Indictment against NorthArdenyan

Wymondham

Wymondham

TNPer
-
Pronouns
He/Him
Dreadton has filed a indictment, I wanted to bring up the following queries:
1. Fraud is defined as follows in the Legal Code:
13. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
My query would be whether Dreadton has actually presented any evidence that the reputation of the court, Dreadton or AS, and whether Dreadton actually needs to, or if merely the theoretical potential for harm is enough to provide the prima facie evidence which would be necessary for us to accept the indictment?

2. As regards the Spamming charge Dreadton has not actually made out how NorthArdenyan's actions made the forum 'unusable' which is the requirement set out by the Legal Code (definition of spamming below). Therefore I believe that we should reject that charge as Dreadton has failed to substantiate it. What do y'all think?
21. "Spamming" is defined as any actions to waste space or cause shock on any off-site property or regional message board to make it unusable.
Click to expand...

3. As regards the two gross misconduct charges, the NPA one would require that they are otherwise determined to break the law (which depending on whether we accept the above two charges may require us to reject the indictment on this charge). As regards the citizenship gross misconduct charge, There would be two avenues for success here - either breaking another law, or it being demonstrated that NorthArdenyan failed to take 'responsible action as a member of her society', so whatever we determine as to the above three charges I believe we should accept this charge.

What do you two think?
 
Last edited:
The spamming statute comes from COPS and is intended to prohibit actual denial of service type or porn spam attacks, not stuff like this.

I think Dreadton is claiming their fraud harmed the Court system, and was intended to harm the Court system. I'm inclined to say that even if we accept that, escalating this into a criminal trial would just further the damage.

I am reluctant to accept even the "responsible action" gross misconduct theory, especially as it is not explicitly raised in the complaint.

I would prefer to decline this indictment entirely, with as little explanation as is absolutely necessary.
 
Spamming as a statute specifically has ”unusable” as a standard being aimed for, so that’s out.

I do believe there’s reasonable grounds for fraud, in so far as the accused made attempts to misrepresent themselves, but the filing would need to be amended to better reflect that possibly, it may not be in clear manner at present.

Gross Misconduct as a charge looks fine
 
Eluvatar:
The spamming statute comes from COPS and is intended to prohibit actual denial of service type or porn spam attacks, not stuff like this.

I think Dreadton is claiming their fraud harmed the Court system, and was intended to harm the Court system. I'm inclined to say that even if we accept that, escalating this into a criminal trial would just further the damage.

I am reluctant to accept even the "responsible action" gross misconduct theory, especially as it is not explicitly raised in the complaint.

I would prefer to decline this indictment entirely, with as little explanation as is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm onboard with Elu here. Although I am inclined to agree with LD in that I would accept an amended indictment for fraud if it better expressed precisely how the harm would occur.
 
If one of you wants to accept the Gross Misconduct charge, please do so shortly. Otherwise I'll be declining the whole indictment soon.
 
Last edited:
I will do so on Gross Misconduct and reject the other charges in a couple hours, I’m just at work and don’t have the time to properly write my thing.
 
Well that was somewhat longer than I intended.

@Wymondham I believe you’re up in regards to appointing a moderating justice and THO - I of course am willing to serve as the former.
 
Lord Dominator:
Well that was somewhat longer than I intended.

@Wymondham I believe you’re up in regards to appointing a moderating justice and THO - I of course am willing to serve as the former.
Click to expand...
Happy to appoint you as moderating justice, I am going to approach GBM about being a standby hearing officer.
 
forum.thenorthpacific.org

Official Roster of the Bar Commissioners and Members

BAR COMMISSIONERS Forum Name Date Tenure Began Date Oath Taken Date Term Ends Lord Dominator (Justice Appointed) July 29th, 2025 July 29th, 2025 January 29th, 2026 Comfed (Delegate's Appointment) August 9th, 2025 August 9th, 2025 February 9th, 2026 [Vacant] (Court / RA's Appointment)
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org

Probably any bar member - I would think Pallaith, Tlomz, Sanct, Comfed, or Vivanco in no particular order.
 
Lord Dominator:
forum.thenorthpacific.org

Official Roster of the Bar Commissioners and Members

BAR COMMISSIONERS Forum Name Date Tenure Began Date Oath Taken Date Term Ends Lord Dominator (Justice Appointed) July 29th, 2025 July 29th, 2025 January 29th, 2026 Comfed (Delegate's Appointment) August 9th, 2025 August 9th, 2025 February 9th, 2026 [Vacant] (Court / RA's Appointment)
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org

Probably any bar member - I would think Pallaith, Tlomz, Sanct, Comfed, or Vivanco in no particular order.
Click to expand...
Went with vivanco who has accepted
 
Alright - so defendant is presumptively going with not guilty (either from their nonsense statements or from lack of anything) and is not representing themselves.

Other than the existing volunteer in 9003, anyone we might want to appoint as defense counsel?
 
I think we should provisionally accept the plea as given by the defense counsel and accepted by the defendant, but ask the defendant whether or not they mean to withdraw their plea.
 
In any case, we should actually deliberate on sentencing - any thoughts on the (plea deal) of two months as suggested?
 
I'm still recovering from a cold but the protocol described in the plea deal reminds me of a sentence we imposed some time ago, in that it also was for a time period beginning when they regained Citizenship, or something like that. I would look at that sentence as part of thinking about this one.
 
court_seal.png


Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
Opinion drafted by @Lord Dominator, joined by @Eluvatar & @Wymondham​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:
Gulliver:
Section 1.13: Gross Misconduct
27. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...
Gulliver:
Chapter 2: Penal Code
...
10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the Defense:
Comfed:
Defence's Sentencing Recommendation and Explanation
The defendant's actions in submitting a false filing for judicial review were regrettable. They did attempt to make a mockery of the Court in so doing for their personal entertainment. This is not conduct befitting of a citizen of The North Pacific, which is why the defendant has pled guilty as an act of repentance. However, the defence feels that the Court must take into account the following mitigating circumstances in deciding a sentence:
  • NorthArdenyan has never committed a crime before, and until they committed the offence in question they were a citizen in good standing of TNP;
  • The false filing did not seriously harm the reputation of the Court or Dreadton, as its intent was to entertain the defendant rather than damage the standing of any other person;
  • The defendant is relatively new to the region, and deserves the opportunity to learn the standard of the TNP community;
As such, the defence recommends a two month restriction on voting and standing for office, with the sentence beginning when they first apply for citizenship, or upon the date of the sentence's issuance, whichever is later. This means that the defendant will not be permitted to vote in the first two elections during which they are a citizen after the trial concludes. This is a penalty that is appropriate in showing the defendant that The North Pacific does not take disrespect of its institutions lightly, but is also not overly harsh towards a defendant who is a relative newcomer and deserves a second chance at becoming a citizen in good standing once again.
Click to expand...
The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the Prosecution:
Dreadton:
The Prosecution has little more to add that the record does not already established.

The Defendant voluntarily joined the region and accepted that he was subjected to our laws. He knowingly and willingly committed an offense. While his behavior since his indictment leaves much to be desired, he has avoided any further criminal actions. He has shown some willingness to accept the results of his actions. It is my belief that a larger penalty then the one proposed here would not contribute to justice but further feed misbehavior for the defendant. With the plea, I believe we have struck a balance in preserving the rule of law and justice.
Click to expand...
The Court Finds As Follows:
As the defendant has pled guilty to the charge of Gross Misconduct, the defined punishment of which is loss of office and loss of voting rights for a finite period. As the defendant holds no office, no removal from office is possible. The prosecution and defense have jointly recommended a suspension of voting rights of two months, in consideration of the severity of the crime and the defendant's prior history in the region. This is slightly shorter than other recent punishments of Gross Misconduct, however the Court is inclined to agree with the joint recommendation in light of the given circumstances.

Therefor; @Sawenia is to have their voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of two months. Assembly Speaker @AraFuttio and the 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. NorthArdenyan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top