Cathyy vs. FEC - Impeachment case

Mr.Gaunt

Mr.Gaunt

TNPer
The Court is hereby opening the formal proceedings in the case of Cathyy vs. FEC, submitted to The Court of The North Pacific in this thread.

In compliance with the TNP Constitution Article V Section 7 , pretrial evidence discovery is to be held in front of a Grand Jury of 5 RA members. The Court has already asked the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs to provide a current list of potential jury members. Chief Justice Byardkuria will then select the jury.

TNP citizen Cathyy is hereby asked to present the evidence that shall be the basis for a potential subsequent trial. The Grand Jury will then evaluate provided evidence and decide about further proceedings.

There is a deadline of 3 days after opening of this thread to provide the requested evidence.
 
Thank you for your direction on this matter.

I note the time frame and will endeavour to present my evidence as soon as possible but in any case within the allowed time.
 
Mr.Gaunt:
The Court is hereby opening the formal proceedings in the case of Cathyy vs. FEC, submitted to The Court of The North Pacific in this thread.

In compliance with the TNP Constitution Article V Section 7 , pretrial evidence discovery is to be held in front of a Grand Jury of 5 RA members. The Court has already asked the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs to provide a current list of potential jury members. Chief Justice Byardkuria will then select the jury.

TNP citizen Cathyy is hereby asked to present the evidence that shall be the basis for a potential subsequent trial. The Grand Jury will then evaluate provided evidence and decide about further proceedings.

There is a deadline of 3 days after opening of this thread to provide the requested evidence.
Click to expand...
If it pleases the court I present the following Amicus Curie Motion

1. The generation of a new list of potential jurrors is out of order this time
Intirim Court Rules:
Rule 201. Jury Selection Procedures.

A - The following mechanism will be applied at the beginning of the term of office of the Court (February and August) to be used throughout that term of office until the list has been exhausted. If another list needs to be generated within the same term of office, then the Court will generate a new drawing list following the procedures in this Rule.
Click to expand...
Intirim Court Rules:
L - An existing jury selection list will be exhausted by the Court before a new randomized list is drawn.
Click to expand...

2. It is not the position of the Chief Justice to directly decide who is to be a jurror
Intirim Court Rules:
E- The Justice conducting the jury drawing will then cause a second random list of numbers to be generated by the random sequence generator located at the Random.org website with the following URL: http://random.org./sform.html . As an example, if there are 50 registered voters, then a random list will be generated of numbers ranging from 1 to 50. The second random drawing is used to place the names in a random order for jury selection purposes.
...
H - A panel of five registered voters who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. (Source: TNP Constitution Article V, Section 7.)
Click to expand...

Therfore I move that
A. The Minister of Immigration and Affairs enters deposition that the current list of jurrors is exhausted before generating a new list.
B. That the presiding officer follow the guidelines as described in the courts operating procedures.

Citizen AlHoma
 
Um... who is the defender?

If it is in fact me, (and my memory doesn't serve me right, because I remember something about Cabinet members can't be part of impeachment cases) I would like to ask the court to recuse myself from this case.
 
mr_sniffles:
Um... who is the defender?

If it is in fact me, (and my memory doesn't serve me right, because I remember something about Cabinet members can't be part of impeachment cases) I would like to ask the court to recuse myself from this case.
Click to expand...
It would appear that the charges are against the Delegate so the Delegate would be defending unless she selects someone to speak on her behalf I believe.
 
AlHoma:
Therfore I move that
A. The Minister of Immigration and Affairs enters deposition that the current list of jurrors is exhausted before generating a new list.
B. That the presiding officer follow the guidelines as described in the courts operating procedures.
Click to expand...
There is a separate Section in the TNP Constitution dealing with impeachment cases (Article V, Section 7). Interim Court Rule 201 is a collection of various rules and therefore maybe a little misleading if not read in direct connection with the TNP Constitution and the TNP Law.
There is a special reference in Article V, Section 7 that the selection of of the Grand Jury for impeachment pretrials has to be performed by the Chief Justic.

The Presiding Judge will leave it to the Chief Justice to decide whether he uses the current list or not.

Gracius Maximus:
It would appear that the charges are against the Delegate so the Delegate would be defending unless she selects someone to speak on her behalf I believe.
Click to expand...
In pretrials there is no need for defenders yet.
In a potential subsequent trial, this applies:
Interim Court Rule 509 Appointment of Defender:
A- A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. (Source: TNP Constitution, Article I, Clause 7.)
B - If the defendant refuses to participate or requests counsel, a public defender shall be provided. (Source: TNP Law 4.)
C - If a nation charged in a complaint fails to appear or is unable to obtain representation for the proceedings, a public defender may be appointed by the presiding judge to assist with the defense.
D - The request for appointment of counsel should be made as soon as is practicable, and whenever possible, prior to the entry of a plea to the complaint.
Click to expand...
 
As a point of clarification wouldn't any impeachment issue be tatamount to a capital offense and therefore be the region as a whole versus the defendant (TNP vs. FEC in this case) as opposed to a civil matter which is what seems to be implied in a person vs. person situation?
 
As Chief Justice -

The rule and prior precedent lead me to a declaration that the current juror listing will be utilized until run through.


As Byard -

GM is correct. It is the role of the government to prosecute on behalf of the Region, and FEC or her counsel to defend.
 
Your Honour and members of the Grand Jury,

I am submitting the evidence below in relation to my request that Articles of Impeachment be filed against the nation of Former English Colony, the current legally elected Delegate of The North Pacific.

Thank you for your consideration of it, although I am aware that under the Interim Court Rule 505, Part G that you are likely to wish to seek your own further information.

Article V, Section 7, Part A of the Constitution states

Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct.
Click to expand...

That the Delegate is indeed a Cabinet-level position was confirmed by Chief Justice Grosseschnauzer in a Judicial Review finding entered on July 31st 2005. The finding ends with this:

In conclusion, we summarize our holding as follows: The UN Delegate is an elected member of the Cabinet. The general principles and provisions that apply to the election of all elected members of the Cabinet that appear in Article III, sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 apply to the election of the UN Delegate unless there is a variance in a specific provision of Article III, sections 6 and 7 as to the election of the UN Delegate, in which case, such provision takes precedence. As a result, any candidate for UN Delegate must be a registered voter as required for any candidate for any elected office in the Cabinet.
Click to expand...

Reference

It is my contention that the evidence I will present does indeed provide grounds for a trial to determine whether Former English Colony should be removed from office for Constitutional violations and violating her oath of Office by the actions she took in ejecting the nations of Bottled Fairy Dust and Orange Fluffy Bunnies.

Concerning the Ejection of the Nation, Bottled Fairy Dust

1 - Bottled Fairy Dust was ejected from The North Pacific region, by Former English Colony, on or around the night of 7th July 2006, as shown by the evidence of the first 4 posts in this thread

6th July Mr Gaunt posted the following:

May I ask the Security Council to have a look at The Free Land of Bottled Fairy Dust, please? The nation is very young (163 million), unknown (at least to me) and already up to 195 endos in a very short time.
Click to expand...

6th July Former English Colony replied:

They’re already on it ;)
Click to expand...

9th July Cathyy, Leader of Pixiedance posted:

Are mere peasants such as myself to be given any more information on this matter?
Click to expand...

9th July Former English Colony replied:

Oops, sorry about that.  I kicked them out Friday evening.  Whereupon they proceeded to endotart up the RR.  :eyeroll:

Did I ever get an actual go order from the SC? No.  Bottled Fairy Dust made it to Unterwasserseestaat before that.  Frankly, I have no clue if the SC actually progressed beyond my informing them.  I thought they had, but perhaps not.
Click to expand...

(NB: This post shows an edit with the same time stamp as that on the main post.)

2 - The nation of Bottled Fairy Dust was ejected without prior Security Council approval as also evidenced by Post 4 (Former English Colony) in the referenced thread.

3 - A search of the RA forum confirms that no Referendum of the Regional Assembly was called prior to the ejection of Bottled Fairy Dust.

4 - A search of the Court forum confirms that no Trial of the nation Bottled Fairy Dust took place.

Concluding Statement

Article VI, Section 2 Part 1 of the Constitution makes the following stipulation:

1) The Delegate may not expel a Nation without the express consent of the Nations of the Region by either a referendum vote, with the participation of a quorum, or by a trial and judgment that specifically imposes expulsion as a penalty or in the case of an urgent matter of regional security as referenced in Article I of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Article I, Part 8 refers to the matter of where action of an emergency nature is required and ends by stating:

The UN Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

The Constitution therefore refers to 3 possible ways for ejection action to be authorized:

1) By vote of the Regional Assembly
2) By the Judgment in a Trial
3) In emergency, by the Security Council, following which there must be a Regional Assembly Referendum to confirm the action.

In ejecting the nation of Bottled Fairy Dust without any authorization, it is my contention that, Former English Colony has breached Article I, Part 8 of the Constitution.

Furthermore in doing so Former English Colony has breached her Oath of Office by the commission of malfeasance, a legal act, performed in an unlawful manner.

It was entirely possible that the nation Bottled Fairy Dust could have been ejected lawfully. However, Former English Colony did not use any of the routes open to her to seek authorization of her actions.

Given the seriousness of the ejection of any nation and our Constitution’s Bill of Rights (for example, Part 6, that no nation may be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.) I believe that any act of ejection taken in an unlawful manner should be considered serious enough to merit the Delegate’s removal from Office and therefore I request impeachment of Former English Colony for the unlawful ejection of the nation Bottled Fairy Dust.

Concerning the Ejection of Orange Fluffy Bunnies

1 – Orange Fluffy Bunnies was ejected from The North Pacific region, by Former English Colony, on 10th July 2006, as evidenced by the first post, made by Former English Colony in this thread. (Shown as edited by Former English Colony, 2 minutes after the post was made).

I have summarily kicked and banned the nation of Orange Fluffy Bunnies.  (As much as it pains  :bunny: )
Click to expand...
(NB: The post continues, giving more detail]

2 - The nation of Orange Fluffy Bunnies was ejected without prior Security Council approval as evidenced by the final part of the post already referenced:

Forgot to state the point. Could the SC please rule on this? (and if I've managed to screw something up, I'm sure someone will tell me)
Click to expand...

3 - A search of the RA forum confirms that no Referendum of the Regional Assembly was called prior to the ejection of Orange Fluffy Bunnies.

4 - A search of the Court forum confirms that no Trial of the nation Orange Fluffy Bunnies took place.

I refer the Honourable Justice and Grand Jury to my Concluding Statement made in relation to the ejection of Bottled Fairy Dust (so as not to further lengthen this post with the same).

I believe that the ejection of Orange Fluffy Bunnies was, in the same way as that of Bottled Fairy Dust, without the proper authorisation and therefore unlawful.

Former English Colony therefore again breached the Constitution and breached her oath of office by the commission of malfeasance.

In conclusion, I would point out that Former English Colony was already aware of concern over her ejection of Bottled Fairy Dust at the time of her ejection of Orange Fluffy Bunnies, as evidenced by the discussion in this thread



May I respectfully ask that this evidence be duly considered by the Grand Jury. I am happy to provide further information at their or the Court’s request.

May I also request that the Court rule that public discussion of this evidence prior to and during its consideration by the Grand Jury would be prejudicial to its unbiased consideration.

Submitted by Cathyy, Leader of Pixiedance
15th July 2006
 
Cathyy:
May I also request that the Court rule that public discussion of this evidence prior to and during its consideration by the Grand Jury would be prejudicial to its unbiased consideration.
Click to expand...
May I request I clarification? Does this mean that any member of the RA that participated in the discussion concerning the two nations in question, in your mind, should be ineligible to serve on the jury?
 
I have not yet seen the Juror list but do not believe that Jurors with an 'expressed bias' should be permitted to serve, as I believe is mentioned in the Interim Court Rules.

I am happy to leave the decision about that to the Presiding Judge.

However, I do want my evidence to be considered without additions, comments or other interjections, obviously excepting those requested by the Court or Grand Jury.

I hope this clarifies.
 
I would like to observe that as this issue has been discussed for a while now, and due to the Lexiconian war against TNP, that there will likely be almost zero jurors without a bias in one way or the other on this issue.
 
Due to lack of potential juror response, please apologise the small delay.
More reserve jurors have been notified.

(OOC: In fact I just PMed my a.. off in order to make the messages more personal)
 
The selection of the Grand Jury is finished:

- Darkesia
- freedom and pride
- teruchev
- FreedUtopia
- Blackshear

The Grand Jury has now 96 hrs to evaluate and discuss the presented evidence and find a majority decision if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial.
The Jury members have been notified and a jury room has been set up.
 
Well, I went through about an eight of it and the result is that I want to slit my own throat. What a disgustingly un-fun way to spend my "fun time" on the forums. :ill:

I'll get around to reading the rest of it sometime.
 
My request for clarification regarding the structure of the charges, which was supported by another Justice, has not been addressed. Will this trial, if it becomes such formally, be a civil trial in which the charge could not lawfully be sought to completeness or will be be regarded as a capital offense by which the region as a whole serves as de facto prosecution? (Note: This is not to be construed as an endorsement of either party specifically, although I carry bias with the sitting Delegate, but is simply a request for proper structure from the Court.)
 
Gracius Maximus:
Will this trial, if it becomes such formally, be a civil trial in which the charge could not lawfully be sought to completeness or will be be regarded as a capital offense by which the region as a whole serves as de facto prosecution?
Click to expand...
Cathyy actively decided to file her request directly to the court and did not request the Attorney General to file the case.
Therefore this case stays "Cathyy vs. FEC" for the time being.

If the jury decides there is sufficient evidence, a trial will be called following criminal trial rules (see TNP Constitution, Article V Section 7 D). The rules for criminal trials are more elaborate and clear because we have TNP Law 4 (Criminal Trial Procedure), where the default prosecutor role is clearly assigned to the Attorney General. In case of an impeachment trial this will be "TNP vs. FEC". But in the current pre-trial state, we have a personal impeachment request filed by a TNP citizen.
 
patience my dear delegate...

I will ntop reveal anything other than the fact that the remaining juror has about 20 hours to post his/her opinion about the trial
 
There's no trial. Jurors are simply evaluating whether there should be one or not. All of the evidence being weighed is already publicly viewable.
 
you are my dear delegate, FEC. All delegates are dear to their subjects.

But once the period is over tonight around 930EDT, the votes will be tallied and the decision to launch a trial will be made or it will not, depending on the votes.


But I am still confused.


If there is a trial

1-how will the jury be composed?
2-Will the Cabinet serve as jury
3-Will this be impeachment, civil or criminal style?

thanks
 
On behalf of the presiding justice, due to time constraints;

1. Five jurors will be randomly selected for a trial by the presiding officer from a pool of registered voters. Registered voters who have an expressed bias or whom who have served on a jury in the past three months will be automatically excluded. If either counsel believes one of the selected jurors is unfit to serve for reasons of bias or a conflict of interest, the presiding officer will review the charge and if he/she finds it valid, the next available juror will be chosen from the random drawing list. If selected, a juror may decline to serve before the trial begins. Once the trial is started, the juror is required to complete their obligation. (Source: TNP Law 4.)

2. It is possible, but only by some bizarre coincidence of randomness would this occur. A glance at the current jury sheet indicates it is INCREDIBLY unlikely that all 5 jurors would be Cabinet members.

3. Per Court Rules 501 and 502, an impeachment is heard under the same set of rules as a criminal case, which would make sense. Officers are impeached for violation of the law, which is, essentially, the definition of a criminal complaint, as opposed to causing injury to another party, which is essentially the definition of a civil suit.
 
*Byardkuria notes that we appear to have missed a wrinkle in the ICR. :duh:

That is correct. It appears that it is the responsibility of the CJ (myself) to preside in the indictment portion of the trial, although the trial itself may be assigned to another Justice. Eeep.
However, at this point, it would be imprudent to replace the designated Justice, in this late stage. FEC, if you or your counsel would request remedy, please contact me and we will discuss options.
 
Here is the result of the Grand Jury:

The Grand Jury in the case Cathyy vs. FEC has decided that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.
 
just in case people didn't see that


Here is the result of the Grand Jury:

The Grand Jury in the case Cathyy vs. FEC has decided that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.-gaunt


Then is there any way that a grand jury member will serve on this trial?
 
freedom and pride:
just in case people didn't see that


Here is the result of the Grand Jury:

The Grand Jury in the case Cathyy vs. FEC has decided that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.-gaunt
Click to expand...
I think we can all read. :eyeroll:
Then is there any way that a grand jury member will serve on this trial?
Click to expand...
I don't think that's supposed to happen according to the Constitution/Legal Codes. Did you look in it to find what should happen?
 
I read over the code and const several times. I read it to mean that an impeachment had the full cabinet as jury, or that would happen only if the CJ was on trial. That is why I was/am confused.
 
Nothing in the Constitution states that the Cabinet is to serve as the Jury. I'm still not sure what you read that made you think that. The only change when the CJ is being impeached is that the Prime Minister then presides.

The way the Constitution is written, the Grand Jury and actual Jury are separate. The only was you're going to be a juror is if all 70-some-odd of the rest of the RA are ruled ineligible or refuse to serve.
 
Hersfold:
The way the Constitution is written, the Grand Jury and actual Jury are separate. The only was you're going to be a juror is if all 70-some-odd of the rest of the RA are ruled ineligible or refuse to serve.
Click to expand...
Well, in theory that is true.
But in reality there are some difficulties getting feedback from RA members on the juror selection list. :cry:

edit: topic closed because the pre-trial is over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top