Complaints

Half a valid ballot isn't considered a full valid ballot. Name one instance in an earlier election in TNP where someone voted for an invalid candidate and a valid one?
Click to expand...

By your standard, Gross ballot is not valid. Although 2/3 is a bit higher...
 
Felasia:
Half a valid ballot isn't considered a full valid ballot. Name one instance in an earlier election in TNP where someone voted for an invalid candidate and a valid one?
Click to expand...

By your standard, Gross ballot is not valid. Although 2/3 is a bit higher...
Click to expand...
Actually it is. He still voted legitimately, and the candidate withdrew during voting, so the ballot had to be altered.

You still haven't addressed my question above.
 
Govindia:
Blue Wolf II:
Yes, I voted for one invalid candidate and one valid one. Even as Election Commissioner, you don't have the authority nor the law backing you to throw out the entire vote because of one invalid selection.
Click to expand...
Half a valid ballot isn't considered a full valid ballot. Name one instance in an earlier election in TNP where someone voted for an invalid candidate and a valid one?
Click to expand...
Grosses vote. (Not earlier, but still a valid example.)
 
Actually it is. He still voted legitimately, and the candidate withdrew during voting, so the ballot had to be altered.

You still haven't addressed my question above.
Click to expand...

He votes after you declared that Pasargad have withdrawn from the race yourself.

And Gross vote is a clear example where someone voted for an invalid candidate and a valid one.
 
Felasia:
Actually it is. He still voted legitimately, and the candidate withdrew during voting, so the ballot had to be altered.

You still haven't addressed my question above.
Click to expand...

He votes after you declared that Pasargad have withdrawn from the race yourself.

And Gross vote is a clear example where someone voted for an invalid candidate and a valid one.
Click to expand...
He admitted not knowing at first his name was taken off the ballot, and then decided to keep it in as a write in candidate, leaving it up to me what to do with that section of the ballot. I decided I wouldn't recognise write in candidates but since he voted for the other two when the ballot was amended it was still legitimate.

BW deliberately didn't vote properly, there is a difference.

Please think logically and rationally about this.
 
On the other hand, BW's write-in candidate was not recognize as well, but instead of leaving it at that in the same way as you did to Gross. You decided to go a step further and throw his entire vote out.

"He is trolling" is not a valid excuse to throw out a part of the vote that is legit.
 
Govindia:
Felasia:
Actually it is. He still voted legitimately, and the candidate withdrew during voting, so the ballot had to be altered.

You still haven't addressed my question above.
Click to expand...

He votes after you declared that Pasargad have withdrawn from the race yourself.

And Gross vote is a clear example where someone voted for an invalid candidate and a valid one.
Click to expand...
He admitted not knowing at first his name was taken off the ballot, and then decided to keep it in as a write in candidate, leaving it up to me what to do with that section of the ballot. I decided I wouldn't recognise write in candidates but since he voted for the other two when the ballot was amended it was still legitimate.

BW deliberately didn't vote properly, there is a difference.

Please think logically and rationally about this.
Click to expand...
There is nothing logical and rational about your line of thought.

Gross acknowledged the fact that Pasargad was an ineligible candidate, but didn't take any steps to change his vote. You keep quoting RL about how a vote is invalid if you vote for an invalid candidate, but you don't apply the standard equally. You invalidate one vote, but keep another based on some standard that you made up and has no legal basis.

Do you truly have no concept as to the precedence that you're setting? You can't possibly see what trouble can come from the ability to invalidate any vote through sheer will?

I know you hate being wrong, Gov, but you could save yourself a lot of headache and embarrassment if you would just admit to your mistake and stop fighting everyone. Don't take this the wrong way, Gov, but you need to grow up.
 
At the time I voted, the official ballot and instructions in the first post of the voting thread had three offices listed and candidates shown for all three offices.

I copied that form into my post and voted. The fact that Pasargad was disqualified, or resigned, or withdrew (it's still not clear which) was not shown and reflected in that first post. Ergo, I followed the instructions and cast my vote as instructed.

As far as I know, no Admin or Global Mod was contacted about the inability of TVB account to edit posts (that should have been possible with that account as a mod for the Election forum) or to edit the first post in view of the permissions problem.

Voting threads should only contain votes. Voters should not be responsible for chatter in the thread that aren't actual votes being cast, or notifications that a vote was cast by PM, which is the directive under Law 26. As to write-in votes, btw, I'm not aware of any provision of TNP law that even permits write-in votes in view of Law 26's rules about declarations and nominations of candidacies. It would help things IMHO, if Election Commissioners read the applicable Law in running the election; a lot of the problems came from that more than anything else.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
At the time I voted, the official ballot and instructions in the first post of the voting thread had three offices listed and candidates shown for all three offices.

I copied that form into my post and voted. The fact that Pasargad was disqualified, or resigned, or withdrew (it's still not clear which) was not shown and reflected in that first post. Ergo, I followed the instructions and cast my vote as instructed.

As far as I know, no Admin or Global Mod was contacted about the inability of TVB account to edit posts (that should have been possible with that account as a mod for the Election forum) or to edit the first post in view of the permissions problem.

Voting threads should only contain votes. Voters should not be responsible for chatter in the thread that aren't actual votes being cast, or notifications that a vote was cast by PM, which is the directive under Law 26. As to write-in votes, btw, I'm not aware of any provision of TNP law that even permits write-in votes in view of Law 26's rules about declarations and nominations of candidacies. It would help things IMHO, if Election Commissioners read the applicable Law in running the election; a lot of the problems came from that more than anything else.
Click to expand...
:headbang:

Grosse, I pointed out at least TWICE in that thread that I cannot edit my posts, only the topic title. Why did no one bother to read that?

And even after it was pointed out to you by Pasargad that he WITHDREW from the race, why did you not edit your ballot?

Technically he had a valid ballot prior to Pasargad's withdrawal. It's not uncommon for someone to withdraw in the middle of a race, and people to not be aware of that. As he technically had a valid ballot, his vote was valid.

BW's was invalid because it was partially complete. There has still not been an instance pointed out in earlier elections in TNP where partial votes were accepted.
 
As part of the Attorney General's office research toward processing this complaint, I will seek to find such examples.
 
Govindia:
There has still not been an instance pointed out in earlier elections in TNP where partial votes were accepted.
Click to expand...
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Ladies and the other sex(es) I (probably) wouldn't sleep with, I direct your attention to the September 8 2008 Azure Senate Election. Voters were asked to select five candidates from a list of five in the order of least preferred to most preferred with the candidate getting the most preferred votes winning.

In that election, I personally voted in the following manner.

The Demi-God Blue Wolf II @ Sep 11 2008:
Heft
Outer Kharkistania
Grosseschnauzer
Santa8
Everyone else
Everyone not yet included
Lucifer
Govindia
Click to expand...

Another voter, Kanbei, copied me and voted in the same manner. He was later sued for copyright infringement.

Both votes were counted.

129040226480548806.jpg


There is also this example from the 2009 general elections.

Grosseschnauzer:
Delegate - Sydia
Vice Delegate - Ator People
Speaker -
Council of Legal Oversight (3 seats) - Mr.Gaunt, Tresville, Winter Vacationers
Chief Justice - Haor Chall
Click to expand...

Here Grosses failed to enter anything in for Speaker, not even an "Abstain", and thus his vote is "incomplete" and yet was not thrown out either.
 
FALCONKATS:
So if a justices cannot throw it out how about a majority of the judges
Click to expand...
The Attorney General's office would like to strongly suggest that the Court wait until receiving the complaint the Attorney General is compiling before deciding whether it is sufficient to hold a case.

Thank you.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Govindia:
There has still not been an instance pointed out in earlier elections in TNP where partial votes were accepted.
Click to expand...
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Ladies and the other sex(es) I (probably) wouldn't sleep with, I direct your attention to the September 8 2008 Azure Senate Election. Voters were asked to select five candidates from a list of five in the order of least preferred to most preferred with the candidate getting the most preferred votes winning.

In that election, I personally voted in the following manner.

The Demi-God Blue Wolf II @ Sep 11 2008:
Heft
Outer Kharkistania
Grosseschnauzer
Santa8
Everyone else
Everyone not yet included
Lucifer
Govindia
Click to expand...

Another voter, Kanbei, copied me and voted in the same manner. He was later sued for copyright infringement.

Both votes were counted.

129040226480548806.jpg


There is also this example from the 2009 general elections.

Grosseschnauzer:
Delegate - Sydia
Vice Delegate - Ator People
Speaker -
Council of Legal Oversight (3 seats) - Mr.Gaunt, Tresville, Winter Vacationers
Chief Justice - Haor Chall
Click to expand...

Here Grosses failed to enter anything in for Speaker, not even an "Abstain", and thus his vote is "incomplete" and yet was not thrown out either.
Click to expand...
What the hell is an Azure Senate?

Secondly was the EC in that election prosecuted / complained about for how Grosse voted?
 
Govindia:
Technically he had a valid ballot prior to Pasargad's withdrawal.
Click to expand...

That would be correct IF he had voted prior to Pasargad's withdrawal, which he did not! He voted AFTER! So, no, technically Grosse did not have a valid ballot in the first place.
 
I would like to bring complaint against the earlier incarnation of Eluvatar (herafter known as "ELUVATAR (2011)". In his continuing the prosecution of JAL beyond the realms of Sanity and probity he is bringing both his office and the region into disrepute. I further accuse him in his conduct as Attorney General of bestiality, sadism and necrophelia, as well as engaging in Watersports across regional lines.

yes. He is flogging a dead horse and taking the piss.
 
Would the plaintiff care to point to a law the prosecutor has violated?

If so, the office of the Attorney General will of course find a suitable jurist to take on this case.
 
laws violated:

Exodus 22:19. Leviticus 21:11. DEuteronomy 25:3.

Remember, I am a god. You must expect me to cite scripture rather than constitution.

If you wish, I will subject you to an ecclesiastical court. But remember, we burn at the stake.
 
I wish to formally charge Blackshear with Slander/Libel for his following accusation which is patently false and generally damaging:

"So, Roman, after openly supporting a coup in the Government Overhaul thread you now want to join the group charged with helping prevent them? And this makes sense how? "

It can be found in this thread:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/634981/4/#new.

His accusation claims that submitting a piece of legislation is somehow supporting a coup against the government of The North Pacific.

In principle, Blackshear is accusing me of Treason for submitting a piece of legislation.

Here is said piece of Legislation:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6890262/1/#new

Should Hoar Chall be accused of 'openly supporting a coup' with his comment:

"First impressions though, I'd think new Delegate elections as part of the overhaul would be more constructive and make more sense?"

I think not. This is serious discussion of a serious matter involving the survival of this government in the face of total inactivity.

I categorically deny such accusation, I categorically deny that the submission of a piece of legislation can be construed as "openly supporting a coup".

My civil liberties and rights under the Constitution of The North Pacific and Supporting Documents concerning civil liberties have been violated by this accusation. Such accusation is patently false, Slanderous and Libelous under said Constitutions, Supporting Documents and Laws.

I request this remedy from the Court:

1.) That Blackshear support his accusation in detail in defense of the charges of Slander and Libel; or

2.) He immediately produce an open and public apology for such an accusation of Treason, Slander and Libel; and,

3.) Should he be found in violation of the Laws, Constitution and Documents Supporting Civil Liberties of This Region of The North Pacific be appropriately sanctioned and penalized for such violation.

I am frankly surprises that anyone, let alone Blackshear would ever accuse me of such a thing considering my dedication to this Region and its Legitimate Government and Constitution.

This is an insult and injury that cannot be taken lightly by myself nor any loyal citizen of this region who has not violated any law of this region.

To Wit:

I sue for remedy of the above claims by Blackshear and installation in the Security Council of The North Pacific which was denied me by such a false accusation. It is a sad day when proposing the discussion of a piece of legislation can be called "openly supporting a coup". This is a violation of Free Speech and an entirely unconscionable accusation.

Charges Filed.

Romanoffia.
 
The Attorney General, being involved in this matter as a voting member of the Security Council, is unable to prosecute or consider this question.

If there is any willing and prepared member of the region prepared to assist the Attorney General's office in this matter, let them please step forward.
 
I'm available, I'll have to look over the code to freshen up but I have experience in judicial rulings, being the Minister of Justice in the South Pacific.
 
Unless the complainant believes this person has a bias on this question, the Attorney General's office is prepared to appoint them as assistant attorney general for this matter.
 
I believe the proper course would be to ask the Court to appoint a special prosecutor on the matter. Any former justice or AG would probably be qualified if they're not conflicted out.
Or you could see if your predecessor has time. (And no, I don't mean the previous term your served.)
 
Eluvatar:
It is my understanding that the Security Council also considered this post.
Click to expand...
I have no objections to the AG's recusal appointment.

It would have been nice if the SC had actually taken the time question applicants about sarcastic responses to sarcastic statements made by someone else. I certainly do not think that BW is suggesting a coup as that would be silly because BW is the elected Delegate who cannot even seem to get the endorsements to fulfill the position he was elected to.

I will also be issuing a subpoena for Blue Wolf II to appear and testify as to the nature of the initiating comment they made. Knowing BW's sense of humor, this should be interesting.

It's a sad day when free speech and a sense of humor garners such a misinterpretation that free speech and a sense of humor is somehow 'openly supporting a coup'. The accusation and logic that led up to the accusation that I am 'openly supporting a coup' is about as absurd as one can get.

A simple apology or open discussion between myself and Blackshear to mediate an understanding of the accusation he made against me can solve this problem if anyone is open to that idea. I'm sure an amicable resolution can be arrived at and possibly avoid a fairly messy court procedure.
 
The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow. In fact, in The North Pacific, they don't grind at all. In fact, the machinery was shipped back to the region of manufacture for a refund.
 
Romanoffia:
The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow. In fact, in The North Pacific, they don't grind at all. In fact, the machinery was shipped back to the region of manufacture for a refund.
Click to expand...
Greetings!

I have decided that I shall reject your criminal complaint.

Bearing in mind, that although "slander/libel" does not exist in our legal code, per se, I do believe that Law 22, Section 4 (Enumeration of Prohibited Acts : Election Fraud) of the legal code could be used to persecute someone for "willfully deceiving" residents of The North Pacific in the context of an election which would act as a "defamation" law of sorts.

Law 22:
Section 4: Election Fraud
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...

Furthermore, I would argue that the vote for Security Council membership could successfully be called an "election", since the Oath that all Security Council members take uses the phrase, "elected".

Law 1:
[..] do hereby solemnly swear that during my duly elected/appointed term as [...]
Click to expand...

That having been said, I do not find your case merits this criminal complaint. For the following reasons:

1. Blackshear would have to be willfully deceiving the other members of The North Pacific, which is a tough argument to sell when there is evidence (however debatable you think it is) and some cause to suggest that you would support a coup. Blackshear has not merely developed this theory out of thin air, there is some basis for his assault on your character and thus it is not the blatant lie that it would need to be for the legal code to consider it "willfully deceiving".

2. It is not even clear that Blackshear is making a definite statement about your character. The absence of a comma where I have placed a bold red one suggests that the entire sentence could be read as a question. It becomes much more tricky to claim he was attempting to defame your character if he was only asking a question.

So, Roman, after openly supporting a coup in the Government Overhaul thread, you now want to join the group charged with helping prevent them? And this makes sense how?
Click to expand...

3. I must reject your suggestion that this has been a violation of your Freedom of Speech. Bearing in mind that Art. V, Sect. 1.4 (Security Council : Membership) of the Constitution of The North Pacific states:

4. The Council shall admit by majority vote those applicants who the Council determines are not a Security Risk to the North Pacific.
Click to expand...

I am not in a position to decide whether the Council has made a bad judgment, but it is my position to say that by entrusting the Council with the duty to determine who is a security risk and who is not, it reasonably follows that this includes using what people have written as evidence of their trustworthiness. What would be an injustice is if the Council voted down an applicant for reasons other than whether they were a security risk.

Yours,
Unibot
 
And I quote you:

2. It is not even clear that Blackshear is making a definite statement about your character. The absence of a comma where I have placed a bold red one suggests that the entire sentence could be read as a question. It becomes much more tricky to claim he was attempting to defame your character if he was only asking a question.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion as a whole defies logic. To wit: you are arguing that slander and libel do not exist in the legal system while at the same time giving a definition of slander which you contend does not exist. This is a straw dog argument on your part. You are claiming slander/libel to be non-existent while at the same time claiming I was not slandered. You, sir, defy all logic and reason in your argument.

You are in error. Remember, I was a Justice of this court long before you and it is well understood that principles of law.

Slander and Libel are real parts of the principle of law and without such principles no legal system civil, criminal or otherwise can exist.

Also, for expressing an opinion, the Vice Delegate has also accused me of slandering the Security Council for making a statement to the effect (and I hold to this statement) that the Security Council appears to be a threat to the security if The North Pacific. The Vice Delegate also made the threat, openly on the floor of the RA, that he might bring it to the AG for prosecution. Will you also deny such a petition by the Vice Delegate because you say slander/libel doesn't exist?

I'll bet you will bend over backwards to accommodate the Vice Delegate's opinion(s) and make an exception, you would.

Were there no slander or libel, then anyone could accuse anyone else of Treason without a consequence for that accusation.

If someone openly accused the SC and Vice Delegate of Treason it could be construed as slander/libel by any sane and logical person regardless of weather or not it specifically exists in the legal code.

The lack of the application of principles of common law here means that this region would be nothing more than a free-for-all where anything goes and the legals system a total sham.

In fact, this legal system is indeed a sham. JAL's trial proves that fact.

You, sir, need a better understanding of Constitution, Law and Civil Liberties.
 
Your conclusion as a whole defies logic. To wit: you are arguing that slander and libel do not exist in the legal system while at the same time giving a definition of slander which you contend does not exist. This is a straw dog argument on your part. You are claiming slander/libel to be non-existent while at the same time claiming I was not slandered. You, sir, defy all logic and reason in your argument.
Click to expand...

Even if it were a contradiction, it would not be a straw-man argument. It is not a contradiction because what I said was there was no clearly codified law for slander or defamation, for your purposes I found a clause in the criminal code that could be used similar to a defamation law.

Were there no slander or libel, then anyone could accuse anyone else of Treason without a consequence for that accusation.
Click to expand...

With the present state of our legal code, so long as the person is not running for some sort of position in an "election" and the false accusation threatened his credibility as a candidate, realistically you can accuse anyone of Treason in TNP without much legal consequence at all.
 
for your purposes I found a clause in the criminal code that could be used similar to a defamation law.
Click to expand...

Then please cite that particular part of the code by chapter, paragraph and number and I shall specifically re-file this complaint under the code you say applies.
 
As far as I can tell there are no pending matters in this thread for me to deal with, so unless otherwise advised, I believe we'll be starting this judicial term with a clean slate.
 
There is still a complaint outstanding from Jul 14 2011, 03:43 AM. The complaint was made by JAL against Felasia, and it has been ignored by the Attorney General's office.

Even if this complaint cannot be addressed until the JAL trial is completed, we would not like to see it forgotten.
 
flemingovia:
There is still a complaint outstanding from Jul 14 2011, 03:43 AM. The complaint was made by JAL against Felasia, and it has been ignored by the Attorney General's office.

Even if this complaint cannot be addressed until the JAL trial is completed, we would not like to see it forgotten.
Click to expand...
I view that matter as part of the inherited criminal proceedings; you may, flemingovia, point out that complaint to the Court and suggest that it be consolidated with the current proceeding. It certainly seems that the operative events in the current trial and that complaint overlap to such an extent that the economic use of judicial attention and resources would support consolidation.
 
No, i said that this complaint might wait until the JAL trial was completed. Since the complaints were against two different individuals, there is no way they could be consolidated in a single criminal hearing. Now that the JAL trial is complete there is nothing stopping prosecution of Felasia for their actions as speaker of the Regional Assembly.
 
Would you mind just refiling your complaint, and the basis and the facts you allege support a criminal case?
That will give you the chance to focus on the one claim and make it easier for this office to decide what is appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top