Changes In Criminal Proceedings

Blue Wolf II

Blue Wolf II

A Wolf Most Blue
-
-
TNP Nation
Blue_Wolf_II
Current Laws:
Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
Click to expand...

In order to avoid legal conflict with several RV members who are admitted raiders (including myself) I propose the following changes to this section of Article V.


Proposed Changes:
Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action after such action has begun. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
E- No member nation shall be entitled to make threats or actions against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other region in the name of The North Pacific. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
The key phrase there is "in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution....and Legal Code" which essentially means that one cannot act contrary to the actions of the TNP government as reflected in both documents and in the treaties and agreements made by TNP.

If your TNP nation is involved in such activity that would be actionable. If a nation that a player has that has remained outside of TNP engages in an inconsistent action, then that would be a different matter altogether.
 
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action after such action has begun. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
E- No member nation shall be entitled to make threats or actions against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other region in the name of The North Pacific. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

C,D and E sound interesting. It doesn't make much of a difference as it seems to restate the original intent, but interesting nonetheless.

R
 
As the AG I interpret this as you may not declare war on regions on the behalf of the North Pacific, you must not use the North Pacific to wage war against other regions, and as a raider you are warring on the behalf of raider regions, personal grievances, your mom told you so, to slim and tone the stomach area, and everything and anything but the North Pacific.

If the court decides different then boy am I not only in trouble but massively embarassed for Apollo...
 
I fail to see how the changes affect raiders.

The additions have some merit -- you're adding in a clause saying that no one can use TNP as a front for their own activities, but I don't think raiders do this to begin with.
 
In looking at this proposal again, I'm still not sure of the following:
Why the additional phrase is necessary in Clause C, since logically, the prohibition contained in clause C does not apply until defensive or enforcement action is being undertaken, and ipso facto, that has to be after it has begun. The addition seems unecessary.

As to the change in Clause B and the addition of E that is proposed as to regions, what is the difference between "Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other * * * region"
and "No member nation shall be entitled to make threats or actions against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other region in the name of The North Pacific"?

Is there a real distinction here?

And keep in mind this would affect the grounds for impeachment proceedings, as well as a civil proceeding between nations, and not just criminal cases.
 
Due to the recent charges against Fulhead Land under this exact law I resubmit my proposed changes with an edit:

First Version:
Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action after such action has begun. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
E- No member nation shall be entitled to make threats or actions against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other region in the name of The North Pacific. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


The Edit:
Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action which has been declared either an enemy of The North Pacific or a security threat. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
E - No member nation shall be entitled to make threats or actions against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other region in the name of The North Pacific. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
 
Alternatively, why not change things to make it the PLAYER who swears the oath and is subject to prosecution, rather than the nation, and end this shielding behind dualism?
 
Ah but what when you're accused of being the same player as someone else as in Hersfold's accusation that IP and I are the same player ;)
 
Well, since raiders and others are already held responsible for their UN's I see no reason to include that phrase formally. I feel it’s assumed, and besides we really shouldn't be holding a players nation that is not in the region or in the UN to TNP laws. I feel to do so would just give more leeway to those who have personal vendettas against other players.

So basically, I agree that something should be added against dualism in regards to TNP nations and UN's that do not reside in the TNP but no further.
 
Cathyy:
Ah but what when you're accused of being the same player as someone else as in Hersfold's accusation that IP and I are the same player ;)
Click to expand...
You're really paranoid, aren't you? I only stated that it was impossible to tell you apart based on IP addresses, not that you two were the same. Anyway.

I would support Flem's changes. Making it only subject to the nation that applied creates many hassles down the road. I believe that since the UN nation appears in MoIIA records, it should be considered an RA member, but no formal interpretation has been given on that yet. Apparently.
 
Ok, so how would this sound as a definition:

A "TNP Nation" will be defined as a nation which a player has in The North Pacific, whether it be his/ her RA nation or not, as well as that player's stated UN nation. All other nations owned by the player not residing in The North Pacific or lacking a UN will not be subject to TNP laws.

Sound good?
 
From my legal point of view, I already won't prosecute you. So it might be unnecessary and my actions could cause precedent in future cases. In other words, if ain't broken why fix it?

EDIT: however I do still think it should be a crime to have the North Pacific member nation take up arms in a region where the North Pacific Army is on maneuvers. IE - openly invading a region we are currently defending.
 
Legal precedents are established by formal rulings of the Court. A different AG may find enough evidence in some future case to proceed with a prosecution. Mr. Sniffles decision in no way precludes that from happening.
 
Personally I don't think a players UN nation should be held under TNP law (unless its in TNP of course). I think if you are going as far as saying a players UN nation is an RA member, no matter where it is, then we have to take some responsibility for its actions, and it shouldn't be able to invade at all.

However, as to these proposals...

The problem with clause C is that it rare that the average citizen (ie. the invader who isn't in the NPA) know of which regions we are defending until the action is over. I don't think its very likely for a constantly updated list of regions we're defending to be posted so invaders can check where not to go. (I know you'll pretty much know as soon as you get to a region if the NPA is there, but still there are possible arguements over whether a region was declared as a NPA defence mission...)

Also, as the constitution is full of redundnacies, you'd have to alter Article II Section 1, which is virtually identical to this one...

ARTICLE II. Membership and Registration.

Section 1: Requirements.

In order to remain as legal members of The North Pacific, a Nation is expected to adhere to the following requirements:
1) Each member Nation will abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code enacted pursuant to Article IV of this Constitution.
2) Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top