Page 1 of 1

Common Law Courts

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:43 pm
by Srf
The large mahogany doors swung open, allowing a diminutive man in thin-rimmed glasses and a cheap suit to shuffle into the courtroom and take a seat behind a bench in the left-hand corner. The judge nodded as he sat down and addressed the audience.

"Please be seated. Ladies and Gentlemen of the court, I return to the case of Yaqom versus the Tondyim Survivor's Association - a collection of two hundred and three plaintiffs. The accused, one mister Battam Yaqom, has been summoned here on the charges of theft, detention without cause, grievous bodily harm, torture, unlawful killing, and genocide. Mister Yaqom, do you declare that you are here entirely of your own free will and have the right to leave at any time?"

"I do".

"And do you declare that your decision to forgo legal representation is entirely your own, and not one made in the face of physical or psychological coercion against either yourself or members of your family?"

"I do."

"And do you acknowledge that while within this courtroom you are acting under the jurisdiction and disciplinary codes of the Freiburg College of Law, and that, whilst not legally binding, the College shall reach a judgement on your alleged crimes based only on the evidence provided within this room?

"I do".

"Excellent. Then we may proceed with the judgement. Mr Yaqom, the plantiffs assert that, as a lieutenant in the former People's Self-Defence Forces of the former Sharfic People's Democratic Republic, you operated a concentration camp in the town of Tondyim. The alleged bodily harm, murders and tortures took place in the grounds of this camp, a former public school, which at its height interned over three thousand Sovereign Sharfic Individuals of exclusively Vjiech ethnicity. The plaintiffs assert that, as a member of the PSDF Officer Corps, you participated in a joint criminal enterprise to exterminate the Vjiech population, seen as many in the PSDF leadership to be disproportionately sympathetic to the cause of Sovereign Independence. The plaintiffs cite evidence that over seven thousand interned civilians lost their lives between the opening of the camp in 1999 and the liberation of the camp in 2003, and claim that as the individual with command responsibility of the camp, these deaths are your liability".

The judge cleared his throat and pushed his glasses up his nose, before turning toward Yaqom.

"These are the complaints made against you. Do you have any rebuttal?"

Yaqom inclined his head and stood up. He surveyed the crowd in front of him - the plaintiffs, a mix of young and old, man and woman, at the front, staring at him with intense hatred. Behind them roughly fifty witnesses and laypersons, with expressions from disgust to indifference. He coughed.

"Yes your honour. First I would like to confirm my rank and service within the former People's Self Defence Forces. I would also like to confirm my position as prefect of the Tondyim detention camp. However, these facts aside I vehemently deny the allegations brought against me. Tondyim housed only captured combatants and agitators. Innocent civilians were never a part of the camp's population. I wish to remind the judge that, at this point in time, Sovereign Sharfland remained within the territorial borders of the PDSR and was a non-viable state, hence the Cratean Accords on the Rights of the Prisoner did not apply to detainees from non-state armed groups such as the Associated Defence Forum. This granted us the right to enhanced interrogation and denial of luxuries - however, torture and physical violence were not a part of the sanction regime inside Tondyim.

"Onto the second point, that paints me as a mass-murderer and genocidal idealogue. I wish to remind the court that once able I defected from the Continuity Government of the Sharfic Republic - a state which I condemned publicly as racist, ethno-supremacist and illegitimate. I harbour no ill will against the Vjiech people and it is an unfortunate act of geography that I was assigned to an area with an overwhelming Vjiech population, which naturally altered the ethnic balance within the detention center. I certainly was not made aware of any planned genocide. I have provided the court with official documents of the Tondyim camp asserting that only three hundred people lost their lives, the overwhelming majority during the unfortunate riot that occured in January 2001. I maintain that the allegations against me are politically motivated by a staunchly Christian, anarchist association that seeks to persecute me due to my continued allegiance to world socialism and equality. Thank you".

Yaqom sat down quietly, peering at the judge and audience, and shuffled his papers aimlessly.

"Well, Mr Yaqom" the judge began, "I first remind you that the Freiburg College of Law, and indeed all associations within Sovereign Sharfland, reject the legitimacy of the Crataean Accords on the Rights of the Prisoner out of hand. This notwithstanding, I hear your defence and it has been added to the record. However, I have come to a judgement.

"On the one hundred and ten counts of theft, I find you not guilty. Despite the loss of personal effects sustained by the plaintiffs, it is impossible to render you liable when considering the chaotic nature of the retreat from the detention center in 2003."

"On the two hundred and three counts of detention without cause, I find you guilty of seventy-eight. These seventy-eight were children and adults of non-military age and were detained without conclusive evidence of their involvement in hostilities".

"On the two hundred and three counts of grievous bodily harm, I find you guilty. The testimony of the plaintiffs and your former subordinates, together with a comprehensive medical exam from Freiburg University Hospital, casts no doubt that severe and lasting physical injuries were received under your jurisdiction. The systematic nature of the violence ensures your knowledge".

"On the one hundred and nine counts of torture, I find you guilty of One hundred and one. The comprehensive medical exam carried out by Freiburg University Hospital reveals physical evidence of systematic burning of skin, electrocution, detention in stress position, destruction of the vagina, and psychological damage. Again, the systematic nature of the crimes committed removes all doubt that you were unaware of the proceedings".

"On the five hundred and seven counts of unlawful killing, I find you guilty of ten. Despite the discovery of several mass graves in and around the prison complex, the destruction of human remains via acid coupled with the disorganised and chaotic nature of the retreat from the camp leaves your level of involvement in these atrocities ambiguous. However, forensic evidence conducted by the Freiburg Medical University supports plaintiff testimony identifying you as the perpetrator of these unlawful killings".

"Of the one count of genocide, I find you not guilty. Despite the overwhelming ethnic imbalance of detainees at the Tondyim camp, I accept your argument that this is a true reflection of the demography of the local area, which is over 95% Vjiech. Your denunciations of the Continuity Regime and Sharfic supremacism have convinced me that you acted out of political, rather than ethnic, motivations".

The judge put down the sheet of paper and picked up another from his stack. "And now, Mr Yaqom, I must come to a sentence. There is no doubt that you were complicit in horrific atrocities against innocent civilians, going so far as to rob several of their lives. No matter what your political affiliations may be, I would bring shame upon the judicial profession if I did not recommend proportional retribution. Battam Yaqom, for the crimes you have committed I, acting as an agent of the Freiburg College of Law, sentence you to death by pugilism. The plaintiffs may choose the time, date and location of the sentence.

"However, taking into consideration your advanced age and physical weakness, I must make additional recommendations. I declare that a three-generation blood feud exists between the plaintiffs, descendants of the plaintiffs, and the descendants of yourself. If your descendants are seen in any location outside of the grounds of the family home, either by a plaintiff or a descendant of a plaintiff, they may exercise the right to take the life of such a descendant. This blood feud shall remain in force until either forgiven by the plaintiffs or descendants, or when all of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are deceased, or when the recommendation is overturned by another judge operating at the Freiburg College of Law. Mr Yaqom, do you accept this judgement?"

"Yaqom swallowed, and solemnly nodded. "I do".

"Plaintiffs, do you accept this judgement?"

The association's lawyer leaned into a microphone. "My clients accept".

"And when do your clients wish to enact the sanction?"

The lawyer ducked toward the survivors, conferred some hushed whispers and returned to the microphone. "Now, your honour".

The judge turned to Yaqom. "Is this acceptable?"

Yaqom nodded again. He, the plaintiffs and the judge rose to their feet, and slowly filed out of the right hand door, Yaqom flanked by a pair of court security officers. The procession made their way down a brightly lit hallway, stopping at an unmarked iron door. The judge opened it with a heavy metal key, and motioned at Yaqom. "Please step in, Mr Yaqom".

Yaqom, trembling now, removed his glasses and tucked them into his jacket pocket before stepping into the bare concrete-walled room. He made his way across the straw-coated floor to the far wall and turned around, making fierce eye contact as the two hundred and three victims of his crimes filed into the room and assembled between him and the door.

"Mr Yaqom, any final words?" The judge asked, as the men of the group pulled off their blazers and rolled up their sleeves.

"I did everything for my country" Yaqom stated, flatly. The judge nodded, and the victims advanced to within a foot of Yaqom, not daring to throw the first punch. Then the small old man let out a sob, and the fists were unleashed in a raging storm that broke over his head, shoulders and torso. Within two minutes it was over, the bloodied corpse of the former lieutenant prostate on the floor, his face grotesquely bulged and his suit soaked in blood, saliva and grey matter. The judge rang a bell as a priest ran towards the body.

"Justice has been served".

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:17 pm
by Questers

Case closed on 14/10/16 ...
Mr B, son of Azful, of 42 Jalan Singa, requested New Lights Joinery to do some work on his house. He alleged the work was done poorly and later caused damage to his house. Mr B requested the PCJ to make a judgment on the circumstances. An agent of the PCJ, along with an independent assessor, decided upon the facts that the damage done was valued at 715 Ringgit Pahang. The PCJ agent contacted New Lights Joinery and informed them of his decision. New Lights Joinery did not agree with the outcome and discussed with the independent assessor the matter. The damages were revalued at 675 RP, to which Mr B agreed. Under the direction of the PCJ, New Lights Joinery paid 675 RP along with 55 RP legal costs to Mr B, as well as a sum of 105.55 RP for the cost to Mr B's insurance. The cost was born by New Lights Joinery's insurer. Mr B was invoiced for the sum of 175 RP in legal work, which was paid by his insurer.

Case closed on 14/10/16 ...
Mr T, of 305 Jalan 42/4, alleged that he was punched by Mr P, of 305 Jalan 42/3, for a comment on Mr P's wife. Mr T contacted an agent of the PCJ in order to secure justice. Mr P denied this allegation. Witnesses in adjoining flats refused to speak to agents of the PCJ, and our agent decided that it was impossible to ascertain the facts. Mr T was invoiced for the sum of 42 RP in legal work, which was paid by his insurer.

Case closed on 14/10/16 ...
Mr J, of 190 Jalan Bukit Signal, had his bicycle stolen. He contacted an agent of the PCJ who requested that the Watch's Investigation Squad find the bicycle. The bicycle was found at the address of a Mr V of 14/2 Jalan 6 The King's Street. Mr V accused one of the members of his house staff, Mr APK, of stealing the bicycle. The man was apprehended and admitted to stealing it to a member of the Watch's Investigation Squad. The bicyle was returned to Mr J who was invoiced for the sum of 958 RP in legal and enforcement work. Mr APK did not have insurance to claim against and was detained by the Watch, so Mr J's insurer offered a period of twelve months indenture with Pahang Indenture. Mr APK did not agree, and Mr J's insurer requested the Watch bring Mr APK to a Pahang Indenture institution. The charge for doing so was 155 RP. The matter was settled between Mr J's insurer and Pahang Indenture.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:42 pm
by Praetonia

Haversham, Week beginning 2nd December 2016

Mr Paul Candys, 49, of Haversham, applied on Monday for an estimate of restitution for property damage from the Metropolitan Court. Mr Candys claimed that Mr Aaron Randall, 37, also of Haversham, struck him multiple times outside the public house on Hawthorn Road, as a result of which his arm was broken. On the basis of medical records, the court concurred that bodily injury had been sustained by Mr Candys consistent with blows from a human fist.

Mr Randall, who accepted an invitation to attend, stated that he had quarrelled with Mr Candys and that Mr Candys had invited him into the car park to "settle the matter like men". This statement was denied by Mr Candys. Mr Randall then produced multiple witnesses who confirmed his account.

The court judged that the invitation by Mr Candys constituted consent to a duel reasonably understood to permit the blows causing his broken arm. The court estimated no restitution was owed to Mr Candys.

The court further contended that Mr Candys' testimony had been false and misleading, for which it provisionally demanded in forfeit ten times his likely gain from a successful petition, in accordance with his contract with the Metropolitan Court company. The court estimated this sum at five hundred pounds of silver. This contention has been referred for review to the First Riverside Court, Douneray.


Mr Fumio Ikema, 55, of Hokkaishu, applied on Thursday for an estimate of restitution for property damage from the Metropolitan Court. Mr Ikema claimed that Mr Samuel Billings, 17, of Haversham, spat gum in the entrance of the Ikema & Sons' Neighbourhood Accountancy building, of which Mr Ikema is co-proprietor. The court accepted video footage showing Mr Billings committing the act alleged by Mr Ikema. The court estimated restitution owed by Mr Billings to Mr Ikema at half an ounce of silver.

Records later deposited with the Metropolitan Court show that Mr Billings, who is unemployed, claimed to be unable to pay the owed restitution. Mr Ikema waived all claim to restitution after Mr Billings agreed to allow Mr Ikema to strike him three times on the rear thigh with a bamboo cane.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:05 pm
by Preston
Chimay Court of Arbitration, Selected Cases



Facts of Case: Respondent and Appellant entered into a romantic relationship from 21/3/2011. On 21/3/2015, Respondent proposed marriage to Appellant, which was accepted; Respondent sealed proposal with one (1) diamond ring valued at two-thousand five-hundred (2,500) thaler of silver. On 28/9/2016, Respondent dissolved his relationship with Appellant, citing irreconcilable differences, and requested the return of aforementioned diamond ring. Appellant declined, citing it as an unconditional gift, and filed motion for arbitration by this Court citing breach of contract. Respondent was notified of intent to seek arbitration by officers of this Court on 02/10/2016 and agreed to be bound by the terms thereof. Also on 02/10/2016, Respondent filed counter-claim for the return of property in the sum of two-thousand five-hundred (2,500) thaler of silver, namely, aforementioned diamond ring.

Both parties agreed to waive their right to civil trial under the laws of the Commonwealth, and to be bound by the decision of this Court within the framework of the Common Law.

Final Judgement: Per Warburton v. Sims (Hav. Metro. Ct., 1906) an engagement of marriage constitutes a binding verbal contract. We find that no mitigating circumstances (e.g. infidelity, gross abuse, or deception) existed within the bounds of relationship between Respondent and Appellant. We further reject Respondent's claim that "irreconcilable differences," namely, the refusal of Appellant to cohabitate prior to consummation of marriage, constitute reasonable grounds for dissolution of contract. We therefore find Respondent liable for breach of contract, and order the payment of five-hundred (500) thaler of silver to Appellant as damages.

Per Murphy v. Ward-Sterling (Hav. Metro. Ct., 1926) gifts of real property of a value greater than 150 silver sovereigns within the bounds of a marriage engagement are to be considered conditional upon the consummation of marriage, unless otherwise specified and agreed upon by both parties. Engagement rings, as tokens of contract, are specifically excluded from this judgement. We therefore find that aforementioned diamond ring is an unconditional gift, voluntarily and irrevocably surrendered from the possession of Respondent to that of Appellant.

Costs of one-hundred fifty-seven (157) thaler of silver are invoiced to each party for legal services rendered.


Mister Paul van Buren, on behalf of CAFE BILDERBERG LTD

Facts of Case: At approximately 2100 hours on the evening of 30/09/2016, Respondent was dining at named establishment of which principle Appellant is sole proprietor. Respondent ordered foodstuffs and cocktails in the sum of forty-three thaler and seventy-one cents (Th. 43.71). Following consumption of the meal, sometime between 2127 and 2132, respondent departed the premises without tendering payment. Appellant filed motion for arbitration with this Court on 01/10/2016 seeking restitution to the amount of forty-three thaler and seventy-one cents (Th. 43.71) from Appellant.

Appellant was duly served on 02/10/2016 and accepted a summons to this Court, waving his right to have the matter adjudicated under the civil laws of the Commonwealth and accepting the decision of this Court to be binding under the framework of the Common Law.

Final Judgement: Per Singh v. Verandah Cafe (Pahang Ct. Justice, 1899) we hold that the ordering of cocktails and foodstuffs from a restaurant or similar establishment creates a binding contract between patron and proprietor for performance of service to the stated effect, and payment thereof. Respondent alleges that foodstuffs (namely, one (1) filet mignon) were not cooked to requested specifications and, as such, any contract which existed between Respondent and Appellant was null and void. Respondent further states that reasonable attempt to gain satisfaction of the matter was made at time of purchase, namely, by informing waitstaff of the discrepancy. Witnesses produced by Appellant refute this narrative, stating that the meal was consumed in full and no complaint was offered.

We find Respondent liable for costs incurred, and order the payment of the amount of forty-three thaler and seventy-one cents (Th. 43.71) to be tendered to Appellant with immediate effect. We further find that Respondent did knowingly and willfully make false, misleading and deceptive statements to this Court for the purpose of perverting the course of Justice, and assess punitive damages of the amount of one-hundred fifty thaler (Th. 150.00) payable to this Court with immediate effect.

Costs in the amount of ninety-seven thaler (Th. 97.00) are invoiced to Respondent for cost of legal services borne by Appellant in the course of Justice.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:05 pm
by Questers

To-day the Herald is proud to present an insider scoop on an incredible affair which transpired here in Jesselton only yesterday, in which a gang of dacoits were captured and punished for their crimes.

The story begins in the leafy and orderly suburbs of Westwood Green. Here, on Friday last, a terrible crime happened. The house of Martin Singh, a Eurasian Sikh, was broken into by four dacoits armed with cutlasses and automatic pistols. A brief scuffle ensued, in which Mr. Singh, who had drawn his pistol, was shot and killed by one of the dacoits. His wife and daughter were then cruelly and outrageously savaged by these bandits, who made off with radios, televisions, and Mr. Singh's Land Rover.

With great fortitude, Mrs. Singh called the Watch at once. Samples of deoxyribonucleic acid (D.N.A.), ejaculate, and fingerprints were taken and banked with United Forensics, that great forensics database of the Commonwealth. By an honourable and charitable order of the King's Sheriff in Jesselton, four Gorkhas of the Watch were then posted to the house. Sergeant Thapa of the Watch, who led the patrol, swore that any dacoit who dared to return would be killed by his Kukri. The Singh family, thereby satisfied that their security was well in hand, made a claim with their insurer, Mogami General Safety, who put out a reward: fifteen Pounds of Silver for each bandit, dead or alive!

The Land Rover was tracked by an ingenious device built lately in Praetonia which the cautious Mr. Singh had purchased: a LiveTracker Auto, which by means of satellite tracking, made available to the Watch the exact location of the vehicle, which was discovered burned in a slum in northern Jesselton. At the same time, the samples which the bandits had left behind returned from the laboratory: these were no normal dacoits. They were in fact the Gang of the Black Foot, who had been terrorising the Nampata and the Srativaliland since the end of the mutiny. Immediately, the King's Sheriff put out his own reward: a Pound of Gold for information leading to the apprehension of these notorious and outrageous criminals.

The slum was surrounded by hundreds of Gorkhas of the Watch, and within hours, the location of the Gang had been reported. The Watch swooped and after a short shoot-out, in which one Gorkha and two dacoits were injured, the dacoits were captured: Sergeant Thapa, who had previously guarded the home of the deceased Mr. Singh, led the storming of the dacoit stronghold and after threatening the dacoits in a most fearsome and terrifying manner, they surrendered. They were brought quickly to the Watch's gaol in Jesselton. There they enlisted the help of the famous juror P. A. Abrams. Three days later they were presented to the Justice of the Peace, William Souper, at the Jesselton Central Court.

For hours, the Watch laid out their position. They had matched the samples of D.N.A. and fingerprints to hundreds of other cases lodged in the Nampata. A distraught Mrs. Singh recognised each of the dacoits at the witness box. Then for several more hours, the Juror Abrams tried to convince the Justice of the Peace Souper that the evidence presented was faulty, that these men had a good alibi, and that each dacoit had done nothing, and if the Watch were to kill them, it would be murder for which retaliation could be brought. Eventually, at mid-day the next day, Justice Souper made his judgment. It reads:

'I am convinced that these ghastly and heinous crimes were in fact committed by you. There is a trail of blood from Watchport to Jesselton to which you are connected by strong evidence.' Then Justice Souper put on his black cap. 'It is the judgment of this court that you, having committed crimes to which there can be no mortal restitution, may be put to death lawfully at the hands of any person, in a manner which, while pleasing them, does not outrage God. And that this court condemns certainly any person who makes a claim against those who may choose to put you to death. May God have mercy upon your souls.'

The dacoits were then taken by the Watch to gaol, where they were hanged in the suspension-method, as is the custom in the Western Commonwealth for bandits. The people of Jesselton can rest easy in their beds at night knowing that these criminals have finally been brought to justice.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:45 am
by Questers

Recent events concerning two families of note in Yorktown, here, has recently come to light. A most serious dispute was finally resolved, the Oryontic Herald has learned, by unusual and violent means. The case will especially be of note to young people who by reckless encounter get themselves into the wrong kind of trouble.

The story has all characteristic elements needed of a great case — romance, passion, and justice. It was on the Fifth of February this year that nineteen-year old Tyler Headingley, third son of that famous and esteemed financier, Richard Parker Headingley, was summoned to the Yorktown Circuit Court. The case being brought against him was one liable to damage gravely the young man's reputation: for an equally famous and esteemed physician, William Hunter Gordon (of the very same Gordon family which gave the lives of eight sons in the late war), had accused him of violating criminally and outrageously his seventeen-year old daughter, Louisa Gordon. Young Tyler had no choice but to answer.

The Court, that day under the supervision of Justice of the Peace Stuart Alexander, was packed, with both family and friends of those who had laid, and received, the charge. The Court first heard the assertions of Gordon's attorney, who alleged that at a party on the First of January that year, that having plied young Louisa with much drink, Master Headingley had forced her to a private room and had his way with her. To support his case, the attorney called upon several other young ladies with whom Master Headingley had relations, and no less than nine others who had attended the party, as well as medical records. The young Louisa's father had wisely taken her to a female physician on the very night she arrived home in clear distress, and this physician painted a ghastly portrait.

"The young lady's private parts were wholly consistent with those of assault victims," this physician said, before Master Headingley rose and called her a liar. He was shouted down by Mr. Gordon, who called him a cur. Court bailiffs were called to prevent Mr. Gordon and Mr. Headingley from coming to blows.

Master Headingley agreed to be exami'ned by the Gordon's attorney. Upon questioning, he revealed that L. Gordon had on previous occasions made flirtatious contact with him, and, he alleged, on multiple occasions that night and others, insinuated that she desired intimate compact with him. He then claimed that during the act, she repeatedly refused to decline the assault. Finally, Justice Alexander, long patient, had his say, and he did rise and speak directly to Tyler Headingley, saying:

'Young man, it is the custom in this country that an intoxicated person may not give assent to any contract, or that any contract signed under intoxication has no standing. As an educated person, you must know this, and I say to you that if you continue the current course of your behavour, you will find yourself in very serious trouble sooner or later. As an educated person, you must also know that if I find you guilty of violating outrageously this young lady, the law would oblige me to consider you an outlaw. However, I can not today say there is sufficient evidence to make this judgment. I say this because the law is here very clear: if you did indeed engage in intercourse, and if you were indeed drunken, and quite frankly, disorderly, you yourself could not have consented, and the law is again clear that if neither party to an assault consents, there is no assault."

At this point, Master Headingley behaved in a vulgar fashion, bragging and boasting to all that would hear, until Justice Alexander ordered the bailiff to restrain him, concluding his remarks with:v

"Young Master, I say to you again, that such conduct will eventually lead you to a gallows, so that you must temper yourself."

But Master Headingley did not listen, and continued to taunt Miss Louisa, who burst into tears. At this moment, Mr Gordon stood up, and pointing directly at Master Headingley, shouted, for all the court to hear: "You braggart! You villain! I demand satisfaction from you."

"Then outside, old man, and draw your pistol," Headingley replied. The court now became abuzz with activity, and bailiffs restrained both men. Justice Alexander called closed the doors of the courtroom and said to both that if they desired to duel, it should not be on the street, where bystanders might be caught. There was brief legal scuffle, in which both attorneys desired to call off the duel, and there was then some consultation over whether the duel might be allowed. When it was, Headingley's father stood, and told Gordon that if he shot his son, who had never before held a pistol or any other weapon, that it would be murder. Justice Alexander disagreed, and appointed a bailiff to observe the duel, which was held in the hanging grounds of the court. It was there that William Hunter Gordon shot dead Tyler Headingley. Justice Alexander warned sternly against any retaliation for this duel.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:41 pm
by Questers
It was nineteen ninety eight and I had only begun my training. Some say I had chosen a very grim task, but it is hardly all that bad. It was a job for life, at least.

And part of the training had to be done across the Oryontic, in New Senland, where we had just three weeks back arrived. Myself, my mentor, and a bodyguard-guide - a very burly and turbanned Sikh with a hefty revolver - and we were in the car, driving into the town. I will always remember this: above the main gate were the words WELCOME TO NEW GLASGOW.


We shall see about that, my mentor said. And he hurried the guide on, because we were late: everybody was waiting for us. The old courtroom was packed. It looked a bit like the ones at home, I have to say, but as is the case in the western Commonwealth, there were more guns, and more uniforms. My mentor pointed out the juror, remarked on his good standing on this side of the Oryontic, and then sat us down. Then he said to me - we have been paid to make sure the particulars which happen here today are carried out satisfactorily. We are an independent body, remember that. Even though the accused today may be an odious person, we must be impartial. If there's some wrong-doing here, we must report it.

The accused stood, with nobody by his side. He could have run, I suppose. But it is better to take your chances than to have a famous juror claim that you are an outlaw. Better to die as a man than as a wolf. He was tall, and bulky - and had a shaven head, I remember. We hear the facts. Last year he was placed in indentured servitude for burglaring an elderly lady and injuring her. Last week, she died, and her physician, a very fat man with an amazing moustache, had called this case and born all the costs, as the lady had no issue. He sat opposite the accused, indignant, red faced, waiting for justice.

The facts were established. It did not need to be proven that the accused had injured the lady, as an opinion had already been given last yer. The physician showed at great length, and to our great satisfaction, how the hip injury had led to the elderly lady's early death. And the juror rose, and my mentor said to me: be prepared. It is your first time. We sit here in observation, not judgment.

The juror said: It is the custom in This Country that a person who, by injuring another person, causes them death, lives from the moment of that deed outside the law. Then he put on the black cap. There was silence, except for the howl of the accused. The whole room stood, and took off their own caps and hats, and the howls - deep, and full of power, like a trapped dog - bounced around the standing bodies and the walls of the room. The juror spoke over the howling. I am satisfied that you caused the death of Margaret Tunstall by injury. It is therefore my opinion that any person who brings about the end of your life, in a way that does not displease almighty God, has done no wrong. It is also the case that the Town Corporation of New Glasgow offers its willing and most manifest protection to any person who does so.

The man began to cry more loudly, which made everybody else more still. He raged at the juror, who kept a glare on him. It is not fair! You have no right! Who are you to judge me! I have done no wrong!

The juror said nothing. After some moments, he banged a small gavel, instructed a bailiff to remove the accused, and began the next proceeding. t that moment, two very large men clasped the murderer in handcuffs, and took him through a side door: we were allowed to follow. Upon leaving the court, he was walked some two hundred yards to a small hill, and we were allowed to follow. For some time he thrashed against his captors, but they were much stronger than him, and had him in irons, and after a minute or so he gave up, and resumed crying. My mentor saw that my face was a sheet of white, and told me to gather myself, as we still had work to do. The court had paid us for our esteemed opinion as to the lawful conduct of an execution. My mentor was right, and so I steeled myself.

At the top of the small hill, no more than twenty feet in elevation, was a gallows, and a small crowd had already come around it. There were children there, I was shocked to notice, and the crowd grew as we approached. Finally the accused reached the head of the gallows, and was offered last words, but could only wail. Having offered the man thirty seconds for last words - my mentor instructed me to time it on my stopwatch - they threw a black bag over his head, strung him up, and pulled the lever.

I have seen an execution at home, where the method is long drop, and the man dies instantly. But in New Glasgow, the custom was short drop, and the man struggled for some time. His legs were unbound, and they thrashed from place to place. Sensing I was about to be sick, my mentor took pity on me, and told me I was excused, as there would be more hangings anyway. But I found some courage to continue watching. From behind the hill, then, some accomplices of the accused raced, intending to pull on his legs to shorten the death. A bailiff leveled his revolver at them, shook his head, and they backed off. It took eleven minutes and eighteen seconds for him to die, and then he was still, and only a minor breeze, and the momentum of his violent, final attempts at life, kept the body moving. A doctor appeared from somewhere and confirmed the death.

My mentor turned to me. It is pitiful, he said. But it is justice. And moreover, it is lawful.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:51 am
by Questers
Overheard in a bar in downtown Moncktown, two accountants, one white, one sikh

Okay, so this is true. Paul — you know, Paul, um, Fielding. Big guy. Yea. So Paul was just walking down Oak Street, and er, it's Paul, so he's got a fag on. And he finishes his fag and goes to put it in a public ashtray. But it's full. They're always full. So he just chucks it. Yeah, okay, you're not meant to. But it's just luck, isn't it. Some Gurkha fella turned up. Got you on closed circuit sahib, blah blah. So can you believe it, it's a fine, or one stroke. And the fine is nearly two and a half grand. Yea, that's like... nearly a hundred fifty ounces of silver. Well, I mean, I know it's the corporation's street, and their land and whatever. It's just a dumb rule. No, obviously not. We got a collection going around the office. But I don't know how much longer I can stay here. The Corporation's rules are getting more and more dumb. My wife's people are in Westhaven. It's a nice place there, bit more chilled out...

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 10:19 am
by Srf
TribeWatch - Exposing Sovereign Sharfland's shame since 2011
Newsletter - 01/01/2015

This past week, the following grave miscarriages of justice have been reported to TribeWatch:

1) In the Qeiam suburb of Chuchurgi, 12 year old Mina was married in a tribal ceremony to her second cousin, 45 year old Bat Buuubugun. The marriage was mandated by customary law of the Pawii tribe to which both families belonged. This is despite a ruling obtained by Mina's mother from the Gulf Law Company which considered the betrothal of an under-14 to be an act of aggression. Mina's mother has now been banished from the Pawii tribe for attempting to disrupt the ceremony, and has been forced to flee to Freiburg. Mina herself has been moved into the home of her new husband, where she shall surely be doomed to a life of oppression and physical violence. The Social Office, as always wary of taking any action against outlaw tribal traditions, remains silent. TribeWatch implores the Social Office to rescue Mina from her outlaw captors.

2) In the village of Ulur Batoq, 28 year old Lhur lies incarcerated in a tribal prison after being accused of witchcraft. The incident came about when Lhur - a trainee doctor - was unable to save the wife of the Piyaak Tribe's chief after complications arose during a routine medical procedure. The chief accused Lhur of purposely allowing his wife to die for the purpose of harvesting her organs with which to perform dark rituals. The young Lhur is a loyal subscriber to the Gulf Law Company, which does not recognise witchcraft as a valid crime - yet she now faces the prospect of a death sentence in a misogynistic, backwards tribal court that has jurisdiction over her only due to the circumstances of her birth.

TribeWatch continues to advocate for the GLC, Social Office and if necessary the Defence Group to take action against the unjust detention of its law abiding subscribers.

Re: Common Law Courts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:48 pm
by Questers
Text from a second year optional course on common law systems, Quiberic law university:

On 1st February, the driver of a cement lorry, PH, drunk at his post, crashed into an estate car on the road between Kuala Pahang and Endau. The car resulted in the immediate death of its lone occupant, a woman from Kota Solo, JMA. The driver left his lorry and immediately fled the scene.

In Quiberon, central police authorities would seal off the site of the accident, rapidly track this man down, detain him in remand until a trial is set, and then imprison (or execute) him.

The first thing that happened in this case was that other drivers alerted the road authorities, which in this case was the Sultan's estate itself, that there had been a crash. Road authorities are quite fast, since they are based on roads, and emergency teams arrived at the site rapidly. Then a representative of the insurance company arrived, some hours later, with the husband of the woman. Emergency teams confirmed the woman's death was directly related to the crash, and that the driver had fled the scene. The insurer was therefore happy to issue, based on the family policy, a $50,000 reward for information.

The road authorities offered camera footage of the event to the husband. The footage, which clearly showed the driver chugging from a bottle of rum before the accident, which was also shown to be his fault, is sufficient to make a lawful case. The family insurers suggest the Pahang Circuit Court, which the husband agrees to. After reviewing all the evidence, including witnesses, the Court makes the driver an outlaw. The family's lawyers therefore increase the reward to $150,000 dollars for the outlaw, dead or alive. The Court also offered the driver protection, if he were to inform them of his intention to attend the court to put his side across.

In the end, the Sultan's military police managed to locate the man, based on a tipoff from a couple of locals who offer to take a smaller part of the reward, since they didn't fancy tackling this driver and bringing him all the way to Kota Solo. He is captured by the military police (he did have a gun, but did not know how to use it) and promptly hanged. The Sultan claimed the $150,000 reward, although a part of it was handed back to the family in order to pay the funeral costs.

(1) In this case, everything went smoothly and the right man was brought to justice without major material effect on any innocent parties. Not all cases go well. What features of this case could have been different in order for there to have been an unjust outcome? How does the Quiberic system prevent this? Describe. [5]

(2) Questers' system of capturing criminals essentially mirrors Quiberon's, except that the actors are all private rather than state bodies. Discuss. [10]

(3) The model of bringing outlaws to justice resembles a proto-state system, rather than a post or anti-state system. To what extent do you agree? [15]