Request for Prosecution of Govindia

Grimalkin

Grimalkin

TNPer
Please pardon me if this is not the correct place for this. I was advised that I needed to bring my complaint forth here.

I would like to officially raise a complaint against the Election Commissioner of the May 2008 elections, Govindia. It is my belief that Govindia committed Election Fraud and should be prosecuted under the TNP Legal Code Law 22 Section 4.

I submit that Govindia illegally extended the deadline from the original time frame presented when he opened the elections. As Govindia refused to admit to his obvious mistake, I am lead to believe that there were personal motivations involved in his decision.

I thank thee for taking the time to hear my proposal.
 
Can you post references to the legal code on how his actions are a criminal act?

I think this is a valid question in reference to your request. For it to be fraud he would have to have something to gain, no? For it to be a crime it must be expressed in the Legal Code, doesn't it? This matter may be one for the RA, IMHO.

I am not a government official or anything I just think we will all be better off if this whole matter is resolved quickly and with the least amount of conflict as possible.

If I may ask members viewing this topic: Please leave the posting of this thread between the person making the request and the officials of the judiciary.


Thanks and pardon the interruption.
 
Considering the plain refusal to grant a run-off under the circumstances this concerns me also. I think Grimalkin may have grounds here. It would be hard to prove that Govindia wished to willfully abuse his position but it is worth investigating. Considering that Govindia joined the Regional Assembly during our civil war, during which Grimalkin was on the other side to Govindia I think this could be a contentious issue that needs the appropriate consideration.
 
(Apologies for taking so long with responding here. IF seems to not like my internet much.)

The North Pacific Legal Code states that

TNP Law 22 Section 4 Line A:
A - "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of voters or residents of The North Pacific with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
Click to expand...

Under TNP Law, Election Fraud is a crime, so all that remains is to show "willful deception". I have reason to believe that Govindia's actions may be motivated by malice from our mutual past in an attempt to ensure that I did not receive a seat on the Council.

I merely ask that the case be examined by Court and necessary action taken.
 
I believe Byardkuria is the head of the Delegate's Office of Justice Affairs, n effect the chief prosecutor, and we need to hear from him.

And pointing to a statute isn't enough, we need to hear a conention of the facts and how those facts add up to a violation of law.
 
I am in contact with the accusing party regarding the charges.

I would also formally request that a moderator please move those posts from parties not DIRECTLY involved with the case, i.e. election officials, judiciary, accuser, named party, and respective counsel. Quite obviously, I will not be moderating in this thread at this point.

EDIT - clarification.
 
If it please the court, I have now been formally appointed as defence counsel to govindia. We look forward to the prosecution's presentation of evidence against my client, should any exist.
 
I thank the court.

Given the nature of the accusations levied against my client, and given the uncertainty hanging over South West Asia's status as a CLO member, could I request that the court set an early date for this hearing?

Can I also ask that the court publish a trial date as soon as possible? I am keen to get the baseless allegation levied against my client removed as soon as possible, and I want to be sure that I can be around for the trial.
 
We'll need to hear from Byard as to how quickly he can be prepared.

In addition, Flem and Byard should fire up their IRC chat recording skills, as I want both sides to schedule and record testimony from any witnesses they plan to use. The IRC chat transcripts will need to be ready for posting on the hearing date.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
We'll need to hear from Byard as to how quickly he can be prepared.

In addition, Flem and Byard should fire up their IRC chat recording skills, as I want both sides to schedule and record testimony from any witnesses they plan to use. The IRC chat transcripts will need to be ready for posting on the hearing date.
Click to expand...
I would like to be present during any session recorded on IRC....:ADN:
 
Discuss that with Flem and Byard. It is the Court's intention that y'all work out those details independently of the Court, and have them ready for posting at the time of the hearing. The Court should not need to be present.
 
I thank the court. The defence has taken the witness statements it needs to begin the trial, and we are ready to proceed. We trust that, given the urgency of the case, the prosecution is likewise ready.
 
Entered this Fifth day of June, Two Thousand Eight.

Upon discussion with the accusing party, examination of the evidence offered, and a review of the Law, the Region does not find sufficient cause to charge the accused with the crime of Election Fraud, nor to convene a Grand Jury to examine this matter. The Region wishes to note that its election not to prosecute does not, in any way, constitute a waiver by any party to seek civil redress in the matter should they so desire.

Byardkuria
Director, Delegate's Office of Justice Affairs

EDIT - correction of "damages" to "redress"
 
Objection.

By this manner my client finds that his name has been impugned, and yet he has been deprived of the opportunity to answer or challege the allegations brought against him.

I am also unsure of what "civil redress" is being hinted at in the above post. What TNP law allows for such civil redress? And what further hounding through the courts on spurious charges can my client expect?
 
If the Prosecutor does not feel that a criminal case can be brought for wrongs against the Unseelie, then the Queen of Air and Darkness moves for the Courts to over turn the Election Commissioner's decision in light of his own (that is Govindia's) incompetence in the matter.



EDIT: (Making it just a bit clearer)
 
The court cannot with one breath concede that my client has no case to answer then with the next breath overturn my client's decision as electoral commissioner. Such an action would make the court a laughing stock. If the court believes that my client had done wrong, it would press the prosecution.
 
Queen Mab disagrees with the Election Commissioner's counsel. The Court can, and should, seek to overturn the Election Commissioner's decision. Despite the fact the Court does not wish to pursue criminal charges for Election Fraud, that does not change the fact that the Commissioner acted incompetently and affected the outcome of the trial.

This makes one wonder how many other voters may have been disenfranchised by the Election Commissioner because of his incompetence and seemingly inability to tell time. How many voters failed to vote because they believed the deadline had already passed?

The Court forcing a run-off election for the final seat of the CLO would fix what the Election Commissioner fouled.
 
Repeatedly you bandy around allegation as if it is proven fact. But saying so does not make it so.

you repeat slander over and over against my client, and expect the court to back you up.

If there is a case to answer, let's have a trial rather than just demanding a verdict. The court lacks the authority to overturn the decision of an appointed official without a hearing. And the court has decided that there is not a case to answer. That is the end of the matter.
 
I am going to need a show of hands of the people who recognize the difference between the Court (not me) and the Prosecution of behalf of the Region (me).

The Region does not seek charges.

The Region decided there was no valid case for Election Fraud.

The Court has done naught with regards to the election of the Region to discontinue pursuit of criminal charges.

The Court is the one in the funny wig, the Region is the one in the cheap suit reeking of Old Crow.

The Court decides if you did it, the Region decides if you need to go to Court.

That is all.

EDIT - my new goal is to edit every post I make for the next week, and I'm off to a fine start. Clarification.

Also, see Bill of Rights 5, 9, and 10. If a citizen were to believe such rights had been violated by this whole fracas, they would be able to pursue such "spurious charges" in a civil suit. But there are not going to be any criminal charges of Election Fraud, in lieu of some really good evidence popping up. Clearer?
 
Enough.

The original request was for criminal proceedings and alleged a violation of the law concerning criminal fraud. The government has determined that there is no basis for a case to be heard by the Court.That concludes the matter.

The Court will make an observation that the current state of the law grants a considerable degree of discretion to the executive in organizing and conducting an election. If there is a problem that needs to be addressed by legislation.

This proceeding is closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top