TNP v. Emperor Matthuis

As has already been clarified by the Court in these proceedings, the Constitution of the region supercedes and overrides the Interim Court Rules.

Using lesser legislation to counter the Constitution is deceptive and should not be considered.

Aside from this minor :eyeroll: point the primary intent behind the Motion still stands, the Defendant has already been punished to the extent that the government here, via the actions of certain parties, stripped him from access to the Regional Assembly and indeed placed him into a new category without Constitutional trial. The Defense therefore pushes that such punishment was done via the equivalent of military trial under martial law and thus the stipulations of autrefois convict are met.

Emperor Matthuis was convicted and punished under the interim martial establishment and therefore should not be subject to repeated harassment from this body.
 
No portions of the ICR and Constitution are in conflict. The ICR is only giving further definition to guidelines whose foundations are but laid down in the Constitution. If the Court grants the Defense's motion, it would be saying that anything not explicitly laid out in the Constitution is illegal. And if that were to happen, the Court would be wholly wiping out all extra-constitutional laws and regulations, destroying years of accumulated legal guidance.
 
Monte Ozarka:
No portions of the ICR and Constitution are in conflict. The ICR is only giving further definition to guidelines whose foundations are but laid down in the Constitution. If the Court grants the Defense's motion, it would be saying that anything not explicitly laid out in the Constitution is illegal. And if that were to happen, the Court would be wholly wiping out all extra-constitutional laws and regulations, destroying years of accumulated legal guidance.
Click to expand...
We disagree.

This isn't a case of the Constitution stating something and including a clause that other provisions might be laid out at a later time or with lesser legislation, this is a case of the Constitution clearly stating that a Jury Trial relates to Regional Assembly members and then clarifying some of the punishments that may be included in the sentencing. If the ICR expanded on punishments your point would be accurate, but it expands on what can or can not be punished and that isn't the same thing.

But, as we stated previously, that isn't the primary point of the Motion.
 
The Court agrees with the AG here with regards to the interpretation of current TNP Constitution, Law and ICR. Especially the Constitution cannot mention everything explictly and is therefore subject to interpretation by a competent authority (e.g. me).
Any sentence may include...
Click to expand...
The Constitution does focus of course on potential penalties against RA members, but does not exclude non-RA nations or penalties not involving RA related privileges or something similar.

Yet, deciding about any punishment is indeed the job of the Jury. The Court will not be trying to change this since we believe it is an essential part of our legal system. However, can the Defense please clarify where punishment has already taken place against your Defendant? I cannot remember having held a trial here against EM yet. Not me and not one of my many colleagues.
 
Could we request the Court address the primary point of the Motion instead of the secondary commentary brought up by the AG?

The Defense still maintains that the Defendant has already been punished via informal martial hearing for the supposed crimes and therefore autrefois convict is met.

Punishment was dealt when Emperor Matthuis was stripped of Regional Assembly membership, Cabinet position and regular forum moniker when he was placed into the Rogue Delegate membergroup. Since no notification came from the Regional Assembly, as is mandated by the Constitution, on his failing to meet any of the criteria that were previously met to become a member of same then the rules of martial law and thus martial trial and summary judgement from that body must come into play. The Defendant was therefore punished so no trial should take place in this Court at all.

Note: Also, as we stated earlier, the Constitution indicates what may be included in the punishment but it does not differentiate on what is to be punished therefore both the Court and AG are addressing the wrong issue, but it is apparent that there is going to be a continued failure in comprehension, intentional or otherwise, so we will not address that aspect of the Motion further.
 
Punishment was dealt when Emperor Matthuis was stripped of Regional Assembly membership, Cabinet position and regular forum moniker when he was placed into the Rogue Delegate membergroup.
Click to expand...

The Court will leave it up to the Jury to advise whether this can be seen as sufficient punishment in case the Jury finds the Defendant guilty.

Since no notification came from the Regional Assembly, as is mandated by the Constitution, on his failing to meet any of the criteria that were previously met to become a member of same then the rules of martial law and thus martial trial and summary judgement from that body must come into play.
Click to expand...
Even assuming intermediate martial law status in TNP, it would be interesting to know why the usually applicable way of filing a complaint after before the Court of TNP after reastablishment of the normal status was not followed.
Also, could the Defense please further elaborate why not following rules against a single nation does automatically mean martial law status and invalidate the complete legal system?
 
To clarify for the Court, if autrefois convict is present then the trial can not move forward, therefore the Jury would not be making such decisions.

Justification for the removal of Emperor Matthuis from the Regional Assembly and its Cabinet post has been stated as "because of the nations actions militarily against TNP" which would sufficiently validate martial ruling. Further, since certain rights are afforded all nations within TNP under this Constitution, we find it to be very flippant of the Court to comment that obliterating this nations rights was such a casual and acceptable practice unless it too is acknowledging that martial law was in place, which would support our arguement. If martial law was not in place and the Constitution was "simply" ignored in regards to our client then we would move for all charges to be dropped citing an egregious abuse of power against the defendant.
 
Pierconium:
..., we find it to be very flippant of the Court to comment that obliterating this nations rights was such a casual and acceptable practice unless it too is acknowledging that martial law was in place,...
Click to expand...
The Court asks the Defense to refrain from giving a false colour to the Court's comments. Under no circumstances we will accept obliteration of any nation's rights. However, the Constitution and Law do approve the temporary restriction of a nation's rights under certain circumstances.

Justification for the removal of Emperor Matthuis from the Regional Assembly and its Cabinet post has been stated as "because of the nations actions militarily against TNP" which would sufficiently validate martial ruling.
Click to expand...
As stated above, restrictive actions against single nations are permitted under certain circumstances. There are certain rules to be followed in such cases, but like everywhere infringement of those rules may occur, knowingly or unknowingly. If this happens, actions are available, like appeals or requests for review before the Court. Unless such constitutional right were refused by the Government, The Court does not see the establishment of martial law status in this case.

To clarify for the Court, if autrefois convict is present then the trial can not move forward, therefore the Jury would not be making such decisions.
Click to expand...
The Court will only accept a plea of autrefois convict unless the Defendant was convicted before the Court of TNP. All other events probably "punishing" the Defendant in a common wider but non-legal sense cannot be counted as conviction. This did not happen and therefore the motion to acknowledge autrefois convict is rejected.

If martial law was not in place and the Constitution was "simply" ignored in regards to our client then we would move for all charges to be dropped citing an egregious abuse of power against the defendant.
Click to expand...
This seems to be indeed some interesting point and probably the key here. The Court would like to hear the opinion of the AG here with regards to the behaviour and actions of the TNP Government in this case.
 
Many apologies for my absence, as I have been out of town.

If it pleases Your Honor, I shall be prepared to enter my opinion later this afternoon.
 
It is commonly understood that in a society such as ours that rights are predicated upon not infringing upon the rights of others. When such an occurrence happens, the law steps in and seeks to limit the rights of the infringer. In order to do so, the legal authorities must first detain the suspect and try him under a uniform code of law.

However, we must be careful to differentiate between those two steps. Detention (and the temporary loss of rights that it requires) is not the same as punishment given as a sentence of a trial. The first step is necessary in order to restrain future possible abuses of power (especially for those who are in a position of power), even if guilt has not yet been proven. The key, of course, is that the loss of rights incurred in the "detention" phase must be temporary and as brief as possible, so that this does not get abused. I justify this by invoking my own authority as granted to me within the Constitution:

Const. III.2.6.A:
A - The Attorney General shall be the chief prosecuting officer in The Court of The North Pacific, and shall exercise those responsibilities and duties imposed on the Attorney General under this Constitution and as provided in The North Pacific Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Const. III.2:
...Each Cabinet-level position shall have such authority as is necessary and proper to exercise the powers granted to, or to execute the duties imposed upon, that position under this Constitution, or by The North Pacific Legal Code, or by the other laws enacted pursuant to this Constitution, and subject to such limitations on those powers and duties established under this Constitution.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

In order to carry out an effective and meaningful prosecution, the suspect must be able to be detained so as to limit possible future abuses and so that he may not use his authority to remove incriminating information. The dual concerns of public safety and preservation of evidence should give the Attorney General the power to hold certain nations in detention temporarily.

I argue that Emperor Matthuis' current state is that of "detention" or "under arrest". And as the lead prosecuting authority in the Government, I am pushing forward quickly with charges against him so as to make his period of "detention" as short as possible. If, however, I were to deliberately stall the case or to have held Emperor Matthuis in legal limbo with no charges filed for an extended period of time, I feel that the Court would have full legal authority to "release" the suspect from his "arrest" and reinstate all rights afforded to any nation. However, this is not the case.

Emperor Matthuis' state of "detention" lasts as long as he is being tried or as long as the Court believes the Prosecution to not have misconducted themselves. At the conclusion of the trial (and sentencing, if necessary), Emperor Matthuis' temporary state of "detention" will end, and the formal sentence (in case of a "Guilty" verdict) will begin.

Therefore, I argue that the Defense's motion to dismiss the trial holds no water. Martial law was not formally declared, and it should not matter because the Constitution was not ignored. No trial was conducted, no verdict passed down, and no sentence decided upon. The move to dismiss on account of autrefois convict is baseless on account of no conviction ever having happened, and the temporary restriction upon Emperor Matthuis' rights are not on account of a verdict and sentencing but, rather, on account of his arrest and detention for trial.

ADDENDUM: In case the Defense would like to argue that Emperor Matthuis is not in the region and, thus, not detained, I would like to argue that these conditions still apply even when being tried in absentia. The state of "arrest" does not simply mean physical detention but also the curtailment of certain rights. Obviously, the game environment does not allow us to physically detain a nation, but the temporary curtailment of rights is certainly within our capabilities.
 
The Defense would therefore like to request of the AG the appropriate, time-stamped, post from her office indicating that the actions of the HQ administration here were under her authority "as the lead prosecuting authority in the Government" and that the "detention" of the Defendant was expressly labelled as temporary pending Judgement from the Court.

Retrofitting the abuse of habeaus corpus by those that have publicly stated that they acted independent of the elected government and outside the Constitution does not seem to be the best course of action for any party here.

Defense Counsel maintains that the actions of the HQ administration in removing the Defendant without proper notification from the proper regulating body and removing the Defendant from its Cabinet position constituted an abuse of power outside the realms of the Constitution and sufficiently violated the rights of our client to constitute punishment for the supposed crimes.
 
Defense Counsel is now mixing this case with possible abuses by the administrator of this forum. Whether or not the administrator in question abused his power in his carrying out this action is another matter entirely. What is important, however, is that I approve of the ultimate result of his actions, although I have yet to form an opinion on his manner of doing so. The fact that Emperor Matthuis' access was restricted prior to my asking for it is irrelevant in our current matter. I would have done so, anyways.

If the Defense so wishes, I may ask the administration to return all rights to the Defendant and then immediately restrict those rights again?
 
Monte Ozarka:
Defense Counsel is now mixing this case with possible abuses by the administrator of this forum. Whether or not the administrator in question abused his power in his carrying out this action is another matter entirely. What is important, however, is that I approve of the ultimate result of his actions, although I have yet to form an opinion on his manner of doing so. The fact that Emperor Matthuis' access was restricted prior to my asking for it is irrelevant in our current matter. I would have done so, anyways.

If the Defense so wishes, I may ask the administration to return all rights to the Defendant and then immediately restrict those rights again?
Click to expand...
OOC:

I am taking an OOC act which had IC impact on EM and applying IC rationalization to it. Since we are all playing a game called NationStates then any act which results in IC harm or inconvenience, whether taken by an OOC construct or not, can and should be incorporated into IC gameplay.

IC:

The AG making comments about the ends justifying the means in regards to following the Constitution of the region is most distressing.

If this type of behavior is to be expected throughout the duration of the trial we fail to see how the Defendant can possibly receive a fair judgement.
 
I made no sort of justification. I never said that what the administrator did was good. I simply said that I would have done the same thing, albeit for different reasons.

*OOC comments put in the other thread, Pierc*
 
Monte Ozarka:
I made no sort of justification. I never said that what the administrator did was good. I simply said that I would have done the same thing, albeit for different reasons.

*OOC comments put in the other thread, Pierc*
Click to expand...
"What is important ... is that I approve of the ultimate results of his actions"

To me, this speaks clearly to supporting the ends regardless of the means. You speak to having no opinion on the manner in which action took place but support the outcome just the same.

If a prison guard kills an inmate that is on death row six months early are the ends justified since the result is the same?
 
Pierconium:
Monte Ozarka:
I made no sort of justification. I never said that what the administrator did was good. I simply said that I would have done the same thing, albeit for different reasons.

*OOC comments put in the other thread, Pierc*
Click to expand...
"What is important ... is that I approve of the ultimate results of his actions"

To me, this speaks clearly to supporting the ends regardless of the means. You speak to having no opinion on the manner in which action took place but support the outcome just the same.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a good thing that I clarified my statement in the previous post, no? ;)

What the administrating team may or may not have done wrong is none of my concern in this case. I do not support or admonish it, simply because I have to-date done zero research on the motivations behind that action.

All I'm saying is that I would have ordered the same action, under different reasoning. This is not a justification of the administration team's actions but rather a statement of what I would have done.

If a prison guard kills an inmate that is on death row six months early are the ends justified since the result is the same?
Click to expand...

That's a rather faulty comparison, no? In any case, I think these straw men are getting rather far from the scope of this trial. Your Honor, I eagerly await further guidance from the Court.
 
What you would have done and what you did are different things. Announcing now, nearly two weeks after the fact, that you would have ordered the defendant detained isn't the same thing as ordering it.

Surely you would have stopped a drunk driver if you knew he was going to hit a small child on his way home, whether you did or didn't doesn't effect the state of the child after the fact.

No straw men, simple comparisons in logical reasoning.
 
While it is never our intent to rush the Court, might we inquire if the Judge has made a ruling in regards to the most recent dialogue between the AG and Defense Counsel?

Defense Counsel would also like clarification regarding the Private Message it received from the Judge some 72 hours ago and our response to same in regards to when the actual trial began/begins.

Thank you.
 
OOC: sorry, but juggling private life and work lead to a short NS absence.

With regards to the question of the official trial start the court refers to this clear announcement made a while ago.

The Court had initially decided to guide the trial in a more loose way to allow several arguments on this difficult subject. If this does not work and you want more restrictions, let me know.

Can the AG please outline in a nutshell the actions and dates referring to the "detention" of the Defendant? The Court is slightly confused about the lack of formal proceedings here and thus requests some clarification.

Pierconium:
While it is never our intent to rush the Court, might we inquire if the Judge has made a ruling in regards to the most recent dialogue between the AG and Defense Counsel?
Click to expand...
Monte Ozarka:
Your Honor, I eagerly await further guidance from the Court.
Click to expand...
And you both want me to do what? I assume the AG is seeking retrospective approval of the actions againt the Defendant. The Defense however has even omitted any application.
 
Our apologies in regards to the trial start misunderstanding. While we read the announcement we assumed the Court would request opening statements.

MOTION:

Since the Court has stated its opinion that the announcement of trial was clear the Defense moves that all charges be dropped since the Attorney General has failed to provide any substantiating or supporting evidence against our client within the mandated 14 day period:

ICR:
Rule 303. Pretrial discovery of evidence and compilation of testimony.
A - Once a plea is entered in a criminal or impeachment proceeding, or a response to a complaint is filed in a civil proceeding, a period of time for the discovery of evidence and the compilation of witness testimony will commence.
B - This period will be no less than 24 hours, unless extended upon a request made for good cause shown, by the presiding judge.
C - In no case will the period of discovery and compilation exceed 14 days.
Click to expand...

Defense entered a plea of NOT GUILTY November 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 AM EST.

The prosecution had amply time and opportunity to compile and present evidence and has failed to do so.

We therefore move that all charges be dropped and this trial ended.
 
Mr.Gaunt:
And you both want me to do what? I assume the AG is seeking retrospective approval of the actions againt the Defendant. The Defense however has even omitted any application.
Click to expand...
We are unclear of the Court's meaning with this statement. We requested the Court make a judgement on whether or not sufficient notification of detention or even remote intent before the fact existed. The Court itself even asks for same just prior to this comment so we are uncertain of what we have omitted.
 
Pierconium:
We requested the Court make a judgement on whether or not sufficient notification of detention or even remote intent before the fact existed.
Click to expand...
While it is never our intent to rush the Court, might we inquire if the Judge has made a ruling in regards to the most recent dialogue between the AG and Defense Counsel?
Click to expand...
I found this as the only request.

While the formal execution of the detention has to be sharpy criticised and can nearly be found as abuse of authority, the Court is in general agreement with the AG here that detention is possible and has to be seen in connection with the potential charges the Defendant faces and the decision of the Government to protect the region from providing information to the Defendant. In short: Bad performance, but barely acceptable.

The Court will look into the motion filed by the Defense within the next two days and would appreciate a comment from the AG before the ruling.
 
In light of the Court's statement that it would review the Motion "over the next two days" almost four days ago and the lack of response from the AG over same, Defense request the Court grant our Motion citing unresponsiveness from the prosecution.
 
Defense Counsel thanks the Court for the explanation.

We charge by the hour so an indefinite continuation is not a problem.
 
I am very sorry for the delay, but as pointed out in the absence topic, I did have some not minor health issues that are not fully solved yet. After spending some days of christmas recreation I am hopefully back to do some work here.

Is everyone here to continue?
 
MO has been absent without notice for quite some time, and was considered inactive by the Cabinet at the time of the new constitution ratification. So we are currently without an Attorney General. So this will likely have to wait for the new government to appoint a new one.
 
Deputy ministers were abolished once the current Constitution was approved. The only authority that can appoint a replacement is the Delegate as head of government, currently Great Bights Mum. Of course, there may be a new elected Delegate in a few hours, in which case the new elected Delegate can appoint a replacement.
 
Thank you.

I expect to be announcing an appointment to fill the Prosecution/Attorney General post by the end of the weekend, if not before.

(but I'm not saying what that person's title will be just yet)
 
As the new Minister of Justice/Attorney General, the prosecution hereby drops all charges brought forth against Emperor Matthuis.
 
New Kervoskia:
As the new Minister of Justice/Attorney General, the prosecution hereby drops all charges brought forth against Emperor Matthuis.
Click to expand...
Defense Counsel thanks the Attorney General.

*I could have sworn I had already rendered a verdict on this case almost a month ago.*
 
So that there is no ambiguity, I asked NK to drop the case.

It serves absolutely no purpose. EM has, at least for awhile, retired. He was not given the proper respect of a speedy trial. We now stand under a new Constitution and Law.

It's time to move forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top