Charges Against the Speaker of the Regional Assembly

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
If it pleases the Court, the Office of the Attorney General hereby issues formal charges, on behalf of the citizens of The North Pacific, against Grimalkin, Speaker of the Regional Assembly in regards to the complaints issued here concerning the activity and affairs of his elected office. Specifically, the Office of the Attorney General accuses the Speaker with dereliction of duty, for failing to maintain and uphold the duties of the office, for abuse of authority, in violation of his expressed Oath of Office, in ignoring calls for action and for abandonment of post, which in and of itself is not a criminal offense but has led directly to civil offenses. Specific events and evidence will be presented at the request of the Court or at trial is necessary.

The Office of the Attorney General further requests that an immediate injunction take place restricting Grimalkin from actively serving in the role of Speaker of the Regional Assembly on a temporary basis while these charges are addressed. The AG suggests that the Court name an interim Speaker to the role so that the day to day activities of the government are allowed to proceed.
 
your honours, please wake up!

10128874.jpg
 
Aside from inanity, which is evident in abundance within these very proceedings, the Speaker has failed to provide the Regional Assembly with a working timetable for the address of formal submissions and amendments. The Speaker has further failed to address those same submissions and amendments as they have been presented to the floor. The Speaker has failed to process RA member nation applications within the designated timeframes and the Speaker has attempted to limit the ability of nations to debate items presented to the floor, in violation of his Oath of Office, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
Horseshoes are not the same as horseradish. Radishes are quite reluctant to turn brown even when the gates are in the fifth alignment of the star of mice. Shoo away carefully and in purple. Or blue.
 
Whoops, I didn't catch the fact that I'd been assigned this trial.

On the weight of the charges Grimalkin is declared removed as Speaker pending the trial.

Special elections may be held immediately, but Grimalkin shall be restored as Speaker if the trial is concluded in his favour.

I offer the following possible trial dates and times:

1. Fri Aug 6 23:00 UTC 2010
2. Mon Aug 9 19:00 UTC 2010
3. Mon Aug 9 22:00 UTC 2010
4. Tue Aug 10 10:00 UTC 2010
5. Sat Aug 28 03:00 UTC 2010

For the convenience of our participants, the above times are now translated to EDT:

1. Fri Aug 6 19:00 EDT 2010
2. Mon Aug 9 15:00 EDT 2010
3. Mon Aug 9 18:00 EDT 2010
4. Tue Aug 10 06:00 EDT 2010
5. Fri Aug 27 23:00 EDT 2010

Each side may PM me two times they prefer not to hold the trial at as well as suggestions for a superior date. Do not tell the other side what times you select.

If both sides agree to a date and inform me of it by PM, I shall endeavour to make it.

If neither side communicates, I will choose a date.

The prosecution and defence are asked to post all evidence they intend to use as well as the names of any witnesses they wish to call at least 12 hours before the trial.
 
Witness list for the defense:

Chewbacca
Chef Brian
the Coca-Cola guy who lives next door
Fozzy
Mozzie
Leelu Dallas Multipass.


I, for one, endeavor to incite all that which the bacon deserves to conclude.
 
The prosecution has provided the Court with clarification regarding the proposed dates as requested.

The North Pacific will present evidence once the specific date of trial has been determined.
 
The Office of the Attorney General requests clarification from the Court regarding the specifics of the planned Trial.

Is the Court intending this trial to be held offsite in a medium that is not readily accessible to all citizens of The North Pacific, such as Internet Relay Chat? If so the Office of the AG, in recognition of its duties to represent all the citizenry of The North Pacific, will issue a formal Motion to forestall said trial until such time as it can be located fully on these open and public forums.

Setting a specified date to begin would therefore not require immediate action or participation by the Prosecution and Defense counsels as they will have a specified window of time in which to address the Court via the appropriate topics.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The Office of the Attorney General requests clarification from the Court regarding the specifics of the planned Trial.

Is the Court intending this trial to be held offsite in a medium that is not readily accessible to all citizens of The North Pacific, such as Internet Relay Chat? If so the Office of the AG, in recognition of its duties to represent all the citizenry of The North Pacific, will issue a formal Motion to forestall said trial until such time as it can be located fully on these open and public forums.

Setting a specified date to begin would therefore not require immediate action or participation by the Prosecution and Defense counsels as they will have a specified window of time in which to address the Court via the appropriate topics.
Click to expand...
The court does intend to hold this trial on IRC in an open channel and immediately publish the log upon the conclusion of the trial or session.

It is the belief of this judge that with all the parties present simultaneously in a medium suited to instant response a superior trial can be achieved.

Regardless of whether you think it should be necessary, you must comply with the Court's procedural instructions. You are under no obligation to assent to the date we have been discussing as there is a set fall-back date, but a specific time for this trial will be found and the trial will take place then.

I shall ask the other Justices whether they think your objection to holding a trial on IRC holds weight.
 
The idea that an open discussion IRC room would be an appropriate venue for a trial is preposterous in our opinion. First, we would have to wait on the defense counsel to interpret and respond to every action while the AG provides swift commentary and pointed remarks at lightening speeds. It would not be fair to the accused.

Beyond that, legal briefs and diatribes/commentaries/statements/rebuttals/whatever are typically more verbose than what can reasonably be conveyed through swift IRC interaction and do often take more than split second buffoonery, which will undoubtedly be present if the accused is in the courtroom, to address fully. Again, it would not be fair to the accused.

And of course, that excludes the disposition, held by this counsel, that holding a trial in a locale that has been voiced as temperamental by several members of the Regional Assembly on multiple occasions as a disservice to those that elected us into position to begin with. It alienates a certain part of the voting public by forcing them to either be second hand observers via published logs after the conclusion of the proceedings or to take part in a process that they may view as objectionable.

The Court has not established any standing procedures for how a trial shall be convened in The North Pacific in a very long time so one must reasonably look at past precedent in determining those procedures. Past precedent points to trials held here on this venue, not on IRC. The AG's Office does seek to comply with the standing procedures of the Court, which is as stated, precedent. IRC is not a part of that equation.
 
Considering that this has been named a criminal proceeding, at what point does the Judge plan to establish a means by which to select a Jury for the trial and does the Judge intend all members of the Jury to be present on IRC at the same time as the supposed action is to take place? (NOTE: This is another reason IRC trials don't work, collaborating that many schedules is not likely.)
 
We have not held trials by jury in some time, since the repeal of the old constitution which required them. See TNP vs Blue Wolf II for the example.

Nevertheless, in a trial the jury usually does not get the right to ask questions. In previous TNP cases when juries were implemented such as TNP vs Fulhead Land, the jurors did not speak.

It is the opinion of this Judge that to hold this trial exclusively on the forum without the use of a fast-paced trial mechanism would be a disservice to the region and to the accused. The record of trials on the forum in this region is extremely poor. Nearly every criminal trial before TNP vs Blue Wolf took several months to get to a point where, for some reason or another, it was dismissed:

TNP vs. Cathyy: (I)
- AG Great Bights Mum posted charges at Sep 16 2005, 03:31 AM. (here)
- Defense Counsel Nikovakia moved to dismiss at Sep 17 2005, 06:51 PM.
- Chief Justice Grosseschnauzer denied the motion at Sep 17 2005, 07:55 PM.
- There followed further procedural discussion, mainly as to whether Hersfold was eligible to be Lead Prosecutor under TNP Law 4 then in effect.
- Case reassigned from Associate Justice Thyatira to Associate Justice Byardkuria due to Thyatira's continued absence at Sep 28 2005, 03:47 PM.
- Jury selection begun at Oct 11 2005, 12:52 PM.
- Defense moved to dismiss two of the charges at Oct 12 2005, 10:19 PM.
- Defense provided with further evidence at Oct 16 2005, 02:18 PM.
- Jury selected at Oct 25 2005, 09:58 PM.
- Defense moved to dismiss as witnesses / accusers had changed their minds about accusing / wintessing against Cathyy at Nov 1 2005, 01:46 AM.
- Motion denied at Nov 10 2005, 08:27 PM.
- Trial phase opened at Nov 14 2005, 02:57 PM.
- AG dropped charges at Nov 19 2005, 10:15 AM.
- Case dismissed with prejudice at Nov 19 2005, 10:19 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 64 days. RESULT: AG Dark Mathius dropped charges as complainants changed their minds.

TNP vs. IndieGirl:
- Democratic Donkeys filed impeachment charges at May 1 2006, 11:21 PM. (here)
- AG mr_sniffles charged IndieGirl at May 3 2006, 05:49 PM. (here)
- Grand Jury selection begun at May 3 2006, 05:56 PM.
- Grand Jury selected at May 8 2006, 09:42 PM.
- Judge carries Prosecution motion to dismiss charges as IndieGirl had been replaced as Minister at May 10 2006, 03:12 AM.
ELAPSED TIME: 9 days. RESULTS: Proceedings outlasted Minister term and became irrelevant.

TNP vs. Fulhead Land (I): did not go trial.

TNP vs. Rostum:
- AG mr_sniffles charged Rostum at Jul 4 2006, 10:31 PM. (here)
- Associate Justice Democratic Donkeys opened proceedings at Jul 11 2006, 12:59 AM.(here)
- Judge entered a plea of "Not Guilty" for Rostum at Jul 17 2006, 01:38 PM.
- Fedele took up the role of public defender at Jul 24 2006, 02:12 AM.
- Pretrial discovery begun at Jul 28 2006, 12:27 AM.
- Hersfold moved to dismiss at Aug 11 2006, 04:41 PM.
- Case dismissed as Rostum had left TNP by the Judge at Aug 11 2006, 06:29 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 37 days. RESULT: Case dismissed as defendant left.

TNP vs. FEC:
- Cathyy filed impeachment charges against Delegate Former English Colony at Jul 11 2006, 01:03 AM. (here)
- Associate Justice Leland Gaunt opened proceedings at Jul 12 2006, 11:08 PM. (here)
- Grand Jury selection begun at Jul 15 2006, 06:03 PM.
- Grand Jury selected at Jul 18 2006, 09:45 PM.
- Jury selected at Jul 27 2006, 10:33 PM.(here)
- Judge proposed to dismiss the case due to Former Enlish Colony no longer being the delegate at Aug 9 2006, 09:52 PM.
- Prosecution agreed, Judge formally dismissed case at Aug 10 2006, 10:34 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 28 days. RESULT: Trial outlasted Delegate term and became irrelevant.

TNP vs. Cathyy: (II)
- AG mr_sniffles charged Cathyy at Jul 13 2006, 08:17 PM. (here)
- Chief Justice Byardkuria opened proceedings at Jul 15 2006, 04:17 AM.(here)
- Judge dismissed case after a motion by the prosecution at Aug 9 2006, 03:31 AM.
ELAPSED TIME: 26 days. RESULT: Case dismissed on legal grounds.

TNP vs. Fulhead Land (II):
- Prosecutor AlHoma charged Fulhead Land at Aug 20 2006, 04:13 PM. (here)
- Case taken up by Associate Justice Democratic Donkeys at Aug 21 2006, 12:41 AM.
- Court appoints Poltsamaa as defense counsel at Aug 22 2006, 03:48 AM.
- Defense pleas not guilty at Aug 26 2006, 12:26 AM.
- Jury selection begun at Sep 4 2006, 02:18 AM.
- Jury selection complete at Sep 18 2006, 09:41 PM.
- Defense opening statement at Oct 1 2006, 10:47 PM.
- AlHoma ceased posting after Nov 4 2006, 07:57 PM.
- AG Southwest Asia asked for a week's recess at Nov 15 2006, 02:29 AM.
- AG Southwest Asia stated intent to seek a new prosecutor at Nov 20 2006, 07:33 PM.
- AG Southwest Asia selected himself to continue prosecution at Nov 24 2006, 04:40 AM.
- Prosecution called "Fulhead Land" to the stand at Nov 30 2006, 01:37 AM.
- Defense objected on the grounds of ambiguity at Nov 30 2006, 10:38 PM.
- Judge affirmed the Prosecution's identification of 'whoever controls the nation of Fulhead land, and any nations related to the nation of Fulhead Land.' at Dec 3 2006, 09:50 PM.
- Defense continued objecting.
- Judge asked Prosecution for clarification at Dec 4 2006, 05:50 PM.
- Prosecution clarified that they seek the "person" at Dec 13 2006, 11:23 PM.
- Defense continued objecting.
- Defense instructs "his client, Fulhead Land, member nation of The North Pacific to take the stand!!" at Dec 17 2006, 02:03 AM.
- Recess called by Judge at Feb 22 2007, 09:15 PM.
- Defense moved to dismiss at Mar 5 2007, 08:11 PM.
- Motion carried by Judge due to the disappearance of the entire jury at Mar 5 2007, 08:32 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 197 days. RESULT: jury lost interest / disappeared so case dismissed.

TNP vs. Mesian:
- AG Byardkuria charged Mesian with the use of force against The Pacific without authorization by the NPIA or NPA at May 9 2007, 01:21 AM.
- Mesian made a plea at May 10 2007, 01:02 AM.
- Case taken up by Associate Justice Leland Gaunt at May 10 2007, 07:39 PM.
- Deposition by major witness transmitted to court and both sides at May 23 2007, 02:07 AM.
- Mesian declared his death at May 27 2007, 02:04 PM.
- The Judge proposed an agreement to accept Mesian's "death" with certain conditions at Jun 4 2007, 09:19 PM.
- The Prosecution accepted the proposal at Jun 4 2007, 09:22 PM.
- Galapagos Isle acting as defense counsel agreed to the agreement at 11:40 US Central Time, June 9.
- Prosecution ceased prosecuting on observation the Defense was abiding by the terms of the agreement at Jul 16 2007, 08:07 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 68 days. RESULT: Apparent plea bargain.

TNP vs. Mesian - Revisited:
- New deliberations opened by Associate Justice Leland Gaunt at Aug 30 2007, 07:30 PM.
- After some discussion between the Judge, AG Monte Ozarka, and it was decided that Mesian should appeal his status.

TNP v. Lewis & Clark, et al: a farce.

TNP v. Emperor Matthuis:
- Proceedings Begun Oct 22 2007, 03:03 PM by AG Monte Ozarka
- Defense decided to participate at Oct 25 2007, 02:21 PM
- There followed a period of procedural wrangling.
- Defense claimed the AG had failed to post evidence at Nov 20 2007, 04:32 PM .
- Between Nov 24 2007, 01:08 AM and Jan 1 2008, 10:27 PM the Judge was absent.
- At this time Monte Ozarka was nowhere to be found.
- On Jan 7 2008, 08:20 PM the new government's Attorney General dismissed all charges citing the time elapsed.
ELAPSED TIME: 77 days. RESULT: prosecution and region lost interest.

Appeal: TNP v. Mesian:
- Mesian appealed his status as 'dead' at Jan 13 2008, 02:10 AM.
- AG New Kervoskia dropped all charges, letting him go at Jan 15 2008, 11:10 PM .
- Associate Justice Romanoffia accepted this at Jan 18 2008, 11:23 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 5 days. RESULT: New prosecutor dropped all charges.
TOTAL ELAPSED TIME for "TNP v. Mesian": 254 days.

TNP v. Knockavale: did not go to trial.

TNP v. Blue Wolf II:
- Begun at Apr 18 2009, 02:21 AM by AG mr_sniffles. (here)
- Trial opened at Jun 8 2009, 09:32 AM by Justice Haor Chall. (here)
- The body of the trial took place over the course of two months with much back and forth.
- The Prosecution posted nothing after Aug 31 2009, 08:06 PM.
- The Judge gave a verdict of NOT GUILTY on both counts at Oct 12 2009, 12:22 PM.
- The Judge explained their verdict in full at Oct 14 2009, 02:24 PM.
ELAPSED TIME: 179 days. RESULT: An actual verdict, for the first time in regional history.

The total time elapsed in all these criminal cases put together is 871 days, for an average of 97 days per case.

Only one of the nine cases reached a verdict-- the first case without a jury.

All but one (seven) of the cases that ended without a verdict ended due to the passage of time either changing attitudes, disappearing participants, or simply the defendant no longer holding the position threatened by the trial. These cases that ran out of time come to a total of 666 days lost.

I do not intend to repeat that.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The idea that an open discussion IRC room would be an appropriate venue for a trial is preposterous in our opinion. First, we would have to wait on the defense counsel to interpret and respond to every action while the AG provides swift commentary and pointed remarks at lightening speeds. It would not be fair to the accused.
Click to expand...
The defense agrees. :P

(seriously, though)
 
Well, it is good to see that precedent is so easily set aside for expediency. So instead of providing the defendant with a criminal proceeding that is determined by a group of his peers it is left solely to the Judge to determine Guilt or Innocence. I find it amazing that I am the one pointing that out instead of the Defense Counsel since that is a blatant slight towards his client.

Regardless, the AG's Office never stated the Judge could not hold trial as he sees fit. We simply pointed out that 4-5 years of precedent might actually mean something to some people, moreso than one example of a partisan no jury trial. Oh well.

I informed the Court that I would not be available at any point as early as projected in my initial commentary regarding the trial dates. If the trial must take place on IRC then it will have to be on the final date provided as an option for the Court for there to even be a possibility of the AG taking part directly and even then it is questionable as to whether or not it will be able to do so.

(OOC: In case no one has never noticed, I don't use IRC very often and I sure as hell don't schedule my RL activities around it. If I am available I will be in attendance, if I am not or something more pressing in RL comes up, I won't be. That is just how it is.)
 
Unfortunately it appears that I cannot hold the trial as scheduled in a few hours.

Therefore, unless the parties can come to an earlier date, the trial is rescheduled to 2300 EDT next friday.

I ask the parties to ensure all evidence is collected by 2300 EDT next thursday and posted publicly in this thread.

If either party wishes to interview a witness who cannot be present at the trial, I ask that they communicate with me and with the other party and find a time for us to hold an interview.
 
Based on the lack of response to my concerns above and no activity at all on this discussion over the last three weeks the Attorney General's Office assumed that the Court had decided to bypass a trial altogether.

If a trial is to take place, even though there are somewhat ongoing discussions on the establishment of a new form of regional government, then it would still be in the best interests of the region and all parties involved to adhere to the established precedent of the Court in regards to criminal trials.

Barring that, the AG's Office will summarily dismiss all charges against the Speaker.
 
GM, I believe the presiding justice did respond to you in this thread, and if you weren't sure you could have asked him to clarify his response first.

And for the record, the Court has been discussing rules of evidence to settle many of these issues that we can settle without an enactment of some sort from the RA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top