The Court of Star Chamber was a court of law which evolved from meetings of the king's royal council. Although its roots go back to the medieval period, the court only became powerful as a separate entity during the reign of Henry VII. In 1487 the court became a judicial body separate from the king's council, with a mandate to hear petitions of redress.
In a sense the court was a supervisory body; its members oversaw the operations of lower courts. As well, its members could hear cases by direct appeal. Members of the court were either privy councillors (i.e. members of the king's advisory body) or judges drawn from the courts of common law.
The mandate of the court expanded under the Tudors to include instances of public disorder. Judges would receive petitions involving property rights, public corruption, trade and government administration, and disputes arising from land enclosures. Although the court was initially a court of appeal, Henry VIII and his councillors Wolsey and Cranmer encouraged plaintiffs to bring their cases directly to the Star Chamber, bypassing the lower courts entirely.
Although the court could order torture, prison, and fines, it did not have the power to impose the death sentence. Under the Tudors Star Chamber sessions were public.
The power of the court of Star Chamber grew considerably under the Stuarts, and by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for misuse and abuse of power by the king and his circle. James I and his son Charles used the court to examine cases of sedition, which, in practice, meant that the court could be used to suppress opposition to royal policies. It became used to try nobles too powerful to be brought to trial in the lower courts. Court sessions were held in secret, with no right of appeal, and punishment was swift and severe to any enemy of the crown.
Charles I used the Court of Star Chamber as a sort of Parliamentary substitute during the years 1628-40, when he refused to call Parliament.
Finally, in 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the hated Star Chamber, though its name survives still to designate arbitrary, secretive proceedings in opposition to personal rights and liberty.
Monaco's corte d'kangaroo assumes guilt and eschews the vigorous adversarial debate we enjoy;
It offers not the due process familiar to us, but is the exercise of authoritarian whim;
It was only after Ted's family made clear to Ted's Congresswoman Sue Kelly, and to the House International Relations Committee, and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Ted would be denied his right to choose his defense attorney under Monaco code that these U.S. officials wrote Secretary Powell and the ruling was reversed.
Nonetheless, the extorted false confession is excluded from the proceedings along with any investigation of the dozens of exculpatory facts suppressed, or of the many manufactured incriminating articles of evidence.
We have catalogued these in this thread and its ten predecessors.
Monaco persists in awakening Ted every 20 to 40 minutes each night of the trial to destroy his rest and concentration.
In the United States our national symbol of justice is the Statue of Liberty lifting her torch of freedom;
In Monaco it is the stooge d'etat prison garde shining his torch in the eyes of the defendant every half hour through the night.
The court is farce. Powdered wigs and robes cannot disguise the intimidation devoid of higher purpose.
The army of expensive attorneys serving the richest woman in Monaco bullied the defendant's wife today;
Having kidnapped her and stolen her passport (described in the two letters of protest to the consulate by Griffith) the powerful and wealthy now debase themselves further;
These are the pack that extorted the false confession, suppressed evidence, threatened children;
Have they at last no decency? None is apparent.
Yet despite all the outrages of this police state. . . .
The press has admired Ted's strength and clarity and it is said Ted's wife did well against the battery of bullies.
Monaco can't handle the truth, as Jack Nicholson put it.