The new oath vote

King Durk the Awesome

King Durk the Awesome

TNPer
It was reopened and may now fail. What if this fails? People have already started taking oaths.

Eras, you have a fun job.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

EDIT: Flem is bad at counting so now it looks like it won't fail. So now I feel a bit silly :P
 
Don't be so sure, my count at the moment is 22-12-1, which is less than a two-thirds majority.

If it fails of a two-thirds majority, but greater than a simple majority, then we'll attempt to get a law using that new language to define "treason" and to create an exception to the statute of limitations, and permitting suspension of voting rights while the case is determined. (The Court does have that power as a civil remedy, so it would not be illegal).

The MIIA would still have the power to ask all RA members to provide their current TNP and UN nations, so if it can't be done through an amended oath, it can be done that way. We do need to have that information made current so that the forum masks can be kept current as well.
 
When I was in charge of the RV legislative process before there was an RA, I was already real clear about the dates and times for voting, and posted pinned announcements and PMs beforehand separately from the voting threads and linked them in.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
When I was in charge of the RV legislative process before there was an RA, I was already real clear about the dates and times for voting, and posted pinned announcements and PMs beforehand separately from the voting threads and linked them in.
Click to expand...
Will do! I think it's obvious I totally botched this one and I'm sorry. I've been distracted lately with school and NS, trying to juggle them all. Not an excuse, just the reason. SORRY!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
A PM to those RA members about all three matters currently being voted in would be appropriate right now, as well.
Click to expand...
we're not re-voting, just extending it by two days and I already sent PM's to all RA members using the old RA list of about 80 members last week.
 
mr_sniffles:
Grosseschnauzer:
A PM to those RA members about all three matters currently being voted in would be appropriate right now, as well.
Click to expand...
we're not re-voting, just extending it by two days and I already sent PM's to all RA members using the old RA list of about 80 members last week.
Click to expand...
Well, even if you didn't send it to them, I did.
 
Since the new oath contains all the wording of the old oath, is there any problem with people still using the new oath should they wish to, even if the vote falls? I would like to be offered the option.
 
FEC - thanks!

Flem - me too! Also if things get too tough, don't let this get in the way at all! Deputies are there for more than getting our coffees!

Also, I cannot feel bad enough for screwing this up. I knew how important this was to the direction we've been heading toward this term, as such; I'm calling for a vote of confidence. This will be totally secret but if any of you guys feel like this is quite simply the last straw then I will completely stand by you in this decision.

EDIT - we need one more AYE! Anyone willing to call in some favours would be greatly appreciated!
 
aye! agree. most of the folks I needed to vote did so. The others are not responding. *Pats Mr_Snifles on the back while giving the thumbs up in acknowledgment of knowing what had to be done.*

I also agree with Flem.

Peace today War tomorrow... TNP is always prepared!
 
At the moment, I'm counting it as 25-14-2, zo unless some no's switch or 3 more yes votes show up, the amendment will end up failing.

I'm going to spend a little time in the next few hours to convert the operative elements of that proposal to create a bill to define treason as a crime, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

When the result is declared in the RA, I will promptly introduce it, referencing to the earlier discussion about defining treason which took place in the spring when the statute of limitations law was enacted.
 
Here is a draft of the bill. Comments? Suggestions? Changes?

Draft bill on defining the crime of "treason":
Bill Section 1. A new Law entitled “Criminal Offenses” is enacted as part of the Legal Code, as follows:

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific. The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
C. Suspension pending trial. At the time an indictment is issued, the Prime Minister or the Attorney General, or the prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General, may file a ex parte civil proceeding with the Court of The North Pacific requesting a court order that suspends the indicted party from the Regional Assembly or any office or position within the government of The North Pacific pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding. This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
Click to expand...

Bill Section 2. Amendment to Statute of Limitations. TNP Law 13 is amended to add a new Section 8 concerning exceptions to the Stateute of Limitations, as follows;
Section 8. Exception to Statute of Limitation. This Law does not apply to criminal proceedings founded upon the crime of treason, as defined by TNP Law ___, committed on or after the date that Law is enacted. As to such criminal offenses, there is no limitations period.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The earlier preliminary discussion on a proposal to define “treason” is found at:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=895

edited to include Hersfold's suggestion for an exception foe NPA/NPIA.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Editorial things I noticed. Also, could you add in an exception to the crime if the nation in question is acting with authorization of the North Pacific Army or NPIA? If a spy gets discovered by our own people, we can't go around putting them all on trial. Hopefully that wouldn't happen anyway, but as we've had exposures before, it's something we have to plan for.
 
Change incorporated per your request:

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific. The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
Click to expand...
 
The vote on the Constitutional amendment, which appears likely to fail, had another hour or two at a minimum to go.

Once the result on that is declared in the RA, and if it has failed, then I will introduce this in the RA's PD forum. Depending on how fast a track it is able to go, then I would expect this to be at a vote within ten days to two weeks.

While it has a similar tone, this is a bill to create a crime, not an amendment to the RA oath, so it will have a quite different impact, and that's why the 30 day dead bill waiting period doesn't apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top