury for you wood.... just add me through skype and when we're ready to deliberate we'll set up a room and discuss everything

by **woodb3kmaster** 31st May 2010, 07:54

Cool, thanks!

by **anarchy0029** 1st June 2010, 06:00

Kingdom of Hypertrophy responds:

In order to understand that there was a breach of violation. We need a burden of proof that a secular class of people were violated of their rights in Ollingdale. However, we need to distinguish sovereign rights from international rights. While human rights is an international case, was there any acts of genocide, because of race, sexuality, creed, age, heritage, political, or etc.

by **Daniel** 1st June 2010, 08:34

The legislation in Ollingdale means that persons suspected of terrorism are not put through the normal legal channels. Their cases are managed by an extra-judiciary group. There is no evidence as yet that persons have been targeted because of racial or other grounds. However, we need only look at the United States to see that it is only a matter of time before racial/religious profiling becomes par for the course with such legislation.

The term "all people are equal before the law" in this case refers to the fact that all people have equal rights when being dealt with by legislation and the judiciary. That people can be summarily arrested, spirited away and tried in secret is a clear breach of this article. Ollingdale has admitted as such.

Anti-terrorism laws are a must in this day and age, but that does not mean that a separate court, which is outside of normal legal channels should be in operation. Any such court may act in a prejudicial manner inasmuch as a conviction may be a foregone conclusion. Convicted persons may not have a right of appeal.

Arcacia does not have an issue with Ollingdale trying suspected terrorists. As long as it is done within the framework of a normal court where those charged have clear knowledge of their rights and have access to the legal channels afforded to anyone else charged of a crime.

This legislation, so far as we can tell, given the complete silence during this matter by Ollingdale, does not allow for this.

Ollingdale has a sovereign right to try suspected terrorists. Those suspects have an international right to expect fair treatment. The current legislation denies them this right.

by **anarchy0029** 1st June 2010, 10:07

Then we need to know if law enforcement has used any form of torture. The third degree does not apply as torture, as it can be allowed for interrogating suspects.

If there was no due process, Ollingdale needs to explain why.

However, no country, nor treaty can tell a country about its due process laws for terrorism. Unless torture or genocide was used.

by **Daniel** 1st June 2010, 10:48

We would disagree. The point of this is that Ollingdale's legislation seems to circumvent due process.

Arcacia has never accused Ollingdale of torture. That is covered by a different article. The question before the court is: "Is this legislation in breach of article 6.6."

Ollingdale has admitted that it is and we have further shown that it is. Torture never came into it.

by **Thomas** 1st June 2010, 11:14

Can we just make this extremely clear - the suspected terrorists are only put on trial in secret locations to protect them from harm, and protect those around them (judge, lawyer etc) from harm as well. The last thing we want is a shooting in a court or a bomb to go off during a case, killing the suspect and the key personnel around them.
We do not support or take part in torture and take the breach of 6.6 seriously, and as soon as it is safe to, as soon as the ONP is destroyed, we hope to repeal the anti-terror amendment that gives OS1 the power to arrest, and the amendment that allows trials to be held in secret locations because of security concerns.

by **anarchy0029** 1st June 2010, 11:48

A valid point is made. If it matters national security of its own nation. Measures are allowed to prevent further attacks.

by **Daniel** 1st June 2010, 12:14

If this is the case, why has it taken so long for Ollingdale to state it?

This case is very simple. Has Ollingdale breached article 6.6? Yes, they have. The reasons simply don't matter. We are not here to discuss "exceptions to the rule."

If Ollingdale is allowed to breach an article of the constitution because "the ends justify the means" where does it stop?

To excuse Ollingdale in this case would be to set a very dangerous precedent.

by **Thomas** 1st June 2010, 12:17

OFF-TOPIC: So, we've established that Ollingdale is guilty in this case, this has been admitted by their representative . I think this needs to go back to the judge or whoever - otherwise we'll go completely away from the initial charge.

by JJ 1st June 2010, 14:13

you're not going to at least try and smooth talk your way out of it... pull the wool over our eyes, say that the statement you made was taken out of context?

by **Thomas** 1st June 2010, 14:59

No, because we have admitted all along that it breached the Constitution. The actions we took were in the interest of the people of Ollingdale, and we do not regret that hard decision that we had to make.

by JJ 1st June 2010, 16:33

oh, well, there you have it folks. i guess we just need the president to send the jury out to decide sentence.

by **Saathoff** 1st June 2010, 20:06

okay since we have an admission to the breach i will call for a simple vote. Vote will be via pm. I will thus decide the sentencing upon the voting results. I would please like all Jury members to pm me by simple stating Guilty or Not Guilty

by **Thomas** 1st June 2010, 21:18

Thanks Nate - I can already predict the result for you though. Cheeky/Razz

by Sponsored content