Official court of law vol. 2(Robb Stark)

[Samsaptakas]

What about the unnecessary cruelty done on Theon greyjoy by one of his banner man?

[franko99]

Now for the trial.

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 - Everyone is here saying Joffrey was not the king, but as far as Robb knew when he rebel and call his banners, Joffrey Baratheon, was a Baratheon and the rightful King. Even more, by the time he crown himself, his father publicly admited that JB was the rightful king. Id' said Guilty

2 - Even if he never swear fealty to Joffrey, it was inplied that he was bond by the oath Thorren made to Aegon 298 years ago when he bend the knee. Anyways we can argue about this and the fact he didn't swear to Joffrey himself can be a loophole, in doubt I call Innocent.

3 - He broke his bows, and betray the trust of a whole house, he disshonored House Frey (yes what does a Frey knows about honor, but untill that point, the Frey didn't gave Robb a reason for do it) Guilty

4 - It was war, Stafford was commanding an army. Innocent

EDIT; I forgot about the sentence, Pardon if he bend the knee for 1, and just a monetary fine for Hose Frey for 3. Of course none of this would have matter if he won the War :P

[franko99]

What about the unnecessary cruelty done on Theon greyjoy by one of his banner man?

It wasn't on Robbs commands

[I Remain Unvanquished]

What about the unnecessary cruelty done on Theon greyjoy by one of his banner man?

Rose and Ramsay were going rogue. Robb had no idea what they were doing to Theon. For that matter, was Robb even still alive when Ramsay was torturing Theon.

[jblair]

1. This idea that Robb never swore allegiance to Joffrey is absurd. Upon taking the mantle of Lord of Winterfell, such allegiance is inherent in the title. Unless all of these posters suggest that there is a grace period for revolution and mayhem any time a new King or Lord is crowned, until every single petty lord and knight can travel to KL? Even if Joffrey turns out to be fraudulent, according to the realm he was the legitimate monarch. Absent any proof, Joffrey was legally the King.

GUILTY - STARKS REMOVED AS HEADS OF WINTERFELL, all allowed exile to Essos

2. It cannot possibly be denied that Robb rebelled against the Realm. Unlike Stannis and Daenerys, Robb had absolutely zero claim to the crown, and in fact never asked for the crown. He instead seceded the North from the Seven Kingdoms, installing himself as a monarch. No amount of word-twisting can change this. Even if the circumstantial evidence holding Joffrey as illegitimate were true, Robb is still opposing even the obvious King, Stannis. Either way, Robb is directly rebelling against the crown. Suppose the Manderlys had rebelled against Ned and Wyman called banners and styled himself King of White Harbor. How would the Ned have responded?

GUILTY - ROBB to the WALL

3. Downplaying the significance of the marriage pact is a major mistake. This was a political arrangement and a legal contract, the ridiculous argument calling for a properly notarized triplicate legal form notwithstanding. Frey blood and tremendous risk were exchanged for greater political power (in the form of the marriage). Robb reneged on this deal AFTER Frey blood had been shed for this sham.

GUILTY - HEAVY REPARATIONS FROM WINTERFELL

4. I do not hold him responsible for Lannister's death at all.

INNOCENT

edit: By the way, I love Robb but he really really needed to win the war to void all this nonsense. Price of the Game of Thrones and all.

[Pod The Impaler]

1. This idea that Robb never swore allegiance to Joffrey is absurd. Upon taking the mantle of Lord of Winterfell, such allegiance is inherent in the title. Unless all of these posters suggest that there is a grace period for revolution and mayhem any time a new King or Lord is crowned, until every single petty lord and knight can travel to KL? Even if Joffrey turns out to be fraudulent, according to the realm he was the legitimate monarch. Absent any proof, Joffrey was legally the King.

GUILTY - STARKS REMOVED AS HEADS OF WINTERFELL, all allowed exile to Essos

2. It cannot possibly be denied that Robb rebelled against the Realm. Unlike Stannis and Daenerys, Robb had absolutely zero claim to the crown, and in fact never asked for the crown. He instead seceded the North from the Seven Kingdoms, installing himself as a monarch. No amount of word-twisting can change this. Even if the circumstantial evidence holding Joffrey as illegitimate were true, Robb is still opposing even the obvious King, Stannis. Either way, Robb is directly rebelling against the crown. Suppose the Manderlys had rebelled against Ned and Wyman called banners and styled himself King of White Harbor. How would the Ned have responded?

GUILTY - ROBB to the WALL

It absolutely can be disputed on both grounds:

The true king (Robert) was murdered by those you are (falsely) calling his successors, as was the lawful Hand of the King (Eddard). The proximate cause of these murders and subsequent usurpations was the discovery, by a lawful authority (The Hand), of Joffrey's illegitimacy and the treasonous incest of his true mother and father. Prior to the murder of either Robert or Eddard, this fact was confessed openly. Prior to the murders as well, the lawful authority had summoned Tywin and Jaime Lannister to anwer for what their bannermen were already doing.

Furthermore, Bran Stark was pushed out a window in an act of attempted murder by members of House Lannister, for having previously caught Joffrey's parents in their treasonous acts. Later, Joffrey himself attempted to assassinate (by proxy) Bran Stark.

To further the discovery of evidence in these crimes, a member of House Lannister (Tyrion, who knew of the treason and colluded for years to cover it up) was arrested by Catelyn Stark for trial. In response, House Lannister waged aggressive war against the Riverlands, deliberately encouraging their bannermen to engage in war crimes angainst combatant and non-combatant alike.

Robb Stark by then knew House Lannister was behind the attacks on his family, on the Riverlands, and had launched a coup in King's Landing.

Therefore he was justified in calling the banners for military action. House Lannister as an organization was already guilty of incest, treason, 3 instances of attempted murder (Bran twice, Arya once), murder (ranging from King Robert to Mycah the butcher's boy), unlawful arrest and confinement (Eddard and Sansa Stark), usurpation of the throne by an abomination born of incest, and treason. Individual members of House Lannister involved in these crimes were Jaime and Cersei Lannister, Joffrey "Baratheon", Tywin and Kevan Lannister, and (in covering it up) Tyrion Lannister.

Robb Stark did not need to know all the elements of the crime if he acted in good faith to stop these crimes in progress. Furthermore, he did not need to swear any fealty to those criminal elements (House Lannister and its supporters) at any time, and doing so would have made him a party to their crimes.

Simply put, nothing that House Lannister did was lawful, their authority was never legitimate. All Robb Stark's actions in responding militarily to a coup and war which had already been launched were perfectly legitimate. He owed no allegiance to House Lannister and its unlawful criminal conspiracy.

[Walder Waters]

After reconsidering whether or not an agreement has to fulfill specific formalities I came to the following conclusion:

There is no absolute reason to demand such formalities. Witnesses and the written form are only relevant for the taking of evidence. If such evidence can not be provided by the party who bears the burden of proof, it is only that party's risk. If there is evidence or the agreement is past dispute there is no reason to negate the validity of an agreement by demanding for example a written form although there are witnesses etc.

Therefore it is my legal opinion that an oral contract is valid unless there are specific reasons that justify a certain form (for example in case of a last will as the testator cannot be interrogated after his death).

In case of the pact between Robb Stark and Walder Frey there is no reason evident that may demand a certain form. I therefore consider the agreement valid and binding.

[blackwing]

1. Joffrey is/was not the rightful heir of the Iron Throne. -> innocent.

2. Dismissed: Robb did not antagonize Stannis the rightful king. He fought the Lannisters for abducting his father and sisters.

3. Guilty: monetary fine.

4. Dismissed: Robb killed him in battle during wartime.

[Walder Waters]

Incorrect. On a charge of treason, which is political in nature, the legitimacy of the power one is transgressing against is of paramount importance. One simply cannot be a traitor to an illegitimate government.

If the court itself is Joffrey's court enforcing Joffrey's laws, then it has no legitimacy either. If we work on the theory that it is some mystical independent court (one that does not answer to one side or the other), then the question of legitimacy is what the case depends on.

I think of this court being the Court of Law of the Iron Throne as an abstractum, not as the court of who ever claims to have the right to put his ass on it.

Robb can be a traitor when he separates from the Iron Throne. Declaring to be King-in-the-North is treason no matter if Joffrey, Renly, Stannis or whoever may be lawful king. It is against the Iron Throne, it can be let open who is allowed to sit on it.

For the second charge the legitimity of Joffrey is irrelevant. Only for the first charge it does matter.

[Ghost Wrytre]

If it please the court (and I don't think it will)...

Whereas the defendant, Robb Stark, is clearly recognized by this court to be "King in the North" within the (OP's) very list of charges against, I hereby move that counts 1, Conspiracy to commit Treason against King Joffrey I, and 2, Committing Acts of Treason against the Seven Kingdoms, be dismissed on the grounds that a King is an autonomous entity and therefore, by definition, owes no fealty to nor can conspire and commit treason against another.

Furthermore, I hereby move that count 4, of Murder against one Stafford Lannister, be dismissed on the grounds that the victim's demise was resultant of battle combat between two enemy states.

As to the matter of count 3, Breach of Legal Contract with House Frey, I judge the defendant, Robb Stark, to be guilty as charged and hereby order the defendant, Robb Stark, to make reparations to House Frey, the extent of such reparations to be determined by an independent arbitrator.

------------

It should be noted: Had the list of charges not named Robb Stark "King in the North," or had the phrase "King in the North" been listed as one of Robb Stark's aliases, I would likely have had to find him guilty of at least one of the first two charges against him. By recognizing the title, however, the court absolves its bearer of any fealty to the Iron Throne.

In other words, with all due respect, Your Honor...

If you're going to do it, do it right.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

1 & 2: Not guilty. Loyalty cuts both ways and vassalage is a state of mutual obligations, which are broken if the Crown does not only blatantly neglect its duty to protect but actively harms its subjects. This the Crown did do (from Bran to the Riverlands), so its subjects lost any obligation of fealty. You can even argue that Robb was morally compelled to declare independence from and move against a corrupt and oppressive regime, but in any case he could consider his vassalage to the Crown terminated.

3: Guilty. Monetary fine. I see no reason to believe that the contract would need to be written down to be binding. I also do not believe that the Frey's obligations to Hoster Tully invalidate the contract by making a possible refusal to help Robb illegal (in particular since the Freys did not receive a command from Hoster and as they could reasonably doubt the legality of Robb's ventures).

4: Not guilty. Soldier killed in a military engagement.

[Knight Of Winter]

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:

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power

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.

[Drogo_BR]

It absolutely can be disputed on both grounds:

The true king (Robert) was murdered by those you are (falsely) calling his successors, as was the lawful Hand of the King (Eddard). The proximate cause of these murders and subsequent usurpations was the discovery, by a lawful authority (The Hand), of Joffrey's illegitimacy and the treasonous incest of his true mother and father. Prior to the murder of either Robert or Eddard, this fact was confessed openly. Prior to the murders as well, the lawful authority had summoned Tywin and Jaime Lannister to anwer for what their bannermen were already doing.

Furthermore, Bran Stark was pushed out a window in an act of attempted murder by members of House Lannister, for having previously caught Joffrey's parents in their treasonous acts. Later, Joffrey himself attempted to assassinate (by proxy) Bran Stark.

To further the discovery of evidence in these crimes, a member of House Lannister (Tyrion, who knew of the treason and colluded for years to cover it up) was arrested by Catelyn Stark for trial. In response, House Lannister waged aggressive war against the Riverlands, deliberately encouraging their bannermen to engage in war crimes angainst combatant and non-combatant alike.

Robb Stark by then knew House Lannister was behind the attacks on his family, on the Riverlands, and had launched a coup in King's Landing.

Therefore he was justified in calling the banners for military action. House Lannister as an organization was already guilty of incest, treason, 3 instances of attempted murder (Bran twice, Arya once), murder (ranging from King Robert to Mycah the butcher's boy), unlawful arrest and confinement (Eddard and Sansa Stark), usurpation of the throne by an abomination born of incest, and treason. Individual members of House Lannister involved in these crimes were Jaime and Cersei Lannister, Joffrey "Baratheon", Tywin and Kevan Lannister, and (in covering it up) Tyrion Lannister.

Robb Stark did not need to know all the elements of the crime if he acted in good faith to stop these crimes in progress. Furthermore, he did not need to swear any fealty to those criminal elements (House Lannister and its supporters) at any time, and doing so would have made him a party to their crimes.

Simply put, nothing that House Lannister did was lawful, their authority was never legitimate. All Robb Stark's actions in responding militarily to a coup and war which had already been launched were perfectly legitimate. He owed no allegiance to House Lannister and its unlawful criminal conspiracy.

:agree:

[Lion of Judah]

If it please the court (and I don't think it will)...

Whereas the defendant, Robb Stark, is recognized by this court to be "King in the North" within the very list of charges against, I move that counts 1, Conspiracy to commit Treason against King Joffrey I, and 2, Treason against King Joffrey I, be dismissed on the grounds that a King is autonomous and, therefore, cannot conspire toward nor commit treason against another.

Furthermore, I move that count 4, of Murder against one Stafford Lannister, be dismissed on the grounds that the victim's death was resultant of battle combat between two enemy states.

On the subject of count 3, Breach of Legal Contract with House Frey, I find the defendant, Robb Stark, to be guilty as charged and hereby order the defendant, Robb Stark, to make reparations to House Frey, the extent of such reparations to be determined by an independent arbitrator.

------------

It should be noted: Had the court not named Robb Stark "King in the North," or had the court listed "King in the North" as one of Robb Stark's aliases, I would likely have had to find him guilty of at least one of the first two charges against him. By recognizing the title, however, the court absolves its bearer of any fealty to the Iron Throne.

In other words, with all due respect, Your Honor...

If you're going to do it, do it right.

When Robb Starks rebellion against the Iron throne began he was not King, he was only anointed such after the fact. The formality of giving his name and title is done to assure that this trial is about Robb Stark of Winterfell, also known as King in the North, also known as the young wolf. It's no different than the court of law asking you your name to acknowledge and legally verify that you are indeed the person you say you are. Needless to say your argument for dismissing the charges are bogus. Your judgement for dismissal will stand however.

[SeanF]

Welcome to the 2nd installation of the “Official court of law” for this board. In this thread we will debate and pass judgement on character crimes from the work ASOIAF. As judges we bear a burden of upholding the integrity of our court so being impartial is imperative, keep all arguments in a legal context that suit the standards of this court. All posters are welcomed to make their case, at the end of your argument pass your judgement and sentence!!!!

The rules: Every poster has one vote of guilt or innocence.

**For a guilty verdict our options are:

• Send them to the wall. (same as prison sentence)
  
• Death by sword. (Clean and quick)
  
• Death by flames. (An ode to R’hllor)
  
• Death by flaying. (oh boy)
  
• Monetary fine
  
• Exile and/or
  
• Stripped of land/title.
  

**If you find the character innocent, simply state innocent after your argument.

As for as evidence that can be submitted, posters can submit any argument they deem relevant. However we cannot use any pardons or prior convictions as evidence in the matter. Our court will not recognize the judgement of any other court or ruling body.

**You can also vote for charges to be dismissed (majority rule).

**At the end of the week the vote will be counted and the final sentence carried out. Majority rules. Only the nominated character will be discussed.

**Votes can be changed before they are counted, but do so in your original post.

Posters can just cast a vote, which is your right, but try to state a case as well. Your opinion actually matters and it may serve to change the vote of another judge.

*Do not take it personal if your favorite character is being torn to pieces. Everyone is fair game.

http://asoiaf.wester...r/#entry3893576

Now for the trial.

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 and 2 must be tried together. If Robb is guilty of 1, he must be guilty of 2, and vice versa. Likewise, if he is innocent of 1, he must be innocent of 2 and vice versa. I submit, that innocence and guilt both hinge on charge 2. If he is guilty of treason, by waging war against Joffrey, styling himself King of Westeros, then he must also be guilty of conspiracy to commit treason by summoning his lords bannermen with intent to wage war.

Joffrey however, is not the King, but rather the offspring of incest and treason between Cersei and Jaime. He is therefore illegitimate and has no claim to the Iron Throne. As such, his execution of Ned Stark, and imprisonment of Sansa Stark, are both unlawful acts, murder and kidnapping respectively. It is therefore lawful for Robb Stark to both summon his lords bannermen, and wage war in order to seek redress.

It is arguable that Robb Stark, by declaring the North independent, is guilty of treason against the rightful King, Stannis, but that charge has not been brought before this Court.

Accordingly, Robb Stark is innocent of charges 1 and 2.

WRT charge 3, I submit there is no case to answer. The dispute between House Stark, and House Frey, is a civil dispute, not a criminal dispute, and is thus not subject to the juristiction of this Court.

If Robb Stark is innocent of treason, then it must follow that he is innocent of charge 4, as it is lawful to kill an enemy combatant during the course of battle.

[Ghost Wrytre]

When Robb Starks rebellion against the Iron throne began he was not King, he was only anointed such after the fact. The formality of giving his name and title is done to assure that this trial is about Robb Stark of Winterfell, also known as King in the North, also known as the young wolf. It's no different than the court of law asking you your name to acknowledge and legally verify that you are indeed the person you say you are. Needless to say your argument for dismissing the charges are bogus. Your judgement for dismissal will stand however.

One man's bogus is another man's... technicality. (joke)

Look, I only meant to poke you in the ribs a little. If my post seemed was too heavy-handed, I apologize.

[Frey Pie]

1 & 2: Not guilty. Loyalty cuts both ways and vassalage is a state of mutual obligations, which are broken if the Crown does not only blatantly neglect its duty to protect but actively harms its subjects. This the Crown did do (from Bran to the Riverlands), so its subjects lost any obligation of fealty. You can even argue that Robb was morally compelled to declare independence from and move against a corrupt and oppressive regime, but in any case he could consider his vassalage to the Crown terminated.

Exactly. The Crown forfeitted any right it had to call on House Stark as a vassal for all its ill deeds, quite like Aerys did to House Stark and Baratheon not so long ago. Oaths go both ways. A lord has to be good to his peasants to ensure their loyalty and taxes. Similarly a King holds a responsibilty for his lords. This was breeched over and over again to the Stark household and their blood ties the Tullys. No loyalty can be expected

[Top12Gun]

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

Guilty, but nullified by the explanation of the second. Sentence suspended.

2. Acts of treason by rebellion against the realm.

Guilty. However, the circumstances surrounding this must be taken into account: The Iron Throne's inhabitant being the suspected product of incest; The apparent mental instability of Joffrey Baratheon; The Throne's apparent intention to ignore these rumors; The substantiated claims of both Stannis Baratheon, and Renly Baratheon. Because of these factors, I recommend a sentence of forfeiture of monetary assets totaling the exact cost of 600 gold dragons for every man killed in the rebellion he fomented, 500 to be delivered to the families of each man, and 100 to help cover the cost of the realm's military expenditure in this foolishness.

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

Guilty, but this is nullified by House Frey's acceptance of Edmure Tully as a replacement marriage contract. House Frey further violated this, and the guest right. No sentence for Stark, and indict House Frey.

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

Because Rickard Karstark and Robb Stark are obviously one and the same. Innocent.

I motion that the court also hear the charge of Treason by Secession.

[Starfell]

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:

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power

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?

:agree:

Thanks for writing this, I was toying with the idea of asking about the nature of feudal contracts and what the implications might be for the legitimacy of Robb's Rebellion and/or whether he owed allegiance to the Iron Throne but I decided it might be a bit derailing.

[LordAlexOfTheWolds]

1. No charge.

2. Stripped of lands and titles AND sent to the wall. His heir can swear fealty to the throne.

3. Monetary Fine.

4. Innocent.