Review of Oath violations by former member of RA

I think this issue is complicated a little by the fact that the Oath sworn by JAL (in this case) is different to the oath currently sworn - however, that comes down more to an argument of what constitutes a violation, and is less relevant to when the violations occur.

In both, I believe that it matters when the oath-violating acts occurred. If acts which violate the oath are done while still a member, I think that you can be prosecuted under the oath violations. With that said, you can be prosecuted for other legal violations regardless of whether you are an RA member or not - it's not a get out of jail free card.

It has been argued in the public thread that saying that the oath is totally relinquished by resignation is a slippery slope - I would in fact argue that the reverse is, too. If we're going to say that when you take that oath, you're held to it forever more, then there's no avenue for people to resign if they then find themselves bound to something that they strongly don't agree with - for instance, after a change in the law. I dismiss the argument given in the thread on the basis that the crimes in the legal code don't require RA membership at all - it's just that an oath violation is another thing -on top of that-.

Essentially, I'm saying that oath violations are oath violations if they occur during that person's membership in the RA. Objectionable acts are almost always still prosecutable under other parts of the legal code, and oath violations are not the only recourse.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Eluvatar on Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Eluvatar.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Legal Code, Consitution, and Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. The Speaker will work with forum administration to process Regional Assembly applicants.
3. Assembly members must maintain a nation in the North Pacific.
4. Applicants must swear an oath, as follows:
Code: 
[nation]TNP Nation[/nation]
[nation]WA Nation[/nation]

I, [forum user name], leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name), pledge loyalty to the region, to abide by its laws, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may immediately lose my voting privileges, permanently. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
5. New forum members may who register as citizens or join the Regional Assembly must be made aware of the Criminal Code they are pledging to respect..
6. The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
7. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not rejected within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
8. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
9. The Speaker's office will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
10. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any members whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose North Pacific nation leaves or ceases to exist, who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 days.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Court in reviewing the matter as brought forth by Eluvatar reviewed the Constitution, Legal Code, and the Bill of Rights.

The Court had determined that the matter is twofold. If the violation occurs after the time in which the nation is no longer a member of the Regional Assembly then they are not violating their oath as they are not bound to that oath at the current moment. Whereas if the violation occurs during the time in which the nation was a member of the Regional Assembly and was bound by that oath they may be tried for an Oath Violation.

The Court reviewed the particluar matter that prompted this Judicial Inquiry and has determined that Justice Belschaft did in fact by not accepting the removal of JAL's RA membership follow the ruling that is being made today. For the record JAL's RA membership periods from the Court removal in March to his re-acceptance in August are listed below. The periods show that JAL was not a member of the Regional Assembly during the time of the alleged telegram campaign and could not have violated a regional assembly membership oath.

Removed on 3/21/12 by the Court

Restrictions removed when acquitted on 5/3/12

Reapplied on 5/5/12 - Admitted on 5/8/12

Removed on 6/20/12

Reapplied on 8/11/12 - Admitted on 8/12/12

Just a draft I have to add all of the links to it before posting.
 
...I could swear I posted in here after you posted that. Yeah, that's all good :)

EDIT: second thoughts, it has "the court took into account the relevant WHATEVER" at the top with the quote empty. How did I not spot that before.
 
Abbey Anumia:
...I could swear I posted in here after you posted that. Yeah, that's all good :)

EDIT: second thoughts, it has "the court took into account the relevant WHATEVER" at the top with the quote empty. How did I not spot that before.
Click to expand...
I know. I was basically looking for the current wording in the actual decision. I am going to edit in the legal stuff now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top