[WITHDRAWN] Complaint Against Gracius Maximus

Cove

Cove

TNPer
Name of Complainant: Jamie

Name(s) of Accused: Gracius Maximus

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): Between 29/06/13 and 07/07/13

Specific Offense(s): Treason

RelevantExcerpts from Legal Code or other Laws:
Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Summary of Events (What happened, in your own words): Gracius Maximus, through his WA puppet Rebel Moldavi States is assisting and support the Gatesvillian led coup of our treatied ally, Osiris.

Evidentiary Submissions:
evidencesubmission_zpsfe6d0184.png

Comments: None
 
Have we still not brought JAL up on charges yet?

Seems a little weird to put people on trial that are supposedly endorsing him, but not the ring leader himself. Just saying is all.
 
JAL isn't a citizen or resident here anymore.

Ivan, are you saying that someone is impersonating you then? I assume you have reported them?
 
interesting phraseology by Moldavi there.

using the third person like that, and employing extremely careful wording, I would not be surprised if he is appealing to duality.

Just sayin'
 
Nobody was convicted of sedition. Sedition was already rendered unconstitutional. Ravania was convicted of Espionage.

I would add that the word Moldavi just means Moldavian, and not all 'Moldavi States' (rebel or no) are necessarily understood as puppet states of Pierconium. In much the same way as Borndisaster's nation Sancti Terra is not necessarily a puppet state of Earth22 IV... although you know it could be, but it's a non-trivial claim to make.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The Minister controls no nations in Osiris at this time.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Except, I am not indicting the 'minister', am I? Don't use duality as an excuse to evade punishment.
 
Jamie:
Gracius Maximus:
The Minister controls no nations in Osiris at this time.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Except, I am not indicting the 'minister', am I? Don't use duality as an excuse to evade punishment.
Click to expand...
No evasion has taken place. The Minister is the leader of Gracius Maximus, a member nation of The North Pacific. He controls no other nation since relinquishing control of Pixiedance in 2005.

Thank you.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The Minister controls no nations in Osiris at this time.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I have a puppet nation in City Ankh Morpork called The Death of Rats.

I am not logged into that nation right now. And as such, I control no such nation at all...at this time. :P

Watch the semantics. Tis a sword that can cut both ways, unintentionally. :lol:
 
Romanoffia:
Gracius Maximus:
The Minister controls no nations in Osiris at this time.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I have a puppet nation in City Ankh Morpork called The Death of Rats.

I am not logged into that nation right now. And as such, I control no such nation at all...at this time. :P

Watch the semantics. Tis a sword that can cut both ways, unintentionally. :lol:
Click to expand...
No. Semantic games are not in use. The Minister does not control the nation named in the accusal at any time.
 
Your use of the word minister is designed to be evasive, you know it, we know it, you know we know it, we know you know we know it. It's not fooling anyone, it's not cute and it is not funny. Duality is not reality, and has no standing in TNP these days.
 
Belschaft:
Your use of the word minister is designed to be evasive, you know it, we know it, you know we know it, we know you know we know it. It's not fooling anyone, it's not cute and it is not funny. Duality is not reality, and has no standing in TNP these days.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting position. Sounds very serious. The Minister was not aware of there being a "reality" here. Serious business indeed.

"It's not cute and it is not funny." I laughed.

We shall see how the Attorney General feels once the election is over.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Romanoffia:
Gracius Maximus:
The Minister controls no nations in Osiris at this time.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I have a puppet nation in City Ankh Morpork called The Death of Rats.

I am not logged into that nation right now. And as such, I control no such nation at all...at this time. :P

Watch the semantics. Tis a sword that can cut both ways, unintentionally. :lol:
Click to expand...
No. Semantic games are not in use. The Minister does not control the nation named in the accusal at any time.
Click to expand...
So, then it is OK for the nation in question to be reported as an attempt to impersonate another player?

I've had a number of people try to impersonate me via puppets over the years. Generally, I just get a mod note to verify that it is an impersonation and they delete the offender. In fact, other people have reported nations that were attempted impersonations of me and they got deleted without so much as a by your leave.
 
Just being a wise-arse playing Devil's Advocate. I wouldn't waste my time doing it. And, of course, you know that. :P

And besides, I know you and you wouldn't generally leave a clue that obvious in a nation name as it negates true finesse. Or does it GM, or should I call you von GM? :P :lol:


vprf.jpg
 
Would either of the front-runners for the AG position care to comment on potential action should they gain the seat? Having such a complaint hanging over one's head is somewhat troubling.

If the complaint is to be moved towards an indictment, The Minister will need time to secure representation. He will need to check Pierconium's schedule to see if he can stand in.
 
I believe just the other day I saw several nations, Mahaj included, endorse The Dourian Embassy only to drop their endorsements later. I don't believe that constitutes treason and if it does then we have about 166 people we could hypothetically put on trial for endorsing that nation.
 
Since it seems neither candidate intends to pursue these charges, I regrettably drop my complaint.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I believe just the other day I saw several nations, Mahaj included, endorse The Dourian Embassy only to drop their endorsements later. I don't believe that constitutes treason and if it does then we have about 166 people we could hypothetically put on trial for endorsing that nation.
Click to expand...
Are you asserting that all 166 of them have either a nation in TNP or an account on the forum? I do not believe our laws apply unless one of those is the case.
 
No, but I'm highlighting how ridiculous the notion is that we must go after every single person who endorses The Dourian Embassy. We should be going after key players, not minor dabblers.
 
Blue Wolf II:
No, but I'm highlighting how ridiculous the notion is that we must go after every single person who endorses The Dourian Embassy. We should be going after key players, not minor dabblers.
Click to expand...
If it makes any difference to this discussion, he had 50+ endorsements four days ago and an unendo campaign had to be run against him to get him down to his current 29. This means that for whatever reason the folks behind The Dourian Embassy allowed him to get to approximately 1/3 of TDE's endo count -- implying he is a bit more than a minor dabbler.

There's also this from #tnp on Friday, July 12:

[20:50] <+Limi> A big thank you to Karp and the rest of the NPO Senate for essentially kicking me out because I wasn't active enough due to RL
[20:51] <+Karpathos> Maybe respond to a PM…or I don't know…a whole thread dedicated to you. Poor form, Limi.
[20:52] <+Karpathos> Also, keep this out of #tnp, got a problem, query
[20:53] * +Codger Quit (Quit: Leaving)
[20:54] * Romanoffia has joined #tnp
[20:54] * ChanServ sets mode: +v Romanoffia
[20:56] <+Limi> nonsense, there are some fun things to let TNP know about, like why the idea of cancelling the treaty with Taijitu was brought up
[20:58] <+Karpathos> Wouldn't Tai be a better place to reveal that?
[20:58] <+Limi> or which candidate for Justice is now on Gatesville's Middle Council
[20:58] <+Karpathos> Blue Wolf?
[20:59] <+Karpathos> oh right, you only leak the good stuff to him
[20:59] <+Karpathos> ;-)
[20:59] <+Karpathos> Again, not the place
[20:59] <+TheGrimReaper> Why don't you just go ahead and tell TNP what their birthday present is
[20:59] <+Karpathos> Dark Knight Rises Blu-ray
[21:00] <+Cormaway> I think if a member of GV's Middle Council is running for Justice this probably is the place.
[21:00] <+Cormaway> And since Blue Wolf isn't running for Justice, I'm going to assume Ivan.
[21:00] * Cormaway is now known as Cormac
[21:00] <+Bel> Ivan...? Involved in GV...? NEVER??!?!?!
Click to expand...
Regarding how one might go about proving that nation is Ivan's, it should be simple enough: Assuming the law is being followed, his WA nation should be on record with the Registrar. If it isn't, that's legally problematic in and of itself.

Granted, I may be a little biased and I'm fully ready to admit that, but I think this warrants investigation and potential charges at least as much as the matter with the UDL did. At least it should if the law against treason is to be taken seriously. To suggest that Ivan is just one endorsement among 166 ignores the circumstantial evidence to the contrary, and to suggest that charges should just be outright dismissed in the absence of any investigation is just plain negligent. There's enough evidence pointing to a larger role here to at least warrant the kind of investigation Gaspo launched against citizens who were also UDL members.
 
Blue Wolf II:
No, but I'm highlighting how ridiculous the notion is that we must go after every single person who endorses The Dourian Embassy. We should be going after key players, not minor dabblers.
Click to expand...
That is the first time I have ever heard Gracius Maximus described as a "minor dabbler." It puts him in a whole new perspective.

I may just sig that.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I believe just the other day I saw several nations, Mahaj included, endorse The Dourian Embassy only to drop their endorsements later. I don't believe that constitutes treason and if it does then we have about 166 people we could hypothetically put on trial for endorsing that nation.
Click to expand...
Moot point because the BoR clearly states that one can endorse or not endorse anyone they whom so choose:

4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
Click to expand...


The second clause clearly indicates that one has a right to endorse or not endorse any nation they so choose. Hence, endorsing a certain nation cannot be considered a crime/treason/misdemeanor. This could also be construed as to including a TNP citizen's WA nation if that WA nation is in another region and even if that nation endorses a known enemy in a time of war in that other region.
 
Romanoffia:
Blue Wolf II:
I believe just the other day I saw several nations, Mahaj included, endorse The Dourian Embassy only to drop their endorsements later. I don't believe that constitutes treason and if it does then we have about 166 people we could hypothetically put on trial for endorsing that nation.
Click to expand...
Moot point because the BoR clearly states that one can endorse or not endorse anyone they whom so choose:

4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
Click to expand...


The second clause clearly indicates that one has a right to endorse or not endorse any nation they so choose. Hence, endorsing a certain nation cannot be considered a crime/treason/misdemeanor. This could also be construed as to including a TNP citizen's WA nation if that WA nation is in another region and even if that nation endorses a known enemy in a time of war in that other region.
Click to expand...
If that is how folks are going to interpret that clause the BOR wording needs tidying up. I remember the debate around the framing of clause 4 of the BOR, and it was not intended to prevent anyone from being prosecuted for treason for supporting militarily an enemy.

in the context of the first half of clause 4, it was intended to prevent a delegate punishing a member nation for not endorsing them in TNP.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Who is this "Ivan" everyone keeps speaking about? Sounds like a fascinating individual.
Click to expand...
He is, in all honesty, a bit full of himself. I am not sure the two of you would get on.
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
Blue Wolf II:
I believe just the other day I saw several nations, Mahaj included, endorse The Dourian Embassy only to drop their endorsements later. I don't believe that constitutes treason and if it does then we have about 166 people we could hypothetically put on trial for endorsing that nation.
Click to expand...
Moot point because the BoR clearly states that one can endorse or not endorse anyone they whom so choose:

4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
Click to expand...


The second clause clearly indicates that one has a right to endorse or not endorse any nation they so choose. Hence, endorsing a certain nation cannot be considered a crime/treason/misdemeanor. This could also be construed as to including a TNP citizen's WA nation if that WA nation is in another region and even if that nation endorses a known enemy in a time of war in that other region.
Click to expand...
If that is how folks are going to interpret that clause the BOR wording needs tidying up. I remember the debate around the framing of clause 4 of the BOR, and it was not intended to prevent anyone from being prosecuted for treason for supporting militarily an enemy.

in the context of the first half of clause 4, it was intended to prevent a delegate punishing a member nation for not endorsing them in TNP.
Click to expand...
Good point. Then perhaps for legal clarity, the BoR should clearly state that.
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
Blue Wolf II:
I believe just the other day I saw several nations, Mahaj included, endorse The Dourian Embassy only to drop their endorsements later. I don't believe that constitutes treason and if it does then we have about 166 people we could hypothetically put on trial for endorsing that nation.
Click to expand...
Moot point because the BoR clearly states that one can endorse or not endorse anyone they whom so choose:

4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
Click to expand...


The second clause clearly indicates that one has a right to endorse or not endorse any nation they so choose. Hence, endorsing a certain nation cannot be considered a crime/treason/misdemeanor. This could also be construed as to including a TNP citizen's WA nation if that WA nation is in another region and even if that nation endorses a known enemy in a time of war in that other region.
Click to expand...
If that is how folks are going to interpret that clause the BOR wording needs tidying up. I remember the debate around the framing of clause 4 of the BOR, and it was not intended to prevent anyone from being prosecuted for treason for supporting militarily an enemy.

in the context of the first half of clause 4, it was intended to prevent a delegate punishing a member nation for not endorsing them in TNP.
Click to expand...
But there's the irony. Treason is clearly and traditionally defined as "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies; making war on one's own nation/sovereign entity".

By the same token, a legitimate Delegate ejecting/banning a nation because it did not endorse the Delegate could be construed as an act of war by the Delegate against said nation, which would also be construed as treason because the Delegate committed an act of war on the region itself by ejecting or banning a citizen for an unlawful and unconstitutional reason.

A broad interpretation of the BoR in favor of someone being accused of some transgression is much better than a narrow interpretation that presumes guilt. Hence, the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. So, in that sense, a narrow legal definition is the counterpart of a broad interpretation in favor of the accused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top