R
DISCUSSION: TNP vs Matt
- Thread starter A curious NSer
- Start date
Pierconium
TNPer
OOC:
If I want to address the forum administration here and the clearly OOC ramifications of their actions in regards to ToS or otherwise then I will do so OC, not via an IC post as I have done throughout this thread up to this point.
Having Admins chime in that they can ban a player because of this or that is irrelevant to an IC conversation so I fail to see the need or even the justification. Gross, I am referring to an IC situation, your interpretation of what EM might or might not have been committing to as a poster on this forum in an IC sense has nothing on the OOC issues associated with admining the forum, please, if you can't make a logical ingame arguement then feel free to not contribute.
IC:
I stand by what I have stated. EM, by taking part in some aspects of dialogue on this forum, did not, by any definition that pertains to his status as sitting Delegate of TNP at the time, automatically legitimize or recognize the government that is housed here as the overriding power in the region. He may have committed to an acknowledgement that such government existed and that the community here was relevant but no such proclamations of legitimacy or authority exist.
If I want to address the forum administration here and the clearly OOC ramifications of their actions in regards to ToS or otherwise then I will do so OC, not via an IC post as I have done throughout this thread up to this point.
Having Admins chime in that they can ban a player because of this or that is irrelevant to an IC conversation so I fail to see the need or even the justification. Gross, I am referring to an IC situation, your interpretation of what EM might or might not have been committing to as a poster on this forum in an IC sense has nothing on the OOC issues associated with admining the forum, please, if you can't make a logical ingame arguement then feel free to not contribute.
IC:
I stand by what I have stated. EM, by taking part in some aspects of dialogue on this forum, did not, by any definition that pertains to his status as sitting Delegate of TNP at the time, automatically legitimize or recognize the government that is housed here as the overriding power in the region. He may have committed to an acknowledgement that such government existed and that the community here was relevant but no such proclamations of legitimacy or authority exist.
Pierconium
TNPer
The "Regional" Assembly only has overriding authority at this point because the Delegate recognizes it as such. While EM was the Delegate he did not so while it may (or may not) be true that he broke the Constitution of this government since it wasn't the prevailing form during that time period then any actions taken against it would be moot.
What is relevant here is not whether the laws here are, or were recognised by EM. In any society, you cannot stand in a dock, stick your fingers in your ears with your eyes closed and go "lah laha lah I do not believe in you".
EM recognised the constitution when he made a promise to uphold it.
The issue is not the delegate's recognition of the constitution. It is ours. The constitution is not invalid just because one person decides not to play by it any more.
As I said before, you are trying to justify breaking one set of rules by appealing to another set of rules. Won't wash, I am afraid.
I will say it plain. AFAIK, Em broke no game rules while he was delegate. That is undisputed, and is not what he is on trial for.
He is on trial for beaking his promise to keep to the constitution.
EM recognised the constitution when he made a promise to uphold it.
The issue is not the delegate's recognition of the constitution. It is ours. The constitution is not invalid just because one person decides not to play by it any more.
As I said before, you are trying to justify breaking one set of rules by appealing to another set of rules. Won't wash, I am afraid.
I will say it plain. AFAIK, Em broke no game rules while he was delegate. That is undisputed, and is not what he is on trial for.
He is on trial for beaking his promise to keep to the constitution.
Pierconium
TNPer
Then he would be undergoing impeachment hearings in regards to his office within the Regional Assembly and Cabinet, not criminal charges in regards to treason.
Breaking the oath to uphold the Constitution is a wholly separate category than the stated reasons for the ongoing Court proceedings.
Monte Ozarka
TNPer
As far as I know, there is no mention of "treason" in in-game rules. All constructs of treason are defined out of the proper. It is a product of this Government, as governed by this Constitution, and its definition is enshrined in the Legal Code, as passed by this Government. He is on trial for treason committed against this Government and the region it claims to represent. Whether or not you choose to recognize this Government as a legitimate representative of The North Pacific is not our matter and is irrelevant to these proceedings.
Pierconium
TNPer
You misunderstand my point.
Flemingovia listed a series of events which are outlined in your Legal Code as causes of Impeachment. The actions that result in charges of treason are not the same thing.
Monte Ozarka
TNPer
Flem:
Hmm? I didn't see Flem lay down the rationale for charging someone with treason. As far as I can tell, Flem only talked about putting someone on trial for breaking laws, in general. If a specific impeachment bit was brought up elsewhere, many apologies for not having seen it.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
A couple of points related to but independent of the criminal case.
EM was at the time of his putsch against the elected Delegate, held the elected office of Minister of Communicatiions and member of the Security Council. So he had taken the oath of office as to both positions, and never resigned those positions before his actions that are at issue in this trial.
In addition, as a "registration official" under Article II of the Consitution, I took official notice of Emperor Matthuis volunary and self-imposed ejection and banning out of TNP at Nationsates to the Rejected Realms, and thereby declared his disqualification from the Regional Assembly to prevent him from any theoretical resort to having Regional Assembly status; at that point if not before, his seat on the Security Council and his office as Minister of Communications became vacant.
Finally, the unlawful seizure of the Delegate's seat in Nationstates does not make such an act lawful under the Constitution. The Constitution determines by an explicit process who shall have the right of possession of the Delegate's seat in Nationstates by the process under which an elected Delegate is chosen. In other words, EM's actions did not change GBM's right to the Delegate chair.
EM was at the time of his putsch against the elected Delegate, held the elected office of Minister of Communicatiions and member of the Security Council. So he had taken the oath of office as to both positions, and never resigned those positions before his actions that are at issue in this trial.
In addition, as a "registration official" under Article II of the Consitution, I took official notice of Emperor Matthuis volunary and self-imposed ejection and banning out of TNP at Nationsates to the Rejected Realms, and thereby declared his disqualification from the Regional Assembly to prevent him from any theoretical resort to having Regional Assembly status; at that point if not before, his seat on the Security Council and his office as Minister of Communications became vacant.
Finally, the unlawful seizure of the Delegate's seat in Nationstates does not make such an act lawful under the Constitution. The Constitution determines by an explicit process who shall have the right of possession of the Delegate's seat in Nationstates by the process under which an elected Delegate is chosen. In other words, EM's actions did not change GBM's right to the Delegate chair.
Pierconium
TNPer
Every UN nation in the region has the same "right" to the Delegacy. The only one that has it is the one with the most endorsements at update, regardless of what your process here has to say about it.
V
Viavaldi
Guest
He is considered a traitor for unlawfully seizing the delegacy and then forcing everyone to endorse him or we would kick ban them.... Least thats the gist i think.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
There are two alternate ways of looking at the charges.
There is a recent law defining treason as a crime. The indictment as filed alleges EM commited a violation of that law.
In addition, EM took an oath to apply for membership in the Regional Assembly as required in the Constitution, as well as an oath of office required by a recently enacted law. His actions can be cast as a breach of both of these oaths.
There is a recent law defining treason as a crime. The indictment as filed alleges EM commited a violation of that law.
In addition, EM took an oath to apply for membership in the Regional Assembly as required in the Constitution, as well as an oath of office required by a recently enacted law. His actions can be cast as a breach of both of these oaths.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Whay you propose is essentially an advertisement for anarchy. That's hardly a Francoist thing to promote.
V
Viavaldi
Guest
If I am not mistaken it wasn't much a choice especially sense you threatened to kick ban anyone who did not endorse you. Nothing about what you did was fair.
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
LOL
Southwest Asia
TNPer
You're right, life isn't fair. Let's ban you right now because you're name has two A's in a row, which is clearly a violation of fashion sense and general etiquette.
Firstly, this isn't real life, this is Nationstates.
But secondly, just because life isn't perfectly fair doesn't mean that we should tolerate those who actively seek to make it unfair.
Additionally, Pierconium, I don't see how your OOC example of the Civil War works. I mean, EM violated the law under the old government at the same time that he went rogue. So even if under his regime, he didn't violate any laws, he violated TNP's by creating his little kickbantopia. The former government's been reestablished, and we can prosecute him for treason/impeach him based on the act he took to violate the Constitution.
In other words, he might not have been violating the law during his rogue rule, but creating his rogue rule was the violation of the law.
Pierconium
TNPer
He may have violated his oath to the Constitution but that, in and of itself, isn't treason as it is defined in common law terminology.
I have already stated that I believe the charges, as they pertain to the Constitution, should have been Impeachment charges since the actions taken after that point were in potential violation of a suspended governing document and therefore irrelevant.
Pierconium
TNPer
You are incorrect.
V
Viavaldi
Guest
Glad to see someone will actually agree with me to a degree. Yes i recognize the fact life is never fair, but simply because that is the case does not mean we should simply let such bad things go unpunished. No matter how you shape it though he made a big violation. Honestly I think most people will agree if nothing else that he did at least violate some big things in this regions unified government.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
As a point of interest.
Important bits bolded.
Important bits bolded.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The distinction is this: The action of registration officials is not permanent, a nation removed from the RA due to disqualification can re-apply once the nation again meets the qualifications to join the RA. The power of a regisration official to remove EM due to his voluntary self-banning is clearly stated in the Constitutionas is the right of a nation to reapply once eligible.
The verdict and recommendation of the jury is more far reaching. The jury can recommend suspension or ineligibility of a nation's rights within the region either for a (proportinal) period of time or permanently. It does not require current RA membership at the time of trial, but that the nation was subject to the Constitution at a point in time relevant to the charges.
The verdict and recommendation of the jury is more far reaching. The jury can recommend suspension or ineligibility of a nation's rights within the region either for a (proportinal) period of time or permanently. It does not require current RA membership at the time of trial, but that the nation was subject to the Constitution at a point in time relevant to the charges.
Pierconium
TNPer
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
Wait, if he's not a citizen, that would also mean he no longer has any citizens rights either, correct? Rights such as conviction by trial?
If I'm correct, and I think I am, I say we issue a summary conviction and go all Gitmo on EM's *ss.
V
Viavaldi
Guest
Personally I think that is a terrible idea. As much as I dislike him and what he did. Stooping to his level makes us no better than he.Wait, if he's not a citizen, that would also mean he no longer has any citizens rights either, correct? Rights such as conviction by trial?
If I'm correct, and I think I am, I say we issue a summary conviction and go all Gitmo on EM's *ss.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
Ouch.
Outer Kharkistania
TNPer
That's a weak excuse.Personally I think that is a terrible idea. As much as I dislike him and what he did. Stooping to his level makes us no better than he.Wait, if he's not a citizen, that would also mean he no longer has any citizens rights either, correct? Rights such as conviction by trial?
If I'm correct, and I think I am, I say we issue a summary conviction and go all Gitmo on EM's *ss.
Seems to me the trial is getting off on an odd footing. Moldavi is trying to argue autrefois convict / double jeopardy, on the grounds that EM has already been punished.
But Autrefois convict and double jeopardy, in every legal dictionary I have seen refers to previous trial and conviction, not previous punishment. If EM had been tried before, and found guilty or innocent, i could understand the argument. He has not.
Let me use an analogy, if you tackle a mugger, and break his arm as part of the arrest, he cannot claim autrefois convict in court. The best that could happen is that, in his defence summing up, his barrister could plead that he has already suffered as a result of his actions, and ask for a reduced sentence.
But Autrefois convict and double jeopardy, in every legal dictionary I have seen refers to previous trial and conviction, not previous punishment. If EM had been tried before, and found guilty or innocent, i could understand the argument. He has not.
Let me use an analogy, if you tackle a mugger, and break his arm as part of the arrest, he cannot claim autrefois convict in court. The best that could happen is that, in his defence summing up, his barrister could plead that he has already suffered as a result of his actions, and ask for a reduced sentence.
indeed, The obvious thing would not be to plead double jeopardy for EM (it is not, since this is his first trial) but to put me on trial for my actions as admin.
I look forward to that one.
I look forward to that one.
Usually when people are arrested they are taken to jail. They may be incarcerated up until the time of their trial. That pre-trial jail time is not considered part of a criminal's punishment unless during the sentencing phase he is given credit for time served.
But mainly, it would be silly to assume that just because someone is in jail, he has already been found guilty.
I suppose Matt's attorney has to grasp at such far-fetched arguments because it is difficult to refute the evidence head-on. We should all just be thankful Matt didn't use a puppet.
But mainly, it would be silly to assume that just because someone is in jail, he has already been found guilty.
I suppose Matt's attorney has to grasp at such far-fetched arguments because it is difficult to refute the evidence head-on. We should all just be thankful Matt didn't use a puppet.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
A much better analogy is what happens when someone is driving while intoxicated.
In many places, DWI is a felony.
When law enforcement stops a driver on suspicion of DWI, they ask the driver to take a breathealier test, or take them to have a blood sample drawn to test the driver's blood alchol level.
Refusing to submit to the tes is a difference offense that is often handled administratively as a non-criminal violation; the government agency involved susoends or withdraws the driver's vehicle operation license based on the act of refusing to submit to the tests, and not on the basis of wheter the driver was in fact intoxicated.
The argument Peirconium is making is that the license suspension/revocation is a punishment without a trial for DWI. But it isn't. It arises out of the same set of facts, but has nothing to do wih the felony charge of DWI.
Here, the Constitution makes clear that if there is evidence that a Regional Assembly member has moved his TNP nation out of the region, the registration officials may immediately revoke the status as a RA member. In EM's case he held two position under the Constitution that required RA membership, and his removal from the RA due to the movement of his naion outside of TNP mean he had disqualified himself out of office.
The Consitution also permits a nation that disqualified iself out of the RA to once again apply (and the RA oath has to be taken again as part of applying).EM hasn't applied agai, and I can see the question ariing of whether he would be able to take the RA oath in good faith in view of his conduct.
But none of this has anything to do with the current trial on charges of treason. A jury could permanently bar EM from ever holding any office or position in TNP (RA, NPA, Diplomat, eleced official, etc.)
Peirconium is trying to mix apples and oranges in his argument, and it doesn't fly.
In many places, DWI is a felony.
When law enforcement stops a driver on suspicion of DWI, they ask the driver to take a breathealier test, or take them to have a blood sample drawn to test the driver's blood alchol level.
Refusing to submit to the tes is a difference offense that is often handled administratively as a non-criminal violation; the government agency involved susoends or withdraws the driver's vehicle operation license based on the act of refusing to submit to the tests, and not on the basis of wheter the driver was in fact intoxicated.
The argument Peirconium is making is that the license suspension/revocation is a punishment without a trial for DWI. But it isn't. It arises out of the same set of facts, but has nothing to do wih the felony charge of DWI.
Here, the Constitution makes clear that if there is evidence that a Regional Assembly member has moved his TNP nation out of the region, the registration officials may immediately revoke the status as a RA member. In EM's case he held two position under the Constitution that required RA membership, and his removal from the RA due to the movement of his naion outside of TNP mean he had disqualified himself out of office.
The Consitution also permits a nation that disqualified iself out of the RA to once again apply (and the RA oath has to be taken again as part of applying).EM hasn't applied agai, and I can see the question ariing of whether he would be able to take the RA oath in good faith in view of his conduct.
But none of this has anything to do with the current trial on charges of treason. A jury could permanently bar EM from ever holding any office or position in TNP (RA, NPA, Diplomat, eleced official, etc.)
Peirconium is trying to mix apples and oranges in his argument, and it doesn't fly.
Pierconium
TNPer
Hypothetically speaking, since discussion of the trial itself wouldn't be prudent, if the region is under a state of martial law and punishment is executed under that system then a non-civil trial and conviction did take place, otherwise punishment wouldn't have been given, correct?
If a member of the Regional Assembly and Cabinet is ejected from both without notification, clarification or other documentation, as is dictated as mandatory by the Constitution, then logically that would mean that an informal trial of sorts took place in which it was decided to exact punishment. This could therefore translate into previous trial and punishment for the same offenses.
Otherwise, said hypothetical nation would not have been removed from said posts without clarification or notification prior to action, unless we are admitting that it is okay to selectively follow the Constitution.
Is that what you are saying?
Pierconium
TNPer
You are incorrect.
The removal from RA and Cabinet posts came several days prior to the nation relocating itself.
You are incorrect.
Of what "sort"? Does this mean every time I remask a player, changing (and sometimes limiting) their access, then a judicial process is taking place? If you think that, then GBM is correct, you are clutching at straws in an attempt to concoct a double jeopardy situation.
No trial of any sort took place. I just acted. Part of the job of administration is determining the appropriate member group in which to place people. "Rogue delegate" seemed to me to be an appropriate group for EM at the time, so that is where I put him. If there had been a "juvenile fuckwit" group, I might have chosen that one instead.
Whether my action was illegal or unconstitutional is not for me, or you, to say. What is on trial here is not my actions, but EM's. I will happily stand trial for my actions.
Pierconium
TNPer
OOC:
Since the actions taken by the Administration on this forum did have IC impact on the player in question then those actions can and will be viewed by same in an IC context.
You are correct, I can't determine whether or not you abused your powers as Admin here, although the act in and of itself was very reminiscent of Twoslit.
What I can do while I am posting from an IC position is take those acts and incorporate them into gameplay. Since I consider it a foregone conclusion that you and others believe the Constitution to be paramount then I can only extrapolate, from an IC position, that a non-civil trial took place, in which you decided to remove EM from the Regional Assembly and his Cabinet post. If that is not what happened and you did selectively decide to ignore the Constitution then I fail to see the point of the "trial" at all since it is apparent that some players are more equal and have more rights under the Constitution than others.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
OOC:We should all just be thankful Matt didn't use a puppet.
