Official court of law vol. 2(Robb Stark)

[jblair]

I believe some of you are forgetting few important things regarding charges 1 and 2:

A) in Middle Ages and Westoros, there was no written law about rebelling, no laws which stated when is rebellion justified and when it isn't. So called laws were based on tradition, customs, and generally vague and open to various interpretations. Tehnically, Robb broke no law rebbeling against IT or Joffrey, regardless of Joffrey's parentage. Robb's supporters will call it just rebellion while Lannisters will say it's treason and usurpation. But there's no objective law to clarify that. To quote GRRM:

B ) feudal oaths are mutual. It's not bannerman pledging "I'll do whatever my liege asks no matter the circumstances".

It is more in line with:

bannerman: "I'll recognize you as my liege, respect your authority over me and come to your aid with my army should you request it" and

liege: "I'll recognize you as my vassal, respect your loyalty and your rights as a knight/lord and come to your aid should you be attacked"

In ACOK, you have a variation on this in Catelyn's and Brienne's pledge to each other. Notice how always liege lord also swears an oath, not demand blind obedience from his vassal. If Robb thought his father was unjustly executed, he had full "right" to rebel.

C) what law stops (or even - what law should stop) people/region from choosing who will rule them? Are American colonists truly treasonous for deciding they don't Britain to rule over them? Is Gandhi a traitor for wanting India's independence? If not - then why should Robb be? He, as a Nothrmen governing North, simply decided he doesn't want IT to rule it anymore and had full support of his bannermen in doing so. Where's the treason in that?

Anyway, my opinion is this:

1) not guilty

2) not guilty

3) guilty - monetary reparations and/or offering another marriage prospect (like Edmure)

4) not guilty - people die in battles. It's not murder.

If this be the case, then judgment has obviously been handed down already - by Men. Robb is now a wolf-headed corpse. So goes the Game of Thrones.

I find it amusing that these threads allow us all the information by POVs (regardless of veracity), and there are no rules of evidence whatsoever. So really there will be no difference in outcome between these "legal-driven" threads and the hundreds of opinion threads involving the same characters.

And as for the last part, where do you draw the line? Should California be able to secede from America? Or Austin from Texas? Or 6th street from Austin? Obviously this rosy picture of treason rather falls apart in many situations.

[Castel]

Defendant: Robb Stark Lord of Winterfell, King in the North alias 'The Young Wolf,' this court charges you with the crimes of

1. Conspiracy by calling your bannermen to war against the king of the 7 Kingdoms Joffrey Baratheon first of his name.

2. Acts of treason by rebellion against the realm.

3. Breach of a legal binding agreement with house Frey.

4. And the murder Stafford Lannister alias ‘Uncle Dolt’.

Counselors present your case and pass your judgement!

Count 1: Robb raised his banners against King Joffrey who was well within his rights to seize Ned Stark. He did not claim that Joff was illegitimate and he had no proof thus he chose to rebel against the rightful king. Punishment: Death.

2. Robb seceded from the realm even though he had no right to do so, the question of legitimacy is irrelevant here, he has committed treason against all claimants. Punishment: Death

3. Dishonorable and illegal it may be. Punishment: Reparations to be negotiated between the two parties.

4.Not guilty. Stefford was a belligerent in a war against Robb.

[GallowsKnight]

Robb is guilty of treason against the rightful King Stannis Baratheon. First of his name. As Joffrey "known as Baratheon" is the product of treasonous incest. Leniency is recommended due to the confusion of succession. If Robb agrees to remove his crown and bend the knee he will be pardoned. Otherwise the punishment is execution.

As for the matter of the Freys that's largely a civil matter. This court recognizes Robb Stark's attempts for reconiliation and considers marriage to Edmure Tully adequate reparation. As Robb Stark is no longer king, the Freys gain the same status and advantage they would from marrying Robb Stark.

[Knight Of Winter]

If this be the case, then judgment has obviously been handed down already - by Men. Robb is now a wolf-headed corpse. So goes the Game of Thrones.

I find it amusing that these threads allow us all the information by POVs (regardless of veracity), and there are no rules of evidence whatsoever. So really there will be no difference in outcome between these "legal-driven" threads and the hundreds of opinion threads involving the same characters.

And as for the last part, where do you draw the line? Should California be able to secede from America? Or Austin from Texas? Or 6th street from Austin? Obviously this rosy picture of treason rather falls apart in many situations.

As far as I inderstood, what we are debating in this thread in whether defendant (Robb Stark) was "wrong" in his acts according to Westerosi laws, customs and traditions - and I gave three points (A, B and C) why I believe any rebellion isn't wrong per se (but depending on the circumstances), and that Robb's rebellion in particular was justified.

On the other hand, his judgement handed down by men, as you call it, was clearly "wrong" - every men and women we meet in the series calls it violation of god's and men's laws and spits on the name of Frey.

As for right of secession - I admit this can be very vague line. In general, and I'm calling on modern standards here, I believe that every nation (i.e. group of people who share culture, history, language...) has the right to choose whether they want to be independent. From what we know of Westeros - North is clearly a "nation" - it was independent for thousands of years, its inhabitants consider themselves Northmen, it has specific climate, religion and heritage (from the First men)... So I believe North has every right for independence.

[jblair]

Fair enough, thank you for answering.

[The Fallen]

I used precedent to make my case against Lord Tywin Lannister. The argument being that any grievances should be brought before the King as opposed to taking matters into your own hands.

I will use precedent once again in the case against King Robb Stark. I'll keep it short and sweet. Shortly preceding Robert's Rebellion, King Aerys called Lord Rickard Stark of Winterfell to King's Landing to answer for his son's threats against the Crown Prince. When Lord Stark answered the call, the king promptly killed him and his son in a farce of a Trial by Combat. Robert's Rebellion followed, wherin the rebels won and deposed the Targaryens and Robert was crowned King.

So using Robert's Rebellion as a precedent, King Robb could not have gone to King's Landing and expect a fair trial from the illegitimate king known as Joffrey Baratheon, especially after Robb's father, Lord Eddard Stark had been beheaded by Joffrey after being promised that he could take the black in return for a false confession. So Robb had a right to defend his family and claim indepence for the North, if not outright fight for the Iron Throne itself. Also, the true and legitimate heir to the Throne, Stannis Baratheon, hadn't made it known that he would accept the kingship, otherwise King Robb Stark would've sworn fealty to him and allied with him against the Lannisters.

[Ruby Chevrolet]

As legal scholar Greatjon Umber stated: "It was the dragons we married and the dragons are all dead !". With the line of the dragon being ended in Westeros, sovereignty reverts to the King In The North, and all those who swear fealty to him do so lawfully, and place themselves under northern law.

Okay, I am going to change my vote on Count II from "Guilty" to not guilty on the basis of Pod's citation to the irrefutable authority of the said legal scholar, one Greatjon Umber.

I continue to believe that Robb is guilty on Count I under the precedent set in last week's thread, R. v. Lord Tywin. As I understand it, the Rule in Lord Tywin's case states that if a high lord's family member is taken captive (in that case, Tyrion), the high lord cannot retaliate with force. So Robb was not justified in calling his banners in response to the capture of Eddard Stark.

[jblair]

Okay, I am going to change my vote on Count II from "Guilty" to not guilty on the basis of Pod's citation to the irrefutable authority of the said legal scholar, one Greatjon Umber.

I continue to believe that Robb is guilty on Count I under the precedent set in last week's thread, R. v. Lord Tywin. As I understand it, the Rule in Lord Tywin's case states that if a high lord's family member is taken captive (in that case, Tyrion), the high lord cannot retaliate with force. So Robb was not justified in calling his banners in response to the capture of Eddard Stark.

Bah, Greatjohn's words sound good but he had no problem bowing to the Baratheons for 17 years. This is an overly cute after-the-fact justification, no more. Besides, it was a Stark who helped create the Baratheon kingship in the first place.

[Castel]

Bah, Greatjohn's words sound good but he had no problem bowing to the Baratheons for 17 years. This is an overly cute after-the-fact justification, no more. Besides, it was a Stark who helped create the Baratheon kingship in the first place.

Pretty much. The Baratheons are either a continuation of the Targ line or people who won by conquest, same as the Targs, either way,the North bowed to them. They recognised the Baratheons as the lawful rules of the kingdoms.

[Minstral]

I vote for the dissmisal of the first two charges on the grounds that not only was Ned Stark seized, he was taken prisoner in violation of the will that Robert Baratheon made on his deathbed by naming Ned Stark regent of Joffrey Baratheon. Robb Stark's reaction was on the basis of an illegal move made by Cersei Lannister and more in line with the law and precedent of the King. Moreover, Tywin had already violated the King's peace when he marshalled his strength for war

On the third charge, the Frey's were in breech of their oaths to the Tully's by not going south, that they needed to be persuaded by House Stark implies mitigating circumstance. That Robb broke his word means that legally he should make some amends to them (before they killed him), so minor offense that he is guilty of .

On the fourth charge, Stafford Lannister lost his life in battle to one of Robb Stark's bannermen. His death is the result of Robb Stark marching into the Westerland's seeking the Lannister host, but so are the thousands who died at the Battle of Oxcross. Killing your enemies, from footman, to knights, to generals, is an established act in war and does not equate to murder. Innocent.

[Alester Florent]

Defendant: Robb Stark Lord of Winterfell, King in the North alias 'The Young Wolf,' this court charges you with the crimes of

1. Conspiracy by calling your bannermen to war against the king of the 7 Kingdoms Joffrey Baratheon first of his name.

2. Acts of treason by rebellion against the realm.

3. Breach of a legal binding agreement with house Frey.

4. And the murder Stafford Lannister alias ‘Uncle Dolt’.

1. Not guilty, on the following grounds:

Robb Stark deployed his forces in the name of the Hand of the King, Eddard Stark, at that time living and Warden of the North. The Stark levies were deployed against Lannister troops who were at that time in open rebellion against the crown having attacked the expeditionary force of Ser Beric Dondarrion marching under the king's banner.

Further or alternatively, Joffrey was no true Baratheon and no true king and war against him is not a crime.

2. Vote to dismiss charges.

In the first alternative, the kingdom of the North is a free and independent realm governed by the King in the North, Robb Stark. Robb Stark did not commit treason against the kingdom of the North and actions taken against a foreign power such as the Iron Throne cannot be treasonous.

Further or alternatively, the person of the king is separate from his office. Robb Stark did not commit treason against the office of the king but rather against the person of the king exclusively. The king was himself a traitor and Robb Stark acted in defence of the realm.

3. Vote to dismiss charges.

Breach of contract is not a crime and the criminal court should have no jurisdiction over it.

Further or alternatively, Walder Frey was in violation of his oath to his liege lord Hoster Tully when the contract was made. The contract was concluded through threatening the plenipotentiary of his liege lord, Catelyn Tully. Walder Frey was under an obligation to provide his troops in service of Riverrun, which he had failed to do and was in breach of his duty. In attempting to contract to perform services already required in exchange for further benefit Walder Frey pre-emptively voided the contract with Robb Stark and cannot hold him liable for breaching it.

4. Not guilty.

Ser Stafford Lannister was a military commander at the head of an army and his death was an act of war openly declared between the parties. The killing was therefore lawful and not murder.

Alternatively, guilty. Robb Stark is held liable for the death of Stafford Lannister and shall be rewarded for ridding the realm of such a pillock.

[TalalOfDorne]

Defendant: Robb Stark Lord of Winterfell, King in the North alias 'The Young Wolf,' this court charges you with the crimes of

1. Conspiracy by calling your bannermen to war against the king of the 7 Kingdoms Joffrey Baratheon first of his name.

2. Acts of treason by rebellion against the realm.

3. Breach of a legal binding agreement with house Frey.

4. And the murder Stafford Lannister alias ‘Uncle Dolt’.

Counselors present your case and pass your judgement!

1- Guilty

2- Guilty

3- Guilty

4- Dismissal

Verdict: Guilty of the first three charges.

Sentence: Death by sword

[Lion of Judah]

Okay, I am going to change my vote on Count II from "Guilty" to not guilty on the basis of Pod's citation to the irrefutable authority of the said legal scholar, one Greatjon Umber.

I continue to believe that Robb is guilty on Count I under the precedent set in last week's thread, R. v. Lord Tywin. As I understand it, the Rule in Lord Tywin's case states that if a high lord's family member is taken captive (in that case, Tyrion), the high lord cannot retaliate with force. So Robb was not justified in calling his banners in response to the capture of Eddard Stark.

Ruby remember to change it in your original judgement if you haven't already, thanks.

[Ruby Chevrolet]

Ruby remember to change it in your original judgement if you haven't already, thanks.

Done.

Great thread -- please keep 'em coming, Lion of Judah.

[Lion of Judah]

Thank all for your presentation and interpretation of the facts while hearing this case. The final judgements show the difficulty that you all were presented with, I trust that you will all accept the verdict/judgements by your fellow judges. Thanks all, now for the verdict...

[Lion of Judah]

Robb Stark Lord of Winterfell, King in the North, alias 'The Young Wolf' on this day Sunday December 23rd judges of this court find you:

Innocent on count 1-conspiracy against King Joffrey Baratheon first of his name.

Innocent on count 2-Acts of treason against the realm.

Guilty on count 3-Breach of a legal binding agreement with house Frey.

Innocent on count 4-The murder of Stafford Lannister alias 'Uncle Dolt'.

This court hereby sentence you to pay a monetary fine of 50,000 gold dragons as recompense to House Frey.

Vote tally

Count 1- 10 Guilty, 14 Innocent, 8 Dismissal

Count 2- 9 Guilty, 12 Innocent, 10 Dismissal

Count 3- 20 Guilty, 4 Innocent, 4 Dismissal

Count 4- 0 Guilty, 24 Innocent, 6 Dismissal

This court is now adjourned, next case on the docket will be presented within the next day or two.

[The Fallen]

` I'm cool with the verdict?

How are you coming up with the characters that are being tried? Is it just you or are posters nominating people?

[Pod The Impaler]

` I'm cool with the verdict?

How are you coming up with the characters that are being tried? Is it just you or are posters nominating people?

If I were to guess, I think it's going to be the major characters, and also not going to be the more obviously one-sided ones.

Next up ... Stannis ? Dany ? (That's my bet.)

[Lion of Judah]

` I'm cool with the verdict?

How are you coming up with the characters that are being tried? Is it just you or are posters nominating people?

Posters can nominate any character just send me a PM and let me know. Top12Gun is working on the next case that is supposed to be out on monday, you can do the next one if you like.

[Lion of Judah]

If I were to guess, I think it's going to be the major characters, and also not going to be the more obviously one-sided ones.

Next up ... Stannis ? Dany ? (That's my bet.)

I don't know...ok maybe I do. But tune in on monday and we'll see what case is on the docket, we can't taint the judges now can we. That is reason for a dismissal before we even hear the case.