- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
[Chambers] Indictment of St George
- Thread starter Attempted Socialism
- Start date
I would take Siimone Republic as my first choice. What do you think?
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
No strong feelings one way or the other. I felt cautious of suggesting @Simone_Republic because I seem to remember they've been personally kind in my direction and I didn't want to be partial. I'm ask them to join.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
@Simone_Republic please post here to confirm you can and have seen this topic 
- Pronouns
- It
- TNP Nation
- Simone_Republic
I have seen this topic, thank you.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
All right. I did some research and it does seem I don't need a vote from you all on a verdict. In accepting the plea I am moving the case to the sentencing stage. I will announce to that effect shortly.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
I have just a couple of things. The defense asks for a 1 minute suspension of voting rights, down from the 3 months in the Joint Recommendation. The prosecution is still happy with 3 months. I would be inclined to split the difference at 6 weeks.
I note neither side has made suggestions regarding any length of time for which Madjack should be barred from holding office here. Even if we think there should be no penalty imposed in this respect, we should at least mention it for clarity's sake. What do you think? The law states "removal from office" is the penalty for Gross Misconduct, but it doesn't say for how long. What do past court sentencings show us?
I note neither side has made suggestions regarding any length of time for which Madjack should be barred from holding office here. Even if we think there should be no penalty imposed in this respect, we should at least mention it for clarity's sake. What do you think? The law states "removal from office" is the penalty for Gross Misconduct, but it doesn't say for how long. What do past court sentencings show us?
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
Technically the defense didn't ask for one minute - they did but then they asked to take that back (to stay in compliance with the plea agreement, I assume).
Ah, I didn't notice the sentencing rec had been stricken.
With regard to my other comment/questions, I took a look through some previous cases, and past rulings have been uneven in their mention of the bit about holding office. In some instances, the guilty party was never ever going to hold office anyway, so perhaps that portion of the penalty was never contemplated. In a previous case against Madjack, he was barred from standing for office for a period of time. That decision is here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190419/
With regard to my other comment/questions, I took a look through some previous cases, and past rulings have been uneven in their mention of the bit about holding office. In some instances, the guilty party was never ever going to hold office anyway, so perhaps that portion of the penalty was never contemplated. In a previous case against Madjack, he was barred from standing for office for a period of time. That decision is here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190419/
- Pronouns
- It
- TNP Nation
- Simone_Republic
I support what GBM said. I would suggest at least either (1) asking for a clarification or (2) the Court writing a clarification on whether the plea deal precludes holding office, especially as it's entirely possible that Madjack will be asked to hold office again, but perhaps not under this delegate. If it's three months, it would cross into the subsequent term of office so will be binding on the next delegate. Also, Madjack could conceivably stand for election as delegate (or another office) again anyway (and win again) as the plea deal also does not preclude running for elected office.
Chapter 2/10 of the Legal Code does not spell out whether someone removed from office and have no voting rights can run for office and I don't seem able to find a precedent for that (other than what GBM said) nor in the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights don't mention anything except expelling someone from citizenship which is not being contemplated here. (In reverse, the precedent that Madjack had been separately barred from running for office in addition to voting rights suggests that this should be considered as two separate punishments).
Chapter 2/10 of the Legal Code does not spell out whether someone removed from office and have no voting rights can run for office and I don't seem able to find a precedent for that (other than what GBM said) nor in the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights don't mention anything except expelling someone from citizenship which is not being contemplated here. (In reverse, the precedent that Madjack had been separately barred from running for office in addition to voting rights suggests that this should be considered as two separate punishments).
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
In my view it behooves us to, in considering a sentence for Gross Misconduct, to look at specifically how did the defendant violate their legally mandated sworn oath.
These are the relevant oaths:
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
From the defense we see a lot of grandstanding, bringing in non-relevant criticism of the Delegate and his activity and character. However, they do remind us of the Unicorn Star Treaty. That treaty comes with:
My reading of this treaty is that it makes our Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise his sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in my view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage as far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, no actual argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We cannot block St George from running for office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the history and the recommendation, I am comfortable with a sentence of 3 months. In the past we have made minor adjustments to a sentence's length in months so as to have it end at a specified date that aligns well with the election cycle. Do we need to make such adjustments on this occasion? If we make it simply 3 months it would end October 12th or so, well after the next general election shall have ended, so I don't think so.
If we're in agreement about 3 months, I'm happy to draft a sentencing order tonight, including explicit clarity that we are only imposing a voting restriction and the removal from office penalty we would otherwise impose is moot.
These are the relevant oaths:
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
From the defense we see a lot of grandstanding, bringing in non-relevant criticism of the Delegate and his activity and character. However, they do remind us of the Unicorn Star Treaty. That treaty comes with:
It also leads to the Rejected Realms' inclusion in this section of our criminal code:
My reading of this treaty is that it makes our Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise his sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in my view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage as far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, no actual argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We cannot block St George from running for office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the history and the recommendation, I am comfortable with a sentence of 3 months. In the past we have made minor adjustments to a sentence's length in months so as to have it end at a specified date that aligns well with the election cycle. Do we need to make such adjustments on this occasion? If we make it simply 3 months it would end October 12th or so, well after the next general election shall have ended, so I don't think so.
If we're in agreement about 3 months, I'm happy to draft a sentencing order tonight, including explicit clarity that we are only imposing a voting restriction and the removal from office penalty we would otherwise impose is moot.
I am fine with the proposed sentence. Thanks for putting the order together.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
DRAFT
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Eluvatar, joined by @Great Bights Mum [& @Simone]
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
The Court took into consideration the relevant legally mandated oaths sworn by @St George:
The Court took into consideration the relevant submissions of the prosecution and defense:
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
We examine the Unicorn Star Treaty:
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We cannot block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the sentencing recommendations, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
TODO: get @Simone's input, perhaps add in the sentencing orders I refer to as things we considered, and polish up the language of the actual order at the end.
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Eluvatar, joined by @Great Bights Mum [& @Simone]
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Unicorn Star Treaty:
The Court took into consideration the relevant legally mandated oaths sworn by @St George:
The Court took into consideration the relevant submissions of the prosecution and defense:
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
We examine the Unicorn Star Treaty:
We examine the Rejected Realms' inclusion in the statute on Espionage:
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We cannot block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the sentencing recommendations, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
TODO: get @Simone's input, perhaps add in the sentencing orders I refer to as things we considered, and polish up the language of the actual order at the end.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- It
- TNP Nation
- Simone_Republic
I support your decision, @Eluvatar and I do not have further comments.
As you stated, "St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak." Thus, we are not being asked to rule on the facts of the case, and not to examine the case de novo.
I am also comfortable with a sentence of three months voting rights suspension as both prosecution and defence have agreed to it and it seems justifiable in light of the defendant's previous conviction and seniority within the TNP executive.
That said, I would have also deemed the previous comment from @Great Bights Mum of a possibility of six weeks as somewhat plausible, but that would have involved an argument on mitigating circumstances that I feel was actually more eloquently expressed by @Eluvatar and not comprehensively advocated by the defense side, perhaps due to the no contest plea.
As you stated, "St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak." Thus, we are not being asked to rule on the facts of the case, and not to examine the case de novo.
I am also comfortable with a sentence of three months voting rights suspension as both prosecution and defence have agreed to it and it seems justifiable in light of the defendant's previous conviction and seniority within the TNP executive.
That said, I would have also deemed the previous comment from @Great Bights Mum of a possibility of six weeks as somewhat plausible, but that would have involved an argument on mitigating circumstances that I feel was actually more eloquently expressed by @Eluvatar and not comprehensively advocated by the defense side, perhaps due to the no contest plea.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
DRAFT 2
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Eluvatar, joined by @Great Bights Mum & @Simone
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
The Court took into consideration the relevant legally mandated oaths sworn by @St George:
The Court took into consideration the relevant submissions of the prosecution and defense:
The Court took into consideration the previous sentences for Gross Misconduct or Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct:
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
We examine the Unicorn Star Treaty:
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the sentencing recommendations, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Eluvatar, joined by @Great Bights Mum & @Simone
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Unicorn Star Treaty:
The Court took into consideration the relevant legally mandated oaths sworn by @St George:
The Court took into consideration the relevant submissions of the prosecution and defense:
The Court took into consideration the previous sentences for Gross Misconduct or Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct:
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino
Order drafted by Eluvatar on behalf of Dreadton and Lord Lore
The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 23 of the North Pacific Criminal Code (Legal Code, Chapter 1):
The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 8 of the North Pacific Penal Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:
Defense recommendation
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:
Prosecution recommendation
The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clause 23, The Court sees fit that Bobberino will be punished for Gross Misconduct removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a period of five months.
Bobberino has a history of good conduct in this region. However, the message in question was an abuse of power that could disrupt the Delegate election and call the result into question. Further, the defendant does not appear remorseful or to regret their actions. Not contesting the verdict is not of itself an acknowledgement of fault, regret, or remorse.
The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino.
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Order drafted by Bootsie, joined by Eluvatar and SillyString
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses 12, 22, and 23 of the North Pacific Criminal Code Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:
Prosecution recommendation
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:
Defense recommendation
The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.
Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.
Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.
The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Sentencing of the Court of The North Pacific
Under the TNP Legal Code Chapter 2, Section 8, The Court sees fit that The Democratic Republic of Tomb will have their voting rights suspended for three months. The sentencing period will begin today, 1 July until 1 October.
The admins will be informed of this verdict. In the case that the admins fail to impose this sentence before any vote is scheduled, the Court will request that the Speaker of the RA, or any election commissioners, to nullify all votes by the Defendant.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
We examine the Unicorn Star Treaty:
We examine the Rejected Realms' inclusion in the statute on Espionage:
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the sentencing recommendations, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
@Great Bights Mum @Simone I'd just like a final sign-off on this specific text before I post it and I think we're done.
I am not understanding the wording in the last sentence of this paragraph:
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
What is the statutory limit on penalties? Doesn't the law state that it is at the court's discretion?
Also I'm nit-picking here:
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Should be:
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
The prosecution and the defense agreed to a three month suspension of voting rights. The Penal code stipulates removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a finite duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for. We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct, so we are legally required to follow that statutory limit on penalties.
What is the statutory limit on penalties? Doesn't the law state that it is at the court's discretion?
Also I'm nit-picking here:
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Should be:
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
- Pronouns
- It
- TNP Nation
- Simone_Republic
I am OK with the final version above.
As an aside, obviously the entire Election Commission needs to be informed, but since I am an Election Commissioner, I will simply enter into the contacts spreadsheet (can't think of anywhere else to put it) that St George is banned from voting for the period specified once the verdict is published. I'd talk to Sil about that after the verdict has been published.
As an aside, obviously the entire Election Commission needs to be informed, but since I am an Election Commissioner, I will simply enter into the contacts spreadsheet (can't think of anywhere else to put it) that St George is banned from voting for the period specified once the verdict is published. I'd talk to Sil about that after the verdict has been published.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
DRAFT 3
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Eluvatar, joined by @Great Bights Mum & @Simone
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
The Court took into consideration the relevant legally mandated oaths sworn by @St George:
The Court took into consideration the relevant submissions of the prosecution and defense:
The Court took into consideration the previous sentences for Gross Misconduct or Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct:
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
We examine the Unicorn Star Treaty:
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
We examine the Penal code clause for Gross Misconduct:
We are required to remove from office and suspend voting rights for some duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. (We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct.) We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the joint sentencing recommendation, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
How's this @Great Bights Mum?
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Eluvatar, joined by @Great Bights Mum & @Simone
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Unicorn Star Treaty:
The Court took into consideration the relevant legally mandated oaths sworn by @St George:
The Court took into consideration the relevant submissions of the prosecution and defense:
The Court took into consideration the previous sentences for Gross Misconduct or Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct:
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino
Order drafted by Eluvatar on behalf of Dreadton and Lord Lore
The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 23 of the North Pacific Criminal Code (Legal Code, Chapter 1):
The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 8 of the North Pacific Penal Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:
Defense recommendation
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:
Prosecution recommendation
The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clause 23, The Court sees fit that Bobberino will be punished for Gross Misconduct removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a period of five months.
Bobberino has a history of good conduct in this region. However, the message in question was an abuse of power that could disrupt the Delegate election and call the result into question. Further, the defendant does not appear remorseful or to regret their actions. Not contesting the verdict is not of itself an acknowledgement of fault, regret, or remorse.
The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino.
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Order drafted by Bootsie, joined by Eluvatar and SillyString
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses 12, 22, and 23 of the North Pacific Criminal Code Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:
Prosecution recommendation
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:
Defense recommendation
The Court finds as follows:
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.
Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.
Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.
The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Sentencing of the Court of The North Pacific
Under the TNP Legal Code Chapter 2, Section 8, The Court sees fit that The Democratic Republic of Tomb will have their voting rights suspended for three months. The sentencing period will begin today, 1 July until 1 October.
The admins will be informed of this verdict. In the case that the admins fail to impose this sentence before any vote is scheduled, the Court will request that the Speaker of the RA, or any election commissioners, to nullify all votes by the Defendant.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.[/hr]
After giving their statement of facts, the prosecution says that:
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
We examine the Unicorn Star Treaty:
We examine the Rejected Realms' inclusion in the statute on Espionage:
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
We examine the Penal code clause for Gross Misconduct:
We are required to remove from office and suspend voting rights for some duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. (We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct.) We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the joint sentencing recommendation, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
How's this @Great Bights Mum?
That is clearer. Thanks! I think it looks good to go.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Pronouns
- It
- TNP Nation
- Simone_Republic