Criminal Complaint

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
After careful consideration, I, the Attorney General of the North Pacific have irrefutable evidence of a plot to overthrow the government by Blue Wolf II.

The laws believed to be broken are the following:

TNP LAW 22
Enumeration of Prohibited Acts

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.

Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It is through these actions that Blue Wolf II, has also broken his oath seen here:

Blue Wolf II:
I, Blue Wolf II, as the leader of The North Pacific nation of Blue Wolf II, pledge loyalty to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for reasons other than for official government business, that I may be stripped of my right to vote and required to reapply. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. I further understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. In this manner, I petition the Speaker of The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific region for renewal of membership in the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

Because of the sensitive nature of the evidence, I can only provide it through PM at the Justice's request.

As such I request immediate proceedings at the behest of the Chief Justice.
 
The filing as delivered is duly noted by the Court.

The Attorney General is requested to provide the evidence to the Chief Justice as soon as possible.
 
I am pleased to report that the office of the AG and Blue Wolf II have settled this matter out of court with a plea bargain.

Blue Wolf has agreed to voluntarilly resign from the RA for eight months, not hold a WA nation within the North Pacific for a year. In return, Blue Wolf will plea guilty and confess to the crimes he has been accused of.
 
The Court thanks the Attorney General for his swift handling of the matter. In light of the stringency of the terms and considering our obligations under the Bill of Rights, we still require to see the evidence the Attorney General has gathered.
 
As I've notified BW privately, he has until Sunday to plea guilty or the deal is off and I'll proceed with the trial with him in absentia.
 
Also as the defendant has not appeared before the Court, the trial will continue with the defendant in absentia. I will therefore also require someone to volunteer to serve as public counsel for the defendant.
 
I'll do it as BW is busy with finals and hasn't had the luxury to show up to this.

Perhaps if he had a speedy trial instead of the Prosecution wasting months of time, we wouldn't have had this problem.
 
Due to your involvement in the case, particularly as the main provider of evidence for the prosecution, I believe that for you to act on behalf of the defendant would represent a serious conflict of interest and would not lead to a fair trial for the defendant.

As such I am still looking for someone to serve as a public defender.
 
Have you now?

Sealed evidence seems a bit undemocratic, now doesn't it? I submit that all evidence in question be give to both the defense and the prosecution or be thrown out. After all, how am I to defend myself if I can't see the evidence that is to be used against me?

I also submit that the prosecution get permission from all their sources before submitting evidence since posting things without the express permission of the involved parties is against the rules set up by the admins of this forum and can be considered a "forced" testimony.

I also pick JAL to defend me. I await the Courts ruling.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Have you now?

Sealed evidence seems a bit undemocratic, now doesn't it? I submit that all evidence in question be give to both the defense and the prosecution or be thrown out. After all, how am I to defend myself if I can't see the evidence that is to be used against me?
Click to expand...

Now the defendant has shown up the evidence will of course be provided to him and his counsel. There has not previously been anyone on the defence for the evidence to be provided to.

I also submit that the prosecution get permission from all their sources before submitting evidence since posting things without the express permission of the involved parties is against the rules set up by the admins of this forum and can be considered a "forced" testimony.
Click to expand...

The evidence was provided freely to the State in the beginning. The evidence will be admissable in this Court.

I also pick JAL to defend me. I await the Courts ruling.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, free to choose your own defense counsel.


The evidence will be provided to the defense immediately. You have 48 hours to compile your case before the trial shall begin.
 
The evidence was provided freely to the State in the beginning. The evidence will be admissable in this Court.
Click to expand...

So says the State but other than the State's say so there has been no evidence provided to the Defense that backs that statement in anyway.

In light of the evidence I motion that the charge of "treason" be removed from the list of charges being filed against myself. There is no evidence to suggest that the "taking arms" or the "providing [of] material support" ever occurred.

I also point out that "sedition" differs extensively from a free exchange of ideas, however dissident they might appear, and also motion for that charge to be dismissed on the basis that no serious evidence exists that "an intentional attempt [...] incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution" actually occurred.

I also point out that this is, until otherwise ruled, an open court and that all evidence during trial must be publicly provided for all to view.
 
So says the State but other than the State's say so there has been no evidence provided to the Defense that backs that statement in anyway.

In light of the evidence I motion that the charge of "treason" be removed from the list of charges being filed against myself. There is no evidence to suggest that the "taking arms" or the "providing [of] material support" ever occurred.

I also point out that "sedition" differs extensively from a free exchange of ideas, however dissident they might appear, and also motion for that charge to be dismissed on the basis that no serious evidence exists that "an intentional attempt [...] incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution" actually occurred.
Click to expand...

The defence's motions are denied. To determine whether or not those arguments are correct is exactly why this trial is being held.


I also point out that this is, until otherwise ruled, an open court and that all evidence during trial must be publicly provided for all to view.
Click to expand...

This is an open Court, all the proceedings will be open to public view. That does not require the evidence to necessarily be provided for public viewing.

Judicial precedent for States privilege does exist, if the State believes public disclosure of the information would be damaging to regional security, the information can be kept from public view.

However, in light of the Defences complaint and having read the evidence myself, I do require the Attorney General confer with the Delegate and to decide whether they do believe public release of the information would be damaging to regional security.

The Attorney General will need to inform me of the result of that discussion, and if the Delegate does believe the information should not be released, I also require an explanation of why the information would pose a risk if publically released.

I shall rule on the publication of the evidence once this has been done.


Also, please note the start of the trial will be delayed by 24 hours until Monday morning.



(OOC: Apologies, I will be offline Sunday)
 
Haor Chall:
So says the State but other than the State's say so there has been no evidence provided to the Defense that backs that statement in anyway.

In light of the evidence I motion that the charge of "treason" be removed from the list of charges being filed against myself. There is no evidence to suggest that the "taking arms" or the "providing [of] material support" ever occurred.

I also point out that "sedition" differs extensively from a free exchange of ideas, however dissident they might appear, and also motion for that charge to be dismissed on the basis that no serious evidence exists that "an intentional attempt [...] incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution" actually occurred.
Click to expand...

The defence's motions are denied. To determine whether or not those arguments are correct is exactly why this trial is being held.


I also point out that this is, until otherwise ruled, an open court and that all evidence during trial must be publicly provided for all to view.
Click to expand...

This is an open Court, all the proceedings will be open to public view. That does not require the evidence to necessarily be provided for public viewing.

Judicial precedent for States privilege does exist, if the State believes public disclosure of the information would be damaging to regional security, the information can be kept from public view.

However, in light of the Defences complaint and having read the evidence myself, I do require the Attorney General confer with the Delegate and to decide whether they do believe public release of the information would be damaging to regional security.

The Attorney General will need to inform me of the result of that discussion, and if the Delegate does believe the information should not be released, I also require an explanation of why the information would pose a risk if publically released.

I shall rule on the publication of the evidence once this has been done.


Also, please note the start of the trial will be delayed by 24 hours until Monday morning.



(OOC: Apologies, I will be offline Sunday)
Click to expand...
The defense would like to assert that the evidence in question could not possibly jeopardize regional security if made public.
 
Haor Chall:
However, in light of the Defences complaint and having read the evidence myself, I do require the Attorney General confer with the Delegate and to decide whether they do believe public release of the information would be damaging to regional security.
Click to expand...
Contact my by PM if necessary, however as the head of the executive branch I'm afraid I can play only an advisory role (at best) in the goings-on of the judiciary.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Have you now?

Sealed evidence seems a bit undemocratic, now doesn't it? I submit that all evidence in question be give to both the defense and the prosecution or be thrown out. After all, how am I to defend myself if I can't see the evidence that is to be used against me?

I also submit that the prosecution get permission from all their sources before submitting evidence since posting things without the express permission of the involved parties is against the rules set up by the admins of this forum and can be considered a "forced" testimony.

I also pick JAL to defend me. I await the Courts ruling.
Click to expand...
My solution was to remove the evidence from Photobucket, but unauthorized copies were made.

I'm pretty sure that's against the Photobucket copyright policy, but I'm not going to make this into SERIOUS BUSINESS or anything; rather, I'd like to ask for everyone who has a copy of my files to delete them promptly. If you don't, there won't be any consequences, although I will be rather cross.
 
Again the defense would like to submit the request to the court that the prosecution get permission to use screen shots, logs, etc., from all their sources before submitting evidence for the reasons Khark stated above.
 
As the original intention of witholding the evidence from the public was to protect the identity of an informer, his new intentions have now made these intentions obsolete. Through talks with the Delegate and some of those involved in the transcripts, the prosecution has decided to release the evidence to the public, wherever the court decides it should be released to.
 
The defense would like to assert that the only appropriate place for evidence to be submitted before the public is this forum; however it is against forum rules to post chatlogs without the permission of all involved (as I understand them). Therefore said logs may not be used as evidence against my client.
 
It is clear that the evidence originally supplied by Outer Kharkistania can no longer be considered admissable before this court.

The trial will now commence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top