Flemingovia

[Flemingovia]

Dear MOJ

I submit myself for impeachment (or a judicial review, whatever you feel is appropriate) concerning my actions of 24 October 2006 in that I have....


1. Removed from the cabinet and placed in the banned membergroup the fomer MOIIA Limitless Events

2. removed from the RA two recenly approved members of the regional assembly.

Given the nature of these actions, I ask for a swift judicial review, and should my actions be seen to be acting outside the interest of the region, swift impeachment.

Thank you.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have posted the following in the Security Council and have asked that it be posted with the Cabinet.

Because it indicates a avenue of governmental action that could influence any judicial activity, I am copying it here for the benefit of the Court in connection with Flem's request above:

In view of the Prime Minister's actions earlier today with respect to the Lexiconian matter, as well as his action concerning Limited Events, I feel it is important for the Security Council to at a minimum discuss its jurisdiction in this matter, and determine, if it does have jurisdiction, whether it should take any action.

First, the relevant provisions of the Constitution:

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. 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.

For purposes of this post, this classifies a declaration of an immediate ejection or banning as a security matter.

The Security Council's mandate is in Article IV, Section 9, Paragraph A:

Section 9. Security Council.

A - The Regional Assembly shall elect a Security Council. The Speaker shall serve as the presiding officer of the Council. The Council shall have authority to endorse or otherwise approve such actions of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security other than the adoption of legislative bills and constitutional amendments as are specified in this Constitution and The North Pacific Legal Code. Any action by the Council does not supercede any requirement for approval by a referendum within the Regional Assembly, but serves as approval for action prior to such a referendum.

This provision clearly states that the Council has authority to endorse or otherwise approve such actions of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security other than the adoption of legislative bills and constitutional amendments.

This leads me to conclude that the Prime Minister should have requested the Council to endorse or approve his actions today, and that the Council has the authority to endorse or approve his action as an urgent matter of regional security.

Obviously, this will require the Prime Minister (and from what I am advised, the NPIA Director to provide the information upon which the Prime Minister's action are based so that the Council can address the matter in an informed manner. I therefore ask the Speaker to convene the Council in emergency session to evaluate the matter, and to specifically invite the Prime Minister to participate. Since the NPIA Director is an elected member of the Council, I assume that he would be present anyhow,

I am posting this is the private SC forum, however, I request the Speaker to copy and paste this post into an appropriate thread in the private Cabinet forum. I also intend to post this with a thread Flem has started in the Court forum, since it may impact the Court's actions.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

There will be a Judicial review of your actions. If you can retroactively get approval for your actions from the Security Council, to be followed by an RA referendum, then that may impact the outcome. As it stands we (the Judiciary) will review your actions on behalf of the relevant nations as outlined in the Constitution.

If you could PM me your justification and any evidence to support it that would be great.

(Byardedit - I know why you put what you put, but you can not do that in the Court forum, speaking as an Officer. Especially this time.)

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

If it may please the Court:

Please take notice of the following statement posted by the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, as chair of the Security Council, with reference to the actions of the Prime Minister yesterday:

Though we find this situation worrisome, the Security Council has unanimously approved them.

More to the point, the Security Council has approved the following actions:
- Removal of Eluvatar and The Truth from the Regional Assembly
- Removal of Limitless Events from the Cabinet
- Restriction of forum posting and access rights to Limitless Events
- Temporary refusal of Regional Assembly application.
- Banning Very Odd and Random from the North Pacific as it is the nation Limitless Events was planning to use to take over the delegacy.

I will mention to the Court that it is any action taken by the Cabinet in its review of the actions of the now former Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs under Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution that would go before the Regional Assembly in a referendum, not the action of the Security Council.

 

[Hersfold]

If it may help the Court in their decision, I still hold the links to the original five screenshots gathered by the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, complete with the list of IP addresses, e-mails, and the IP addresses associated with the posts. I will submit these to the Court on the condition that they not be revealed to the public for privacy concerns.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Please, any additional evidence would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Hersfold]

I've sent the NPIA screenshots to you via PM.

 

[Byardkuria]

I am assuming these will be sent to all of the Justices?

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Yes, I, or Hersfold, can forward them. As of now there is a technical problem that has to be addressed.

 

[Mr.Gaunt]

(TNP Court Ruling)

ENTERED THIS FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND SIX,

Before the Court of the North Pacific, Associate Justice Presiding

Judicial Ruling regarding the petition of TNP citizen Flemingovia regarding judicial hearing and/or impeachment.

The request is hereby dismissed tentatively, final approval pending.
There is a respite until December 3rd to apply for further actions based on the TNP Constitution and TNP Law.


Signed,

Leland Gaunt
Associate Justice of the North Pacific

Flemingovia is no longer Prime Minister and as such can no longer be impeached.
The impeachment from his position would be the expected penalty.
However, according to our laws, there is room for further actions against the defendant after impeachment. Unless there are no legally justified requests for such action, this case will no longer we followed and finally dismissed on December 3rd.