TNP v. Emperor Matthuis

TNP

-v.-

EMPEROR MATTHUIS (DEFENDANT)

The Government hereby charges that Emperor Matthuis did knowingly and willfully:

1) Commit treason against The North Pacific in the illegal usurpation of the delegacy from Great Bights Mum on October 21st, 2007. (TNP Law 22.1)

TNP Law 22:

The following acts shall be illegal for Nations of The North Pacific, in both the NationStates region "The North Pacific" and on the off-site forum, unless specifically specified otherwise...

Section 1: Treason
A - "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allied groups and regions as governed by the Constitution.

Click to expand...

2) Undertake these actions with the aid of foreign military forces from Gatesville and other regions.

3) Undertake these actions as part of no officially-sanctioned NPIA or NPA operation.



Entered on the 22nd day of October, 2007.

Monte Ozarka
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ALLOTTED TO ENTER A PLEA

Pursuant to Interim Court Rules 508.C, The Office of the Attorney General would like to file an ex parte motion to shorten the time for the defendant (Emperor Matthuis) to enter a plea from the allotted 5 days.

This motion is predicated upon:

1) The urgency of the circumstances. The Government cannot allow such an unauthorized power transfer to continue to stand without censure and legal action.

2) The high activity level of the Defendant, not only in-game but also on the regional forums and on IRC. (Please note the timestamps and that all conversation has been removed. "Mattyness" is Emperor Matthuis.) With such high activity, the Defendant should not need five days to enter a plea, and the Court should not have to wait so long to receive one.

Complaint filed and accepted onto the docket.

I shall also set that should the Attornies General may also request a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT from the COURT as a special procedural act should the provisions of the EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ALLOTTED TO ENTER A PLEA be fulfilled.

Justice Romanoffia, Court of The North Pacific

Additional clarification of Summary Judgment clause:

A summary judgment is a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party. The opposing party will respond by counter-declarations and legal arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If it is unclear whether there is a triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then summary judgment must be denied as to that cause of action. The theory behind the summary judgment process is to eliminate the need to try settled factual issues and to decide without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion is made.

But don't worry, I would most likely have to recuse myself in the event that any substantative evidence indicates me as a witness. ;D

But since I appear to be the next judge slated to hear a case I intend to look at the evidence carefully whether or not I am the sitting justice or not.

[moderation action]Comments by observers will be removed and transferred to the appropriate discussion thread. Persistent violators will be subject to forum moderation. This is a final warning.[/moderator action].

As this is not the legitimate government of The North Pacific, anything it decides to do is completely irrelevant.

Therefore no plea will be entered.

Furthermore I do not want anyone to attempt to defend me in my absence. However I do insist that the trial does continue, although personally nor myself, or any represenatives from me, will participate.

Given that Emperor Matthuis has:

1) presented himself
2) explicitly not entered a plea, and
3) made it clear that he will never enter a plea,

I ask the Court, once again, to shorten the amount of time the defendant still has to enter a plea. The default plea is "not guilty". When he makes his intention known thus, the Court and the People do not deserve to be dilly-dallied by unnecessary red tape.

Just to clarify:
Judge Romanoffia will preside over the hearing. As long as no formal complaint is filed there is no reason to change the presiding judge.

(btw: I would support the proposal from the AG to speed things up, of course staying inside the boundaries of TNP Constitution und Law)

Be it known:

I.

Emperor Matthuis DEFENDANT:

As this is not the legitimate government of The North Pacific, anything it decides to do is completely irrelevant.

Therefore no plea will be entered.

Furthermore I do not want anyone to attempt to defend me in my absence. However I do insist that the trial does continue, although personally nor myself, or any representatives from me, will participate.

Click to expand...

and

II.

MO:

Given that Emperor Matthuis DEFENDANT has:

1) presented himself
2) explicitly not entered a plea, and
3) made it clear that he will never enter a plea,

I ask the Court, once again, to shorten the amount of time the defendant still has to enter a plea. The default plea is "not guilty". When he makes his intention known thus, the Court and the People do not deserve to be dilly-dallied by unnecessary red tape.

Click to expand...

To wit:

In re to: I

Considering that EM is openly stating that he is neither mounting a defense nor recognizes the legitimacy of the legally constituted government; and.

That EM, Defendant, has openly stated contempt for this Court and proceedings; that,

Given these conditions set and provided by Emperor Matthuis DEFENDANT, and his demeanor substantiated by his response to this court; and,


In Re to: II.

Given that, The Prosecution has stated,

The Emperor Matthuis DEFENDANT has:

1) presented himself
2) explicitly not entered a plea, and
3) made it clear that he will never enter a plea,

And requested,

I ask the Court, once again, to shorten the amount of time the defendant still has to enter a plea. The default plea is "not guilty". When he makes his intention known thus, the Court and the People do not deserve to be dilly-dallied by unnecessary red tape.;


To wit:

A. Emperor Emperor Matthuis DEFENDANT, is in contempt of court for refusal to enter a plea.,

B. The Prosecution has presented a request that Emperor Matthuis DEFENDANT has:

1) presented himself
2) explicitly not entered a plea, and
3) made it clear that he will never enter a plea,

And has asked the Court, once again, to shorten the amount of time the defendant still has to enter a plea. The default plea is "not guilty". When he makes his intention known thus, the Court and the People do not deserve to be dilly-dallied by unnecessary red tape.;


I find that:

Since a plea of NOT GUILTY by default under the laws of The North Pacific has been received by this COURT,

A plea of NOT GUILTY shall be entered in this COURT of NOT GUILTY for Emperor Matthuis, DEFENDANT in his lack of response;

The Trial of Emperor Matthuis, DEFENDENT, as charged in the original and any subsequent indictment shall proceed without any undue delay.

Selection of jury shall proceed immediately and trial shall being within twenty-four hours from this date and time.

Should a jury not be attained withing five (5) days, the COURT shall grant an extention of two (2) days for attainment of jury or grant a request for SUMMARY JUDGMENT at the discretion of the COURT.


Justice Romanoffia, Court of The North Pacific.

The legal offices of Pierconium Propaganda Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Moldavi Industries, hereafter referred to as PPI Legal Services, operating under the laws and jurisdiction of the soveriegn territory known as The Pacific wishes to request it be allowed temporary jurisdiction within the borders of the sovereign territory of The North Pacific in order to exact hostile (i.e. unapproved) defense of the defendant in these proceedings as directed by the laws that govern this specific community.

Note: The actions, posts, positions and opinions expressed by PPI Legal Services do not in any way reflect the governmental positions of the soveriegn state of Pierconium or the sovereign territory of The Pacific.

In light of this, Emperor Matthuis has decided to renege on his earlier declaration and appoints PPI Legal Services to represent him.

In light of the above statement from the Defendant and in consideration of ongoing dialogue outside the confines of the Court between the Presiding Judge and the Defendant in which clear bias towards same has been demonstrated enter the following, subject to review after our request for temporary jurisdiction is addressed:

Motion I

We move that the Presiding Judge be removed from this proceeding citing undue and overt bias towards the defendant.

Motion II

We move that Jury Selection be postponed for a period of 48 hours after these motions have been addressed in order to grant the Defendant sufficient time to prepare his defense for the Court.

Motion III

We move that the Contempt finding be withdrawn and stricken from the Defendant's record citing his acceptance of Defense Counsel and therefore acknowledgement of the Courts proceedings.

Motion IV

We move that the trial start no sooner than 24 hours after Jury Selection is complete, citing again the need for the Defendant and his Defense Counsel to prepare for the Court and ask that the Court grant this small privelege to the Defendant and his Counsel in knowledge that said Counsel has been a bit out of practice for over a full year and needs time to fully review the Court's processes and systems.

Pierconium:

In light of the above statement from the Defendant and in consideration of ongoing dialogue outside the confines of the Court between the Presiding Judge and the Defendant in which clear bias towards same has been demonstrated enter the following, subject to review after our request for temporary jurisdiction is addressed:

Motion I

We move that the Presiding Judge be removed from this proceeding citing undue and overt bias towards the defendant.

Motion II

We move that Jury Selection be postponed for a period of 48 hours after these motions have been addressed in order to grant the Defendant sufficient time to prepare his defense for the Court.

Motion III

We move that the Contempt finding be withdrawn and stricken from the Defendant's record citing his acceptance of Defense Counsel and therefore acknowledgement of the Courts proceedings.

Motion IV

We move that the trial start no sooner than 24 hours after Jury Selection is complete, citing again the need for the Defendant and his Defense Counsel to prepare for the Court and ask that the Court grant this small privelege to the Defendant and his Counsel in knowledge that said Counsel has been a bit out of practice for over a full year and needs time to fully review the Court's processes and systems.

Click to expand...

In re to Motion I: Granted - this case shall be devolved to the next available justice who will decide which justice will be assigned this case.


Romanoffia, Justice, TNP

*brings his customised ebony hammer to the court room*

Hello, I am the next available judge.

Motion II: Granted

Motion III: Granted. Be careful with such actions in the future.

Motion IV: Granted

The Court has our thanks.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Prosecution, representing the Government of The North Pacific, hereby files a motion to the Court to request its summary judgment of the charges for treason filed above against Emperor Matthuis.

Evidence and arguments for the motion are below.


Entered on the 27th day of October, 2007.

Monte Ozarka
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

"Treason" is defined very simply in the Legal Code. Two conditions must be met in order for an action to be declared "treasonous".

CONDITION ONE may be fulfilled in one of two ways:

• "taking arms...for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific...as governed by the Constitution", OR
• "providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific...as governed by the Constitution."

The charges against Emperor Matthuis are derived from the first method listed above.

Emperor Matthuis "took arms" against this Government by using the powers of ejection and banning given to the in-game delegate to forcibly remove members of the Government from the region and in an attempt to keep the legally-elected Delegate (as per this Constitution) from attaining the delegacy. We saw this demonstrated in the World Factbook Entry (LINK), where Emperor Matthuis specifically ordered UN nations to: 1) endorse Emperor Matthuis, and 2) unendorse Great Bights Mum (legally elected delegate, as certified here--LINK). This action shows clear intent to keep the representative of the Government (GBM) from her rightful seat. Furthermore, in carrying out this coup, Emperor Matthuis rejected this Government as the lawful governor of The North Pacific. Willfully, unilaterally, and without the consent of the Government, he declared it "not...legitimate" and "irrelevant". (LINK, screenshot) This, in combination with his statement that "The bureaucracy ends now. Onwards to a new age of progress!" (LINK), furthermore, clearly shows his purpose for these actions--to overthrow the Government of The North Pacific.

An alternate reading of the text laid out above in CONDITION ONE may cause it to be read where "treason" must include:

• "taking arms", OR
• "providing material support"

FOR a

• "group", OR
• "region"

"for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific..."

This reading of TNP Law 22.1.A does not change the Prosecution's claims. If this reading is to be followed, the Prosecution claims that Emperor Matthuis "took up arms" for the region "Gatesville", among others, in order to overthrow this Government (purpose and intent of this action laid out previously, above). We await the Court's guidance in clarifying the reading and intent of this law.

CONDITION TWO requires that the Defendant not have taken the claimed-to-be "treasonous" actions as part of an "officially sanctioned [mission] for the purposes of preserving regional security and the Constitution". Such a mission may be NPA or NPIA sponsored and be carried out with the express "consent and notification" of:

• the Prime Minister (Haor Chall), AND
• the Minister of Defense (Gaspo), in case of NPA mission, OR the NPIA Director (Flemingovia), in case of NPIA mission.

Haor Chall has already confirmed that Emperor Matthuis was not authorized to undertake these actions. So have Flemingovia and Gaspo. I have logs of their confirmations, but should the Court find such evidence inconclusive, the Prosecution would be happy to have the relevant parties give depositions attesting to the fact that Emperor Matthuis undertook these actions as part of no officially-sanctioned mission.

Given the fulfillment of CONDITIONS ONE and TWO, the requirements befitting charges of treason have been fulfilled. The evidence is crystal clear. Emperor Matthuis betrayed the trust of the People and proceeded to carry out unwarranted ejections and bannings without the consent of the Government or of the People. He removed the Delegate elected under the conditions of our Constitution and deliberately sought to destroy this Government and its just rules of law with his Gatesvillian foreign allies.

Your Honor, his actions and words speak for themselves. Emperor Matthuis' treason is inarguable. Incontrovertible evidence requires no jury to reach the same verdict. End this period of turmoil and find Emperor Matthuis guilty of the charges as presented.

Objection.

Section 4. Criminal and Impeachment Trial Rules and Procedures.

A - The Court shall adopt rules and regulations as to the procedures for trial of criminal indictments, and the trial of government officials on articles of impeachment.
B - All criminal trials shall include a randomly selected trial jury of five Regional Assembly Members drawn from the list of Regional Assembly Members.
C - A jury shall have the power to recommend a proportionate punishment to any conviction to the judicial officer, who shall impose such recommendation as the sentence of the Court provided that the sentence is proportionate to the offense in scope and duration. Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a Regional Assembly member's rights to participate in the government as a Regional Assembly [member], to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.

Click to expand...

The Constitution of TNP, which supercedes and overrides the Legal Code, states that all criminal trials shall include a jury, therefore Summary Judgement is disallowed in this instance.

However, Your Honor, the portion of the Constitution quoted by Defense Counsel is not relevant in this situation. Should the case go to trial, I agree that a jury must be drawn up.

However, we are arguing that the facts of this case are so cut and dry--so incontrovertible--that a full trial is wholly unnecessary. Therefore, we ask for a summary judgment in lieu of a full trial.

Thank you both for your statements.
While I agree the case may look very obvious, all proceedings have to be based on our legal system. This is where I tend to agree with the Defense Counsel. Before issuing a final judgement regarding your motions, I will need one day to check everything carefully.

Thanks for your patience.

Edit:
In order to speed things up, I request a response from the Defense Counsel regarding the facts presented by the Attorney General, especially with regards to potentially disputed paragraphs or single facts.

OOC:

I am offline on Sundays. I will post a specific response to the Prosecutions comments later this afternoon.

My apologies for the delay.

The Court of The North Pacific is currently checking the availability of a few potential jury members. Please be aware this is NOT a decision for a trial and against a summary judgement. Experience shows that jury selection may take (much) more time than usually appreciated by persons concerned by the trial.

It is the position of the defense counsel that no treason took place because there was no active government or Delegate supported Constitution in place to which acts of aggression could have taken place.

Since the sitting Delegate did not recognize the Constitution of this community as the overriding authoritative legal body for the region TNP during its time as same then no rules, law or restrictions contained therein can be violated since they were effectively in a period of suspension between the dates of "occupation".

Since we believe that Condition One therefore could not exist Condition Two, as a followup, could not exist either.

We therefore uphold our contention that Summary Judgement is not applicable here because the Constitution, which is in effect now, states that such trials must be held before a Jury plus we contend that the reasons given as "absolute" in regards to reaching a summary decision are in fact in dispute.

May it please the Court, the Prosecution would like to respond briefly to Counsel's claims.

The Defense is essentially claiming that the charges hold no merit simply because the Defendant believes the charges and the basis upon which they were issued held no merit. The crux of their argument boils down to, "The Delegate didn't recognize this Government as the seat of lawful authority for the region, so no offenses committed against it hold water." In other words, Defense Counsel is claiming that the Delegate is a god-figure, incapable of doing wrong.

However, our region has long enshrined the principle of delegatial subservience to the Government. The powers of the Delegate are very clearly laid out and limited in Article III, Section 2, Subsection 1. This subservience is made even more clear in Paragraph A of this passage:

Const. III.2.1.A:

The Delegate shall be considered as the ceremonial head of state, but not as head of government, for The North Pacific.

Click to expand...

The fact stands that the Delegate--regardless of who occupies the seat--does not lead the Government. And certainly, it is not free to flout the Constitution as it wishes.

Of course, the Defense is free to argue that the strictures of the Constitution are irrelevant. However, the fact remains that Officers of the Government governed by this Constitution are charging another Member. It is a matter governed wholly by the Constitution and predicated upon the absolute force of law that it represents. As Officers of the Government, we cannot argue that the foundation of our organizations are not simply faulty but irrelevant.

As a sidenote, we would like to point out that in previous coups of the Delegate seat in The North Pacific, governments-in-exile have continued to function and maintain legal standing despite not being in control of the Delegate seat. This is not only seen under previous constitutions (see: UPS Rail, Great Bight, Pixiedance) and under our current Constitution (see: Dalimbar "Daligacy"). In short, precedence exists for the legitimacy of the constitution through absence of power in the in-game region.

Defense Counsel contends that the examples provided by the Prosecution are not absolute in and of themselves.

The government of The Pacific recognized the ALSO government of Great Bight. Several regions recognized the NPD as the legal and overriding government body in this region during the time of Pixiedance.

To state that the governments-in-exile, which by their very name concede some level of ineffectiveness in regards to direct regional governance, were all recognized as the legal governing bodies throughout those listed Delegacies is stretched at best, outright false at worse.

Defense Counsel does not wish to get into its exact arguements to support its position against the rights of the Constitutional government as it exists now during this decision for Summary Judgement and would request that it be allowed to fully provide its grounds before a Jury, as the Constitution dictates.

The Court is very unpleased about the Defense Counsel statements and essentially agrees with the Attorney General here. Just because the Defendant did not accept the sitting government and The Constitution of The North Pacific does under no circumstances exclude him from a potential liability.
The Court has no doubt about which government was in place and which constitution was valid during the time of EM's takeover of the delegacy. We expect that The Constitution of TNP and the TNP Government are accepted at the time of the delegacy takeover and now. This will represent the basis for any further judicial proceedings in this case.

Defense counsel contends that the change in Delegacy effectively suspended the Constitution of this government in regards to its applicable legal standing in the region during the time of the defendants Delegacy.

The fact that this government called itself a government-in-exile on previous occasions and fought to restore its selected representative to the Delegacy once it was lost implies, if it does not overtly state, that the legitimacy of its power and legal standing derives from possession of the Delegacy.

If the Court will not acknowledge that the absence of power to enforce its Law is tatamount to the same as having no Law at all then we do not believe Justice will be served here.

OOC:

Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus during the Civil War. The Supreme Court of one of the states overturned this but he carried on anyway. Anyone arrested for crimes during this time were tried under military tribunal. However, when the war was over and h.c. was reinstated those prisoners that were scheduled to face a military tribunal after that date were allowed a civilian court proceeding because a different set of laws were in effect at that time. It was decided that if the civilian courts were in effect then prisoners, even those arrested during the suspension, could not be forced to stand before a non-civilian court. While I am no legal expert a somewhat skewed equivalent exists here in TNP. The Delegate, by virtue of not recognizing this government, suspended it and effectively declared martial law. Under martial law he did what he believed best to secure the region as a whole. After his departure the old law was reinstated by virtue of GBM taking the Delegacy and continuing her recognition of this Constitution as the law of the land. Therefore EM is subject to the law of the Constitution now, but during his time of Delegacy was not.

At the very least the ambiguity of the situation presses that he be given a Jury Trial, which is theoretically at least more likely to be fair than a Summary Judgement, regardless of whom is passing said judgement.

The Court of The North Pacific has come to the following decision:
Since the Defense Counsel is presenting a significantly different opinion, no matter how this may be evaluated from a judicial point of view, a summary judgement is in doubt. To avoid further proceedings and endless continued trials or reviews, The Court will go for a trial before a jury and therewith strictly adhere to the TNP Constitution.

The Court of TNP hereby declares the official start of the trial TNP vs. Emperor Mattuis. Please enter your pleas.

The Court will reserve its right to advise the jury with respect to validity of TNP Constitution and TNP Laws depending on the development of the trial proceedings.

The defense enters a plea of NOT GUILTY.

As defendant, I clarify this plea.

Jury members will be:

Blue Wolf II
Blackshear
Byardkuria
Winter Vacationers
DalekKhan

All jury members have been informed about their official appointment.

I object to this.

Blue Wolf II
Blackshear
Byardkuria
Winter Vacationers
DalekKhan

Click to expand...

I ejected puppets of four out of the five jurors; thus they will be biased against me.

Blue Wolf II - Anarchy Wolf, a UN puppet of Blue Wolf II was ejected.

Blackshear - Blackshear XXXVII, a UN puppet of Blackshear was ejected.

Byardkuria - Punisher Minifigs, a UN puppet of Byardkuria was ejected.

Winter Vacationers, - Winter Vacationers and a UN puppet, Tired Goblins were ejected.

Your Honor, to be very honest, I hazard to say that Emperor Matthuis ejected puppets of a great majority of active RA members. As a tyrant, he removed certain rights guaranteed to all Nations in the Region. The fact that he has committed crimes against the entire population does not make them necessarily biased against him. And even if it does, we have no choice but to proceed with the least biased jury we can muster. The overwhelming breadth of effect his crimes had does not excuse him from an effective trial.

The Court agrees that not anyone who had a nation ejected is necessarily biased, especially under the circumstances of mass ejections that can hardly be taken personally. Unless clearly expressed bias can be proven, the Court is not going to consider rejection of a jury member.
In addition, I suggest that the Defendant talks to his Counsel, because he had already agreed to the jury proposal which was sent as an informal notice via PM beforehand.

I hereby ask the Defense to clarify your official position regarding the Jury.

I have clarified our position on two of the noted Jurors via PM to the Court.

To clarify here, we agree with the Prosecution that universal bias can translate into nonbias to some degree.

However, in light of the inactivity of one of the Jurors, whom only seemingly got information from the act of relocation and from the overly verbous actions of another, who has overtly undertaken debate against my client on these forums, we have asked for a review of our earlier acceptance and a replacement for two of the five. Since these two will undoubtedly have a higher degree of bias towards the Defendant than the remaining three.

The Court announces a change in the jury which will now consist of the following RA members:

Blackshear
Byardkuria
Winter Vacationers
DalekKhan
Poltsamaa

The Defense accepts this list of Jurors.

The Prosecution agrees to the list of jurors.

MOTION

The Constitution of The North Pacific, Article V, Section 4, Part C notes that the Criminal Trial Rules and Procedures clearly state that the jury will have the power to recommend punishment following a conviction but also states that such sentence pertains to the rights and privileges of Regional Assembly members. Since the Defendent has been summarily stripped of Regional Assembly membership via summary non-civilian trial we push that said punishment is already in existance and any forward movement on these proceedings will constitute a double jeopardy situation, which, while not expressly cited within the confines of the Constitution is a commonly accepted rule of conduct within a judicial system.

Therefore Defense Counsel pleads autrefois convict and moves that these charges be summarily dropped and all claims against the defendant removed.

Section 4. Criminal and Impeachment Trial Rules and Procedures.

A - The Court shall adopt rules and regulations as to the procedures for trial of criminal indictments, and the trial of government officials on articles of impeachment.
B - All criminal trials shall include a randomly selected trial jury of five Regional Assembly Members drawn from the list of Regional Assembly Members.
C - A jury shall have the power to recommend a proportionate punishment to any conviction to the judicial officer, who shall impose such recommendation as the sentence of the Court provided that the sentence is proportionate to the offense in scope and duration. Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a Regional Assembly member's rights to participate in the government as a Regional Assembly [member], to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.

Click to expand...

Your Honor, the Defense, through a very selective reading of our legal documents, would have us believe that the jury may only determine the sentence in cases against active RA members. However, this simply isn't true.

ICR 502.A:

A- Any nation that believes some other nation in The North Pacific may have committed a criminal offense, may file, or may request the Attorney General to file, an indictment.

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

According to the Interim Court Guidelines, the charges may be filed against any nation and not simply a RA member. It would be simply absurd to think that charges may be filed and a trial be conducted against a Nation and yet that the jury does not have the authority to recommend a sentence upon a guilty verdict. Furthermore, the Interim Court Guidelines Rule 518/TNP Constitution Article VI, Section 1 states:

ICR 518.C/Const. VI.1:

C - In a criminal trial, any Nation may be expelled from The North Pacific if found guilty of the following:
1 - Violating any of the NationStates rules as provided on the NationStates.net website or as determined by a NationStates Moderator.
2 - Violations of The North Pacific Constitution.
3 - Violating the Regional membership regulations as outlined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.
4 - Violating The North Pacific Legal Code or other laws of the Region.
...

Click to expand...

This clearly establishes that the jury does have the authority to impose sentences on non-RA nations.

Taken as a whole, it appears that the Defense is being rather deceptive in its presentation of its motion. Our legal documents very clearly shows that the jury can decide the verdict and sentence in cases against a non-RA nation. The portion of the Constitution that Counsel has presented simply defines a very narrow portion of a jury's powers. The selected portion restrains itself to defining some aspects of jury sentencing power with regards to the revocation of an RA member's RA privileges. It DOES NOT, as the Defense would lead us to believe, in any way further limit the defendants a jury may try.

Therefore, the jury's power to decide the verdict and sentence in this case does not in any way violate the Constitution or the Interim Court Rules.