Complaints

Your Honour, Complaint against Felasia, who was then speaker, was filed by John Ashcroft Land on July 14 2011, 03:43 AM, following Felasia’s refusal to admit JAL to the Regional Assembly without Constitutional basis. This action was tested in the court through the JAL trial and was overruled by the court. JAL was permitted to join the Regional Assembly.
The complaint is that Felasia, acting as Speaker of the Regional Assembly, did on or about July 14th 2011 abuse the powers of their office, contrary to the Bill of Rights clause 5, in blocking without valid legal cause the application of John Ashcroft Land to join the Regional Assembly.

The facts of the case are this: During the JAL trial, no evidence was presented that suggested that JAL was at the time of his RA application a current threat to the security of the Region (past actions are not relevant). JAL fulfilled all the conditions of TNP Law 28 section one when he applied to the RA, yet Felasia refused to admit him and instead instigated against JAL the charged that led to the infamous JAL trial. Even though complaint against Felasia PREDATED that against JAL, the then Attorney General chose to ignore charges agasint Felasia but to vigorously pursue action aginst JAL for ten months.

Does this matter? Yes. Court ruling on this action would set a benchmark for the performance of future Speakers. It would also show that complaints made to the office of the Attorney general are not conveniently forgotten. This action is important not just to ensure justice is done but to demonstrate the impartiality of the Attorney General’s Office. Finally, since Felasia is a candidate for even higher office, that of Vice Delegate, in the current election, it is reasonable that their dubious past actions are held up for legal scrutiny.
 
I am formally filing a complaint against Blue Wolf II.

He has violated the Constitution and possibly the Legal Code in that roughly a few hours ago, I was banned from the region for no reason.

My nation, Ramaba, is not in the WA and I have violated no laws, nor have been convicted of a crime worthy of banishment.

I am also not a security threat.

I am requesting the ban be overturned and BW be prosecuted for his actions.
 
Your nation CTEd then you moved back into the region. By the letter of the law, you must re-apply to be both an RA member and a citizen. I banned you for spamming the forums with false complaints.
 
this is not the soft touch grosseschnauzer recommended.

This should be the first order of business once the backlog in the court is cleared.
 
Grosseschnauzer may be the de facto head of state here on the forums due to his tendency to wield the Root Admin position like a friggin weapon, but the delegate still controls the region in game. I still get to make those calls.
 
Blue Wolf, as far as I can tell, you have ignored Article Vi of the Constitution. You might want to take a look at it before it's done for you. (When I'm getting PMs before I even get to this thread, that says something.)

I do have a life, and I do have real life priorities to address, unlike some of you. So if any of you want to trade responsibilities in RL, have at it -- you won't last 10 minutes with what I have to deal with.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Your nation CTEd then you moved back into the region. By the letter of the law, you must re-apply to be both an RA member and a citizen. I banned you for spamming the forums with false complaints.
Click to expand...
Other people have CTE'd and got back in quickly as an active RA member without complaints. I myself have actually CTE'd once or twice a long time ago when I was a RA member, way before you were even delegate, and never was removed.

By the letter of the law, you had violated your duty by banning my nation without just cause or trial.

And the fact that you did so during an election period also smacks of electoral fraud.
 
I am filing a formal complaint also against Flemingovia.

With the illegal and extra-judicial ban Blue Wolf has made, Flemingovia has sought to capitalise on my misfortune by repeately trolling and flaming me in various posts and engaging in personal attacks mocking my character, both in his "Temple Courts" area, and in the Moderation forum. When I objected to his posts, he split and moved my posts elsewhere, without respecting my wishes to sincerely apologise for his behaviour, remove the warn level against me, or to remove the offensive content he made about me in his "temple".
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Blue Wolf, as far as I can tell, you have ignored Article Vi of the Constitution. You might want to take a look at it before it's done for you.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you're going to cite Article VI, its worth mentioning Section 2.

TNP Constitution Article VI:
Section 2: Legal Recourse

1. In the case where a Nation feels that their banning or ejection was unwarranted, they may appeal their case to the full three-person Court that shall have the power to overturn the Delegate's ruling and order the unbanning of the nation.
Click to expand...

The full Court may overrule me and I welcome their judgement. However, it should be noted that Justice Grimalkin's TNP nation just recently CTE'd and thus I fully expect him to be removed as both an RA member and a Justice very soon in accordance with TNP laws. Therefore we would need an emergency election in order to have the full three-person Court.
 
Assuming what you say about Grimalkin is true, and I have not investigated it, the Court has the power to appoint a temporary judicial officer to complete a three judge panel. There is a court rule on the matter which is authorized by the Constitution. So an special election might be necessary, but the Court could assemble a three-member panel in the meantime. So your hope of typing the system in knots is misplaced. (As long as there is at least one justice or hearing officer already in place, the system works, since they would be temporary justices.)
Rules of Judicial Administration

Rule 1. Appointment of Judicial Hearing Officers.

A - Whenever, due to conflict of interest, unavailability, or other cause, the Chief Justice (or the Associate Justice with greatest seniority in the case of vacancy, absence, or unavailablity of the Chief Justice) determines it appropriate, a hearing officer shall be promptly appointed to preside for a particular proceeding.
B - Whenever there are one or more vacancies on the Court, or one or more Justices are unavailable, have a conflict of interest, or other cause, that prevent the participation of the full number of Justices created under the Constitution or by law, the remaining Justice or Justices shall promptly appoint one or more hearing officers to participate in an en banc proceeding as temporary Justices.
C - Any hearing officer that is appointed under this Rule shall be a member of the Regional Assembly and shall not be serving as Delegate, Vice Delegate, any Cabinet officer, or as Speaker of the Regional Assembly, while serving as a judicial hearing officer.
Click to expand...
 
*shrugs* I'm not sure we've ever used that clause in the past, even in times of dire emergency when all the Justices were missing or absent. We've always done the election route.
 
Govindia:
I am filing a formal complaint also against Flemingovia.

With the illegal and extra-judicial ban Blue Wolf has made, Flemingovia has sought to capitalise on my misfortune by repeately trolling and flaming me in various posts and engaging in personal attacks mocking my character, both in his "Temple Courts" area, and in the Moderation forum. When I objected to his posts, he split and moved my posts elsewhere, without respecting my wishes to sincerely apologise for his behaviour, remove the warn level against me, or to remove the offensive content he made about me in his "temple".
Click to expand...
I take note of the complaint, but am a little confused by what i am charged with. Perhaps the complainant or the attorney general can tell me the specific charges so that I can prepare my defence.
Constitutional references would help me.

Govindia has already submitted the posts he objected to for moderator review, and the moderation team found nothing objectionable in them. I cannot see where the court has any interest in this.

Nonetheless, my good name has been besmirched by this action, and I look forward to my day in court to clear my reputation.



By the way, if it would help the court, I would be more than happy to serve the court as a temporary justice in the case of Govindia vs Blue Wolf.
 
Thank you. I am glad the court will be atking this issue seriously. In the past week Govindia has repeatedly reported my posts to moderators for trolling or flaming - not one of which complaints has been upheld. I repeat, not one complaint has been upheld. Now he is seeking to get me put on trial. Frankly, I am getting tired of him running to law or moderation every time he reads something he does not like. I hope a strong message will be sent out from the court, because I am getting pissed off about it.
 
Blue Wolf II:
*shrugs* I'm not sure we've ever used that clause in the past, even in times of dire emergency when all the Justices were missing or absent. We've always done the election route.
Click to expand...
The rule won't work unless there is at least one Justice. And it has been pointed out at different times in the past. (It's in the "Adopted Court Rules" thread, although way Eluvatar didn't add it to the laws web page he set up, I really don't know; he probably didn't realize it was in the same thread.
But the rule was originally adopted in 2006, and reaffirmed when the current thread was created in 2010.

Helps to read before one speaks, y'all know.
 
I am issuing a nolle prosequi with respect to the complaint against Felesia. It is my judgment that in order to consider a formal charge it would require the same level of examination of the same factual issues as was required in the recently dismissed J.A.L. prosecution and would involve many of the same issues. It is my judgment that it would be impossible in the current environment to have a successful prosecution even if those same issues could be resolved in yet another prosecution.
This finding might be different if that case had been tried to a final verdict not based on technical grounds that do not get to a resolution of the identical issue of fact, but that is not the case, and this case would be impossible to pursue under the circumstances. Finally, the proper, more efficient modality of the issues alleged against former Speaker Felesia would be a recall proceeding during his term, not a criminal trial well more than a year later.
 
In the matter of the appeal filed by Govindia with respect to the actions taken against him by Delegate Blue Wolf, the first concern is this requirement in Article VI, Section 1, of the Constitution, to wit:
1. Ejection and/or banning from the region The North Pacific may be prescribed as a punishment for violations of regional laws.
Click to expand...
I am unable to identify any regional law that legally empowers the Delegate with respect to a matter that is committed to the Speaker and the Regional Assembly to administer and enforce. Law 28 does not authorize ejection or banning, per se, if a member's TNP nation may have ceased to exist, even due to inadvertence or oversight. Nor is there any law that, except in an emergency which has not been alleged to exist that would have justify ejection of a TNP citizen's nation without the entry of a court judgment directing ejection as punishment for conviction of a crime under TNP law.

At the moment, Article VI Section 2 directs that a nation that believes its ejection was wrong under TNP law may seek a review of the three judge panel of the Court. The Office of the Attorney General is not required in these circumstances to file a proceeding for the aggrieved party in order to initiate the appeal. Therefore this complaint will be transferred to the Court in accordance with Article VI and the applicable rules of the Court for further proceedings.
As to whether any charges should be brought against Delegate Blue Wolf, that will first depend on the Court's decision on the Article VI proceeding. Therefore, that matter will be docketed and addressed once the Article VI matter is disposed of.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I am issuing a nolle prosequi with respect to the complaint against Felesia. It is my judgment that in order to consider a formal charge it would require the same level of examination of the same factual issues as was required in the recently dismissed J.A.L. prosecution and would involve many of the same issues. It is my judgment that it would be impossible in the current environment to have a successful prosecution even if those same issues could be resolved in yet another prosecution.
This finding might be different if that case had been tried to a final verdict not based on technical grounds that do not get to a resolution of the identical issue of fact, but that is not the case, and this case would be impossible to pursue under the circumstances. Finally, the proper, more efficient modality of the issues alleged against former Speaker Felesia would be a recall proceeding during his term, not a criminal trial well more than a year later.
Click to expand...
Those without a grounding in the classics may be interested to know that nolle Prosequi roughly translates as "I do not wish to go ahead", which accurately sums up Grosse's decision in this case.

I fail to see the logic applied, however. the argument seems to be that the JAL trial renders a successful prosecution impossible. But the Felasia charge hinges on wether JAL posed a current threat to the region at the time of his banning from the RA - a matter not covered in the JAL trial.

Grosse also seems to be arguing that if the JAL trial had been pursued FURTHER, a successful trial against Felasia would have been possible. This may seem strangely contradictory to members of the region.

The fact is that we were dissuaded from pursing the charges against Felasia at the time, on the grounds that the JAL trial had to be completed first. Now we are told that we cannot pursue charges against Felasia because we should have done so at the time.

Perhaps "nolle Prosequi" is not the latin that the region should consider but "privi liege". I have no doubt that there are those in the region who will reflect on the fact that two simulataneous charges were brought to the court. One, against JAL, was pursued for months and months with vigour. The other, against Felasia, has been fobbed off and eventually dismissed. in addition, the fact that JAL was charged in respect to actions "more than a year later" did not seem to matter in JAL's case. Nor does this region have a statute of limitations that gives that any consideration.

Folks, when YOU are brought up on charges, you had better hope that you are one of the favoured.
 
Grosse, would you be prepared to explain your decision in clearer terms for those of us less au fait with technical legal language?

Please understand that this is a game and that some members may be put off from contributing by overly complex terms that serve no real additional descriptive purpose - are you basically saying you don't see that there is a case to pursue?
 
flemingovia:
Govindia:
I am filing a formal complaint also against Flemingovia.

With the illegal and extra-judicial ban Blue Wolf has made, Flemingovia has sought to capitalise on my misfortune by repeately trolling and flaming me in various posts and engaging in personal attacks mocking my character, both in his "Temple Courts" area, and in the Moderation forum. When I objected to his posts, he split and moved my posts elsewhere, without respecting my wishes to sincerely apologise for his behaviour, remove the warn level against me, or to remove the offensive content he made about me in his "temple".
Click to expand...
I take note of the complaint, but am a little confused by what i am charged with. Perhaps the complainant or the attorney general can tell me the specific charges so that I can prepare my defence.
Constitutional references would help me.

Govindia has already submitted the posts he objected to for moderator review, and the moderation team found nothing objectionable in them. I cannot see where the court has any interest in this.

Nonetheless, my good name has been besmirched by this action, and I look forward to my day in court to clear my reputation.



By the way, if it would help the court, I would be more than happy to serve the court as a temporary justice in the case of Govindia vs Blue Wolf.
Click to expand...
Actually, from what Grosse said in his initial review, the warn should have been overturned by now.

I felt that Flem overreached his moderation duty in how he reacted, due to possible bias. Not everyone on the Mod team has reviewed the situation. Grosse for one has not reviewed the thread yet.

And I have requested kindly that a post mocking my banning that Flem had made, should be removed as I find it personally offensive and objectionable, and all I got for a response was that it got split from his thread. My request was not unreasonable.
 
Grosse, I'm not understanding what you are saying.

Are you saying you are unwilling to prosecute the case or is it going to judicial review? Please clarify in layman's terms as I'm a bit confused with the legalese you had used.....:(
 
Govindia:
flemingovia:
Govindia:
I am filing a formal complaint also against Flemingovia.

With the illegal and extra-judicial ban Blue Wolf has made, Flemingovia has sought to capitalise on my misfortune by repeately trolling and flaming me in various posts and engaging in personal attacks mocking my character, both in his "Temple Courts" area, and in the Moderation forum. When I objected to his posts, he split and moved my posts elsewhere, without respecting my wishes to sincerely apologise for his behaviour, remove the warn level against me, or to remove the offensive content he made about me in his "temple".
Click to expand...
I take note of the complaint, but am a little confused by what i am charged with. Perhaps the complainant or the attorney general can tell me the specific charges so that I can prepare my defence.
Constitutional references would help me.

Govindia has already submitted the posts he objected to for moderator review, and the moderation team found nothing objectionable in them. I cannot see where the court has any interest in this.

Nonetheless, my good name has been besmirched by this action, and I look forward to my day in court to clear my reputation.



By the way, if it would help the court, I would be more than happy to serve the court as a temporary justice in the case of Govindia vs Blue Wolf.
Click to expand...
Actually, from what Grosse said in his initial review, the warn should have been overturned by now.

I felt that Flem overreached his moderation duty in how he reacted, due to possible bias. Not everyone on the Mod team has reviewed the situation. Grosse for one has not reviewed the thread yet.

And I have requested kindly that a post mocking my banning that Flem had made, should be removed as I find it personally offensive and objectionable, and all I got for a response was that it got split from his thread. My request was not unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Your "feelings" are immaterial. You have sought to get me put on trial. Trials are based on law and fact.

What TNP LAWS do you say I have broken? I am still unclear.
 
Govindia's matter has to go to judicial review as required by Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution. The Attorney General's office plays no mandatory role in that matter.
Once that is done, then the office will see what the Court determines and decide then whether there is any basis for a proceeding against Blue Wolf in the Court system. The constitutionally favored remedy is recall, but his term will likely have ended by then.
As to the Felesia complaint, it's very simple. The factual issues involved were all issues in the J.A.L. trial. All of them that I can detect. Since the Court feels it is unable to hold a error-free retrial after declaring a mistrial of the original trial, there is no basis on which I can see that any conviction would even be likely given all of the problems with resolving those same issues of fact. Further, I am skeptical that a criminal proceeding would even be proper since, again, the preferred constitutional remedy for dealing with abuse of office is recall. In addition, since there is no specific criminal statute dealing with abuse of office, and given the vote to bar the possible use of "transitional provisions," there is no way to legally frame any charges. Therefore, I determined that it would not be beneficial to anyone for that matter to proceed.
The current criminal code is deficient in that it only delineates a very limited number of offenses, and unless some legislating take place to enforce the obligations of any oath, it will be difficult for any criminal case to take place. The current constitution, unlike the last constitution, conveys only very limited jurisdiction to the Court, and as a result it makes bringing any sort of case not involving judicial review of action already taken very difficult.
 
Thank you for the explanation. I may not agree, but I can see where you are coming from.

Could I ask you to rule on Govindia's complaint against me? It is weighing heavily on my mind.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Once that is done, then the office will see what the Court determines and decide then whether there is any basis for a proceeding against Blue Wolf in the Court system. The constitutionally favored remedy is recall, but his term will likely have ended by then.
Click to expand...
Matter-o-fact, there is a pending Recall for yours truly already in queue for the RA to vote on. Sadly, Speaker Jamie refuses to bring it to vote, probably trying to protect me, the poor lad. Perhaps you can just throw that onto the pile?
 
Whether there would be or would not be a recall vote is a matter of another independent branch of government. All I'm doing is pointing out the legal options which include those outside the authority of this Office.
Of course the framework of options change once an officeholder leaves office, but that's something to address only when and if that becomes necessary.
 
"The framework of options change once an officeholder leaves office", which more or less translates to "we can't charge him with that now (because what he did as delegate is not illegal) but after his term is up as delegate we *totally* can (because if he wasn't delegate when it happened, it would be illegal)!"

Ex post facto, after the fact.
 
The ability of the region to respond by recall disappears when an officeholder leaves office; then it is a question whether any other charges are feasible and provable. I guarantee you I will not file a criminal case unless both of those factors are present. And as I've indicated, we have a gap in the criminal definitions that needs to be addressed in relation to acts that violate an oath of office.
But I do not know what the Court will decide on the current case, so I won't make any conclusions about what is appropriate until that happens.

And ex post facto refers to makeing an act criminal under legislation adopted after the fact; an ex post facto provision has nothing to do with the usual process that a prosecutor determines appropriate charges based on facts that have already taken place, or after acts have taken place that are relevant. We're not required to have a crystal ball.
 
It also can be used to describe the scenario I outlined above. It is a flexible term.

Seeking to charge me with a crime for actions that were legal when the actions were committed fits ex post facto to a letter.
 
Bumping for Grosse.

On 14th may charges were filed against me in this office, in addition to a number of moderation reports. It would be good if the attorney general would address this charge, so that I can prepare my defence.

Every time this happens my reputation is damaged, so I hope the court will not simply brush away the charges or use this as a further opportunity to criticise me without giving me opportunity for rejoinder.


I look forward to my day in court.
 
flemingovia:
Bumping for Grosse.

On 14th may charges were filed against me in this office, in addition to a number of moderation reports. It would be good if the attorney general would address this charge, so that I can prepare my defence.

Every time this happens my reputation is damaged, so I hope the court will not simply brush away the charges or use this as a further opportunity to criticise me without giving me opportunity for rejoinder.


I look forward to my day in court.
Click to expand...

Moderation issues are outside the purview of the judiciary, and therefore outside the preview of this Office. This was established in this opinion.

Court Opinion on Residency and Forum Administration:

Turning to the second issue, that is, the authority of Admins, Global Mods, and mods within the official forums as compared to the authority of government officials, requires one to precisely state what that authority is. The Admin have primary responsibility for enforcement of the "terms of service," [1] the "terms of use," [2] and the supplemental forum rules [3] that govern the forums. The forum moderation team has primary authority to enforce that body of rules, while many government officials have a limited amount of authority as forum moderators to assist in their enforcement.

A forum administrator’s primary obligation is to protect the integrity of the designated official forums on behalf of the regional community. If the constitutional process so permit, the members of the forum administration team not otherwise holding a government office, may exercise a very limited form of government power within the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code, and subject to the protections and limitations provided by the three central documents of TNP law.

Thus, in response to this question:

Specifically, if I as Admin were to preemptively IP ban a player who has no nation in TNP, and presently no account on this forum, what would be the legality of my actions under TNP law?
Click to expand...

the answer depends on whether the grounds for such an action are based upon a perceived threat of violation of the body of forum rules, or a threat of violation of TNP law. If it is the former, then the Admin is acting within the Admin’s proper authority to protect the forums; if it is the latter, then the Admin should secure from an appropriate government official approval under paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 of the Bill of Rights [4] before imposing such a ban from the forums. Inasmuch as there are distinct review processes for these decisions under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as to government decisions, and by the moderation review process put in place by the forum moderation team for the team’s non-governmental decisions, the requirements of due process are met so long as the review processes are followed in good faith. Thus, where the reason for the imposition of an IP ban is based on protecting the integrity of the forums, then the Admin is exercising their core responsibility to the forums and the community. If the IP ban is to further any other governmental policy or purpose, approval by the appropriate "governmental authorities of the region" under paragraphs 8 and 11 of the Bill of Rights is required.
Click to expand...

Complaints about moderation therefore belong to the scope of the forum moderation team and not the government. TNP has followed a tradition that the two are independent of one another, and as to those complants, that is the rule that is applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top