TNP vs TOMB - the Peanut Gallery

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
There is as yet no peanut gallery for the Tomb trial, and i did not want to spam the official proceedings, but I was just wondering what has happened with the trial? I have lost track and it has gone really quiet. Who has taken over lead on the defence since Roman quit?
 
Depositions ended the day before yesterday and the evidence submission phase ended, according to the amended timetable, last night so I guess we are awaiting the Justice's direction on how he wishes the argumentation phase to proceed.
 
Eh, Tomb served as delegate with honor and grace. This trial is nothing more than a witch hunt to assign blame for something trivial and minor. He made a political mistake, rather than a knowing legal offense.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Eh, Tomb served as delegate with honor and grace. This trial is nothing more than a witch hunt to assign blame for something trivial and minor. He made a political mistake, rather than a knowing legal offense.
Click to expand...
I disagree. While it may be true that he served well as Delegate, the office is not above the law. Even if the action was unintentional, which is debatable given the evidence, that is not an excuse.
 
flemingovia:
Whatever the result, it is a shame that tomb was so badly served by his defence team.
Click to expand...
At this point I'm not even sure Tomb HAS a working defense team at all. I've seen NO posts from any of them in the trial thread.
 
Syrixia:
flemingovia:
Whatever the result, it is a shame that tomb was so badly served by his defence team.
Click to expand...
At this point I'm not even sure Tomb HAS a working defense team at all. I've seen NO posts from any of them in the trial thread.
Click to expand...
That is sort of what I meant by "badly served".
 
Who's on Tomb's defense team? Cus from what I've seen I think they're all just inactive and the prosecution's taking advantage of it. I do commend Plemby for trying to extend things to hear from them, though, but I think it may be futile...
 
Syrixia:
Who's on Tomb's defense team? Cus from what I've seen I think they're all just inactive and the prosecution's taking advantage of it. I do commend Plemby for trying to extend things to hear from them, though, but I think it may be futile...
Click to expand...
Tomb named his defence team as:

Mall, never posted in the trial thread, last active 17th May
Belscahft, never posted in trial thread, last active 18th June
Romanoffia, resigned from defence team, last active today.
 
I don't understand the ruling.

The right is for free speech, not joining the NPA. While undoubtedly the latter is a governmental instrumentality, that doesn't mean that being barred from joining it is a violation of free speech.

A freedom of speech means just that - that the government won't curtail your ability to voice your opinion. It does not mean that you cannot be treated differently for having voiced it. That's the realm of anti-discrimination law, not rights jurisdiction.

Of course, where it's the government treating you differently and there is absolutely no reasonable basis for it, then that would be a different matter, as it's a governmental attempt to control speech. But this is an attempt to join a military, something for which there is certainly no legal right, and in fact a need to be able to control the enlisted soldiers.

I mean, is not being offered a MoFA position because the Delegate disagrees with you a violation of free speech rights, too? It's even worse cause it's a military. Where, y'know, you need to be expected to follow orders and behave in a manner that accords with your membership of it. If anything, I'd argue that there is a largely unfettered discretion on how a military should be able to pick its members.

EDIT: An interesting point raised is this -- since there seems to be an absolute discretion in approving NPA applications, had the Minister simply said 'application denied' there would have been no issue (even if there had been evidence as to why they were denied). Voice your concerns, though, and you're liable for criminal penalties for breaching someone's rights.
 
Guy, our bill of rights not only grants freedom of speech, but also obliges the government to *encourage* free speech. That is the portion that Tomb was in violation of. He was discouraging Flem from exercising his right to free speech.

It is definitely somewhat nuanced due to the circumstances surrounding the military application system, and perhaps Tomb would have benefited from having someone voice the argument you just made in his defense to the court.
 
It is fairly nuanced. Going back to the FA example, you could now argue that you're discouraging free speech by removing ambassadorship assignments for someone who attacked that region (e.g. In the context of TNP should close down relations with them).

I mean, if you're making a decision that seems to be of fairly large precedential value, you should probably flesh out the issues a bit further than that :P Even if the defendant is being trialled in absentia. The implications seem to be that by considering statements by the person, even if relevant, when deciding not to assign some position to that person, is constitutionally suspect as it is a failure to carry out your positive duty to encourage speech. Or more broadly -- in an official capacity, you just can't act to someone's detriment due to statements that they have made. I have plenty of sympathy for Flem's position, as you'd no doubt guess, but attaching criminal liability to Tomb's actions seems to be quite the constitutional decision.

This is assuming that there isn't some past decision confirming this I'm not aware of, but then again the Court did not cite authority.

EDIT: I'm commenting here just because, y'know, I feel like this is a really interesting legal issue and decision. It was pointed out in #tnp a couple of times so I had a read. I have no specific interest in this case, and it's not my position that it was wrongly decided. If my contributions are unwelcome I'll bugger back right off :P
 
The law is nuanced. that is what makes NS fun to play. the scenarios you posit are weak, but potentially arguable. we have courts to test such things against our BOR.
 
Guy:
The implications seem to be that by considering statements by the person, even if relevant, when deciding not to assign some position to that person, is constitutionally suspect as it is a failure to carry out your positive duty to encourage speech. Or more broadly -- in an official capacity, you just can't act to someone's detriment due to statements that they have made. I have plenty of sympathy for Flem's position, as you'd no doubt guess, but attaching criminal liability to Tomb's actions seems to be quite the constitutional decision.
Click to expand...
Plainly speaking, an Oath violation is a criminal offense (Gross Misconduct) under the Legal Code. The issue here was that Tomb stated Flem was being denied membership for a specific reason that is outside the requirements for the position being applied for, and that denial on these grounds was a BOR violation. If Tomb had kept his reservations about Flem's membership to himself, we wouldn't be debating this. Additionally, he could have accepted the membership application. From that point, Flem would have been bound by:

NPA Oath:
I, _________ request to join The North Pacific Armed Forces. I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests. I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military. I pledge to respect the chain of command, and my fellow officers at all times. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
Click to expand...
If Flem continued with the attitude that was of particular concern to Tomb, there might be grounds for dismissal from the NPA.
 
flemingovia:
Syrixia:
Who's on Tomb's defense team? Cus from what I've seen I think they're all just inactive and the prosecution's taking advantage of it. I do commend Plemby for trying to extend things to hear from them, though, but I think it may be futile...
Click to expand...
Tomb named his defence team as:

Mall, never posted in the trial thread, last active 17th May
Belscahft, never posted in trial thread, last active 18th June
Romanoffia, resigned from defence team, last active today.
Click to expand...
Welp, Tomb is screwed...
 
From appearances, it seemed like Tomb didn't respect the law he was bound to uphold. This seemed like one of the few open and shut cases here in TNP where just about everyone - Durk, most notably - never faces a guilty verdict.

The defense was weak, yes, but this was going to be a hard case to win without excluding evidence.
 
Guy:
It is fairly nuanced. Going back to the FA example, you could now argue that you're discouraging free speech by removing ambassadorship assignments for someone who attacked that region (e.g. In the context of TNP should close down relations with them).
Click to expand...
The key difference there is the order of events.

It is not illegal, in TNP, to face consequences for your actions and speech. If you insult or attack an allied region, you will be removed as an ambassador there. If you routinely criticize the delegate's approach to XYZ, you will probably not be chosen to be minister of XYZ or might be removed as minister if you're already there. If you're an ass, people will get annoyed with you.

But that - facing reasonable consequences as a result of legal speech - is quite different from actively trying to discourage legal speech before it occurs by trying to exact promises on pain of threats.

Also important, I think, are both the magnitude of attempted control as well as the broad jurisdiction. I think a delegate can absolutely forbid their foreign minister from sharing information about treaty discussions with outside parties. The minister serves the delegate and enacts the delegate's wishes and broad vision, and their actions and participation in discussions belong to the executive branch (it also helsp that sharing such information without the delegate's consent would be treason - it almost goes without saying that prohibiting criminal acts is okay). But the delegate cannot prohibit, say, RA members from discussing any information that did get leaked amongst themselves, nor can election commissioners prevent a candidate from making a campaign thread, and so on.

At the time of the discouragement, flem was not an NPA member (and so not in the delegate's military chain of command), and the prohibitions were placed on hypothetical future speech, hypothetically assumed to be problematic or denigrating toward the NPA. Had flem been allowed in, sworn the NPA oath, and then later removed for violating its requirements to obey the chain of command and respect other NPA members, then I think that would probably have been legal and permitted.

P.S. Please don't stop posting here! :)
 
flemingovia:
Whatever the result, it is a shame that tomb was so badly served by his defence team.
Click to expand...
Well, I quit because no matter what questions I asked, GM Objected and the Justice rubber stamped. And, to boot, when a couple of questions were actually permitted, the questions and answers were redacted. So, I asked the question "How is John Galt?" and headed for Galt's Gulch on this one.

No point in beating one's head against a brick wall, if you catch my drift.
 
SillyString:
P.S. Please don't stop posting here! :)
Click to expand...
dog_iseewhatyoudid.gif
 
The gross negligence on the part of defense counsel would be grounds for mistrial anywhere in the civilized world. Whatever that was, it was no trial.
 
Agreed. The Defense team literally didn't show up for the trial. A guilty verdict was almost assured.

Tomb did not have one single word spoken in his defense throughout the entire trial.

If I were the Court, I would have appointed a new Defender independently of Tomb's team just so Tomb could have some sort of a defense, rather than, well, rather than nothing, which is what he got. The Prosecution was allowed to make its case completely unchallenged and the entire affair was less of a trial and more of a show.

This really was an abomination of Justice.
 
Tomb could have defended himself. He could have appointed new Defense counsel. Nothing prevented either of those from happening.

Roman could have framed his questions in deposition in a form appropriate for such instances.

The calls of unfair treatment are misplaced. No one prevented Tomb's defense except Tomb.

The only 'show' here is the one some parties are currently trying to put on within this thread.
 
Regardless of "what could have happened", what did happen was that Tomb was undefended and your arguments, as Prosecutor, were 100% unchallenged. You could have claimed that Tomb was plotting to overthrow China and no one would have stopped you.

Also relevant now, because Ivan could ask for Tomb to be banned for 6 years and no one is going to argue in his defense otherwise. Tomb is now completely at the mercy of the Court and of the Prosecution, to be show leniency or excessive punishment at their whim and their whim alone.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Regardless of "what could have happened", what did happen was that Tomb was undefended and your arguments, as Prosecutor, were 100% unchallenged. You could have claimed that Tomb was plotting to overthrow China and no one would have stopped you.

Also relevant now, because Ivan could ask for Tomb to be banned for 6 years and no one is going to argue in his defense otherwise. Tomb is now completely at the mercy of the Court and of the Prosecution, to be show leniency or excessive punishment at their whim and their whim alone.
Click to expand...
At least three extensions were granted during the trial to compensate for the defense. One was given specifically at Tomb's request. He was not tried in absentia and was well aware of the schedule. It is not the Court's fault that he chose not to defend himself.

It may be that he decided that there was no defense for his actions. I certainly can't think of one and did have counter arguments prepared in case any were presented. Unchallenged and unmerited are not the same thing.

I didn't make fanciful claims in my arguments and I am not seeking an excessive punishment. Who is talking about 'what could have happened' here?
 
Tomb was last active on these forums 6 Jun 2015. At the start of the trial he was out of his home country on some sort of religious mission to Honduras. The verdict was read on the 11th. It is very reasonable to assume that Tomb doesn't even know he was convicted and that it is possible he's unable to appear in person to defend himself, hence the appointment of a three man defense team that utterly failed him in every way.

Point of fact, it *is* the Court's fault the Defendant was not afforded a Defense. The Court even publicly expressed their concerns over Tomb's lack of a Defense, but then did nothing to rectify the situation. If a Defendant can not provide a Defense for themselves, which clearly Tomb couldn't despite his best efforts, it is the Court's responsibility to provide one for them.

It is entirely possible, after all, for a Defendant to be absent from their trial. If a Defendant doesn't plead, then they are assumed to have plead innocent per TNP laws. If the Defendant doesn't show, then who defends them? No one? Do we just declare them guilty there and then? Ivan seems to think so.
 
Unfortunately for your argument, Mr. Attorney General, it is not the responsibility of a defendant to see to his adequate defense. For justice to be served, the accused must be represented competently. That is the responsibility of the State. This is a very basic principle. This "trial" did not represent due process, regardless of whether or not it was carried out within the parameters of TNP law. No one should be satisfied with that.
 
It was hardly fair that the trial just kept on keepin' on, even when the defendant or his defense team could not be contacted. The BoR does guarantee nations the right to a "fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer." (Emphasis mine). Though I'm not sure what can be done at this point.
 
RPI:
Though I'm not sure what can be done at this point.
Click to expand...
Someone with the proper standing (a.k.a. Tomb) could file an R4R. If it's particularly bad, a criminal complaint could be filed, perhaps a charge of Gross Misconduct on the part of the Moderating Justice, but I don't know enough about laws to know if this would be enough for a Gross Misconduct or if proper standing is required.

I would imagine Plem would recuse himself from both. GM could pass the second complaint onto a deputy, since he has shown that he agrees with how the trial went, but there isn't any demonstrable material interest (I'm not even sure if that's a thing like that for the AG), and I'm sure he'd put aside his opinions and prosecute just fine if he prosecuted himself.
 
A few issues with those that keep claiming Tomb was not afforded a defense or was somehow absent during the formative stages of the trial:

Tomb posted on 20 May that he would be offline until either the 25th or 26th and requested an extension. It was granted.
Tomb posted on 20 May his defense team.
Tomb posted on 21 May that his trip had been cancelled due to inclement weather and that the trial could proceed.
Tomb posted on 24 May that he would like an extension due to the holiday weekend in America. It was granted.
Tomb posted on 27 May in the deposition thread answering the questions posed to him.

I personally observed Tomb reviewing the Trial thread on multiple occasions between 27 May and 6 June. He was aware of the difficulties Romanoffia was having in the depositions and was aware of the resignation. He was aware that his appointed defense counsel was not representing him. As far as the prosecution was concerned, this could have been a defense strategy. I certainly did expect some form of rebuttal after giving simply an opening statement during argumentation.

That said, the burden of a fair trial and providing a defense is on the Court, and if the defendant had not appointed one himself then one would have been appointed for him. Since he did appoint defense counsel, that made the onus of Court appointed representation moot. A lack of argumentation by defense counsel, when one does exist, albeit inept, is not the responsibility of the Court.
 
RPI:
It was hardly fair that the trial just kept on keepin' on, even when the defendant or his defense team could not be contacted. The BoR does guarantee nations the right to a "fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer." (Emphasis mine). Though I'm not sure what can be done at this point.
Click to expand...
Certain parties of the defense team were online up to the date of the verdict.
 
Gracius Maximus:
That said, the burden of a fair trial and providing a defense is on the Court, and if the defendant had not appointed one himself then one would have been appointed for him. Since he did appoint defense counsel, that made the onus of Court appointed representation moot. A lack of argumentation by defense counsel, when one does exist, albeit inept, is not the responsibility of the Court.
Click to expand...
You have every right to believe that but it's simply not true. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure due process and a fair trial to its citizens. The State allowed a citizen to be tried and convicted of a crime without competent representation in violation of that responsibility. What you're seemingly unwilling to concede is that Tomb's ability or willingness to provide for his own defense is not relevant in this consideration.
 
Common-Sense Politics:
Gracius Maximus:
That said, the burden of a fair trial and providing a defense is on the Court, and if the defendant had not appointed one himself then one would have been appointed for him. Since he did appoint defense counsel, that made the onus of Court appointed representation moot. A lack of argumentation by defense counsel, when one does exist, albeit inept, is not the responsibility of the Court.
Click to expand...
You have every right to believe that but it's simply not true. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure due process and a fair trial to its citizens. The State allowed a citizen to be tried and convicted of a crime without competent representation in violation of that responsibility. What you're seemingly unwilling to concede is that Tomb's ability or willingness to provide for his own defense is not relevant in this consideration.
Click to expand...
The burden was acknowledged, Tomb appointed his counsel. Tomb took part in the trial. Part of his defense counsel did as well.

If you are somehow claiming that Tomb, elected twice as Delegate of TNP, was not competent, that is another scenario entirely.
 
You're still not addressing the fact that a citizen was tried and convicted without competent defense. You can twist my words and try to redirect the conversation to what you see to be a stronger point all you want. Are you comfortable with that fact or not?
 
Common-Sense Politics:
You're still not addressing the fact that a citizen was tried and convicted without competent defense. You can twist my words and try to redirect the conversation to what you see to be a stronger point all you want. Are you comfortable with that fact or not?
Click to expand...
In what way was the defense incompetent?

Romanoffia, Mall, and Belschaft all have prominent NS-legal careers.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Common-Sense Politics:
You're still not addressing the fact that a citizen was tried and convicted without competent defense. You can twist my words and try to redirect the conversation to what you see to be a stronger point all you want. Are you comfortable with that fact or not?
Click to expand...
In what way was the defense incompetent?

Romanoffia, Mall, and Belschaft all have prominent NS-legal careers.
Click to expand...
It didn't occur, for one.
 
Common-Sense Politics:
Gracius Maximus:
Common-Sense Politics:
You're still not addressing the fact that a citizen was tried and convicted without competent defense. You can twist my words and try to redirect the conversation to what you see to be a stronger point all you want. Are you comfortable with that fact or not?
Click to expand...
In what way was the defense incompetent?

Romanoffia, Mall, and Belschaft all have prominent NS-legal careers.
Click to expand...
It didn't occur, for one.
Click to expand...
We are not aware of what might have been discussed off the forum. It is assumptive to believe Tomb appointed nations to his team with zero input from them.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Common-Sense Politics:
Gracius Maximus:
Common-Sense Politics:
You're still not addressing the fact that a citizen was tried and convicted without competent defense. You can twist my words and try to redirect the conversation to what you see to be a stronger point all you want. Are you comfortable with that fact or not?
Click to expand...
In what way was the defense incompetent?

Romanoffia, Mall, and Belschaft all have prominent NS-legal careers.
Click to expand...
It didn't occur, for one.
Click to expand...
We are not aware of what might have been discussed off the forum. It is assumptive to believe Tomb appointed nations to his team with zero input from them.
Click to expand...
That...would be irrelevant to the context of our conversation. We're talking about the trial. It should have been clear to the presiding justice that no adequate defense of the accused was being mounted as it is upon a basic cursory reading of the case.
 
This bickering back and forth will get no one nowhere. If someone wants this to be looked into further, I'd suggest an R4R on whether or not the trial was "fair," and if the Court rules that it was not, one could go further by filing a criminal complaint. My :2c:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top