A formal Request to the Chief Justice

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Your Honour,

I petition the court regarding the Regional Assembly application made by my client John Ashcroft Land over a month ago.

The application was made on 14th July, and was flatly refused by the speaker of the RA only 50 minutes later.

My client complained against this decision to the attorney General on that same day, but his complaint has been ignored by the AG, while at the same time he has been accused of treason against the region.

No reason has been given for the refusal of his RA application other than actions long past. There has been no suggestion that his oath made on 14th July was not made in full sincerety and complete honesty.

He is now being pursued by the court - but there is a long-held principle in TNP law (enshrined in the Bill of Rights, section 7) that a nation is innocent until proven guilty.

In the absence of any suggestion that my client is a current threat against the region, and given the fact that he has not currently been proved guilty of any crimes, I ask that the Chief Justice direct the Speaker of the Regional Assembly to approve my client's admission to the Regional Assembly, pending the result of my client's trial.

DAted: 16th August 2011, 19:03pm
 
If it would please the court, I would like to be allow to clarify certain issues connected to the Regional Assembly.

The application was made on 14th July, and was flatly refused by the speaker of the RA only 50 minutes later.
Click to expand...

His first application, the one made with wrong oath and afterward without any attempt to come clean with his attempt to violate the law of TNP on RA admission was still in process at the moment after it was overlook by the Speaker.

No reason has been given for the refusal of his RA application other than actions long past. There has been no suggestion that his oath made on 14th July was not made in full sincerety and complete honesty.
Click to expand...

http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/single/?p=8035632&t=6802095

In the absence of any suggestion that my client is a current threat against the region, and given the fact that he has not currently been proved guilty of any crimes, I ask that the Chief Justice direct the Speaker of the Regional Assembly to approve my client's admission to the Regional Assembly, pending the result of my client's trial.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the court case in progress, John Ashcroft Land no longer have a nation in TNP. (http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/single/?p=8035594&t=633979) As cuch, tt would be a violation of the law to accept him into the Regional Assembly.
 
His first application, the one made with wrong oath and afterward without any attempt to come clean with his attempt to violate the law of TNP on RA admission was still in process at the moment after it was overlook by the Speaker.
Click to expand...

So in other words, if my client had delayed correcting his oath for an hour until after you had denied his jocular application, there would have been no problem?

it is bureaucratic inflexibility gone mad to stonewall my client on this technicality.


My client's original jocular oath was quickly corrected with an admission that it was made in jest. Many WA applications have been corrected in the past without this insistance on accepting only the original application.

As regards whether my client can constitutionally be regarded as a MEMBER nation, I have addressed this issue elsewhere and can happily direct the Chief Justice to that argument.

Article II Section I of TNP allows for the speaker to refuse applications where there is "Intelligence information provided to the Speaker" to question eligibility for membership. Is there suggestion that my client was ineligible for membership? If so, please could the speaker present it either here or in camera.

In fact, the real reason for the stonewalling of my client's application to the RA is contained in Felasia's own post: "combining with previous aggression against TNP constitution".

As argued above, innocence until proven guilty should not allow this to be used as a reason to block a current RA application.


As regards the status of my client's nation, I will make sure this is corrected next time I see him online.
 
So in other words, if my client had delayed correcting his oath for an hour until after you had denied his jocular application, there would have been no problem?

it is bureaucratic inflexibility gone mad to stonewall my client on this technicality.

My client's original jocular oath was quickly corrected with an admission that it was made in jest. Many WA applications have been corrected in the past without this insistance on accepting only the original application.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about "if" situation here. It is what actually happen that should be the base of all decision.

Your client's oath was corrected about 16 hours after it was made. During that time, your client have spoken with me through IRC and was ask on issue connected to the oath in regard to his location of WA nation which he failed to notify at first. Your client then quickly provided me with his WA nation, but fail to notify me of his unlawful oath which in my opinion indicates some sincere attempt to follow through with unlawful application and violation of the legal code of TNP.

3. The Speaker will work with the forum Administrators and any Intelligence information provided to the Speaker, to ensure applicant compliance with membership eligibiliy.
Click to expand...

In combination with previous action conducted by your client (Which was provided to me by the Administrator as intelligence.), this is a ground for refusal of his membership and is done after consultation with administrator of this forum.
 
Please could you provide the name of the Administrator of this forum who influenced your decision to block my client's RA application. It will be my intention to call them as a witness in the trial.

This forum has four administrators: Hersfold, Gross, Eluvatar and Ator people. Which of them was it?
 
As Flemingovia well knows, the Hersfold account is controlled by an admin designated to act as root admmin since Hersfold's retirement from Nationstates several years ago. At the current time, I am the designated admin to control the root account, since Flemingovia's retirement as admin of the forum and from the region some months ago.
 
Well first of all i cannot give a decision with consulting with the other Justices and only give a recommendation but i will like to hear both sides so the court can give a decision
 
While I was aware of the fact Gross mentions, I have been out of TNP for some time - in that interim Hersfold could have returned and resumed control of his account. I thought it best to include his name just in case
 
FALCONKATS:
Well first of all i cannot give a decision with consulting with the other Justices and only give a recommendation but i will like to hear both sides so the court can give a decision
Click to expand...
I thank Falconcats for his attention to this important matter. I believe both the defence and the Speaker have addressed this, so perhaps you have specific questions or issues on which you desire clarification?

In essence, the defence maintains that the speaker was unconstitutional in her blocking of my client's RA application (an application she admits that she had already handled in a most incompetent manner), and that this decision should be subject to judicial scrutiny and, hopefully, overturned.
 
Just a point of clarification, I'm a guy.

And I don't believe my incompetence and oversight on your client's application (which is quickly corrected with the denial of membership after it was notified to me) is a legal justification that can be use here to allow your client to join the Regional Assembly.

I respectfully ask that the court understand the danger of JAL's action and quickly resolved this matter so that the trial on his past action against TNP can be continue.
 
My apologies at the gender mistake.

The main point in my post above was not that the blocking of my client's RA application was incompetent, but that it was unconstitutional.

The reasons given by the speaker and the AJ have been.

1. His earlier "jocular" oath was the one refused.

Yet this oath, made in jest, was quickly corrected as soon as the joke was made.

The defence contends that the Jocular Oath should be seen by the court as the joke it was, and that it is treated in the same vein as we treat Felasia's header on the region's IRC accout (quoted below, bolding and underlining mine) as unworthy of the court's consideration, let alone a drawn out and complex trial.

2. His previous "crimes" against the region.

Yet under the principle of "innocent until PROVEN guilty", this should not have been a hindrance to his RA application. He has not, at present, been found guilty of ANY crime in this region. Even if he had, there are many who have been rogue delegates or supporters of rogue regimes who have never been put on trial, have been admitted to the RA without qualm, and who have gone on to illustrious careers in TNP. My client seems to be singled out for persecution.

3. His application proved a security threat to the region.

No evidence of this has been put forward. Should he truly have designs against the region at present, he would hardly have drawn attention to himself by posting the jocular oath for all to see. We repeat our request that evidence of JAL's PRESENT threat to the region be laid out before the court.



Flemingovia
For the Defence

QUOTE FOR INFORMATION: FELASIA'S IRC HEADER:

Welcome to The North Pacific Chat. | The official forum is: http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP | The Map is http://map.thenorthpacific.org/ | Join us on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-North-Pacific/179097305462419?v=info | In need of Coup.... it's tradition! Topic set by Felasia!on Wed Aug 3 09:35:24 UTC+0100 2011
Click to expand...
 
1. His earlier "jocular" oath was the one refused.

Yet this oath, made in jest, was quickly corrected as soon as the joke was made.

The defence contends that the Jocular Oath should be seen by the court as the joke it was, and that it is treated in the same vein as we treat Felasia's header on the region's IRC accout (quoted below, bolding and underlining mine) as unworthy of the court's consideration, let alone a drawn out and complex trial.
Click to expand...
To compare a post made in an official forum and topic for application to the Regional Assembly which are made with the applicant's full intention of going thorough with the application until it was pointed out with an IRC head of #TNP, made after the following chat is a mockery of common sense.

QUOTE FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE EVENT FROM TNP IRC
[14:28] <+GMT> that's a whole crew of fine men
[14:28] <+GMT> and ladies
03[14:55] * Retrieving #tnp modes...
03[14:55] * Felasia changes topic to 'Welcome to The North Pacific Chat. | The official forum is: http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP | The Map is http://map.thenorthpacific.org/ | Join us on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-North-Pacific/179097305462419?v=info |'
[15:17] <+GMT> put smth funny in it for a change
[15:17] <+GMT> like "Flem has pink pjs"
03[15:28] * Felasia changes topic to 'Welcome to The North Pacific Chat. | The official forum is: http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP | The Map is http://map.thenorthpacific.org/ | Join us on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-North-Pacific/179097305462419?v=info | In need of Coup.... it's tradition! :P'
[16:48] <+Eluvatar> D:
[16:49] <+GMT> lol
[16:49] <+GMT> bravo Fel
[16:49] <+GMT> that is funny
[16:49] <+GMT> i still think that Flem has pink pjs though
Click to expand...
I would like to noted that the next time, I would just go with GMT suggestion.

2. His previous "crimes" against the region.

Yet under the principle of "innocent until PROVEN guilty", this should not have been a hindrance to his RA application. He has not, at present, been found guilty of ANY crime in this region. Even if he had, there are many who have been rogue delegates or supporters of rogue regimes who have never been put on trial, have been admitted to the RA without qualm, and who have gone on to illustrious careers in TNP. My client seems to be singled out for persecution.
Click to expand...
The constitution doesn't specified that crime must be committed for application to be denied but that the Administrator and the Speaker are allow to investigate and ensure each applicant eligibility which include an agreement to obey the law of TNP. Your client behaviors is of suspicious to the Admin and the Speaker as he have conducted an action that is not in the interest of TNP twice and in his application, make an incorrect oath without any attempt to correct it when it was overlook by the Speaker even when during the time between his first post and Blackshear's post that notified me of the incorrect oath, he and I were in discussion on IRC about his WA nation name for the application?

Rogue element was never singled out during my term as Speaker. Unibot, a part of JAL's latest coup, was accepted during my term.

3. His application proved a security threat to the region.

No evidence of this has been put forward. Should he truly have designs against the region at present, he would hardly have drawn attention to himself by posting the jocular oath for all to see. We repeat our request that evidence of JAL's PRESENT threat to the region be laid out before the court.
Click to expand...

I'm simply confused by your post. His attempt to violate the legal code of TNP by posting a wrong oath and proceed with the application which is an official application until he was caught in the act by others is not enough for his action to be at least of some suspicious?

Especially when during the time between his first post and Blackshear's post about the oath, he and I were in discussion on IRC about his WA nation name for the application?
 
It is sort of the point of a joke that you wait for people to get the joke, rather than pointing it out yourself.

My point in mentioning the IRC header is that the header is not serious; my client's oath is not serious. One is treated as a laugh; the other is treated as high treason.

There are double standards at work here, when the jocular oath should have been laughed off. TNP is in danger of making itself a laughing stock by taking this seriously, and I hope that the court will tell the speaker to lighten up and stop making mountains out of molehills.

For the court's information, I do not and never will, wear pink pyjamas. I sleep as nature intended, in the nude. Should the court require photographic evidence this can be supplied, in a brown paper envelope. But I will need to know why the speaker and GMT are so interested in my sleeping attire.
 
It is also important to know when and where to make a joke.

While I would have been laughing if this was made in IRC or even in game section of this forum, it isn't. I have an obligation to my duty as Speaker to investigate and ensure that the Legal Code and the Constitution of the North Pacific is protected, especially in the matter related to the Regional Assembly.

While I may like JAL, I'm obliged to ensure that the legal code is followed.

Oh, and it's entirely GMT. I have absolutely no interest in getting anything from you except for more rapping.
 
I think it fair to point out that the difference between a good speaker and a jobsworth is that a good speaker knows the constitution and legal code, but ALSO knows when to apply common sense.

I put it to the court that blocking my client's RA application was simply an overzealous and inflexible application of the regulations, which should never have happened, let alone his arraingement on charges of high treason.

Gross, the Admin in question, is well known and respected for his contribution to the legal framework of TNP. But this is one occasion when the speaker should have replied to him "good grief - get a life."
 
Well after reading all of the reply that were written on both sides I cannot give a decision without the other justices input and it is my belief that both sides have valid arguments and I am willing to stay hearing opening arguments on Tuesday the 23th if agreeable by both counselors
 
Your honour, defence will abide by your decision but I do not believe keeping the hearing open will add too much to the discussion. Both sides seem to have made their case, unless the prosecution can come up with actual evidence that my client is a current threat to the region?
 
Your honour, I am happy to report to the court that my client, on his return from holiday, has swiftly returned his nation "the Poo Dynasty" to the shores of the North Pacific, thus removing this obstacle to his admission to the Reigonal Assembly.

My client is very pleased to have this opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty to the region, and should the court require it he will happily repost his loyalty oath, as many times as is necessary.
 
Your Honour, now that trial day is here the defence would welcome some guidance as to how you wish this hearing to proceed?
 
your honour, it is now nearly 8:30pm, forum time, and the defence has been waiting since first thing this morning for hearings to begin, on the schedule set by the court.

Might we respectfully enquire when the hearings will start? Or has the decision been made to abandon these rediculous charges against my client?
 
I would like to make the following addendums before this case can proceed, if I may Chief Justice?

I would like to request that the Prosecution submit any evidence to the Justices what made the Speaker and the Administrator in question consider JAL a security threat to The North Pacific.

I also would like to request that any discussions or requests to the the justices or from us be done in this thread, not on the #tnp IRC channel. The #tnp channel is an informal semi-active gathering of feederites and related friends and is not a place for important legal/government matters to be discussed, particularly court cases, when not everyone has access to IRC.

I am also requesting that the prosecutor disclose who was the admin, or who was the admin that controlled the admin account in question that reviewed the evidence with the Speaker?

Mr. Chief Justice Falconkats, whenever you are ready to discuss the case with me and Topid, our chambers are ready I suppose?
 
FALCONKATS:
ok if no arguments from the prosecution are supllied i will make my decision on tuesday
Click to expand...
YOur Honour, A decision regarding the legality of the actions of the Speaker regarding my client's RA application was promised over a fortnight ago.

May I press you and ask what the decision is?
 
The Chief Justice is still reviewing the case. We also haven't decided if we're going to rule here or rule in the current trial.
 
Could we formally request a timetable on when this decision will be reached? It was promised on 23rd August, and i do not think there are more arguments to be heard on either side. This is not so complex a case that it takes over a fortnight to consider the matter. :ermm:
 
Thank you for that clarification. I fear this will greatly complicate the trial.

THe charges against JAL are historic: THey refer to things he did months ago.

The refusal of JAL's RA application was on the grounds that he was a present security threat to the reigon. Although no evidence of this at all has been supplied, despite repeated requests.

Am I to assume that the scope of the trial is to be expanded to consider the present threat my client is alleged to be to the region? Or can we assume that when he is found not guilty in his trial he will be admitted to the RA and the supposed "Present threat" will be overlooked?
 
In the charges the prosecution specified a clause of Law 28 which the Attorney General hopes the Court will evaluate.

If the Court finds that the defendant is in contravention of the Law 28 clause, then the defendant may not be admitted. If the Court finds they are not in contravention of it, I would expect that the defendant would be admitted to the Assembly post haste.
 
IN the trial law 28 is being used with respect to actions my client is alleged to have done months ago.

this does not constitute a PRESENT threat to the security of the Region.

Refusal of a RA application is on the basis of a present threat, not on the basis of "we do not like what he did months ago."

Several time the prosecution has been asked the simple question: "Where is the evidence that JAL presents a current threat to the security of TNP?"

Perhaps it is time for the prosecution to produce such evidence, or admit it never actually existed.
 
The decision has been made. Both issues will be dealt with in the case at hand.

*bangs gavel* Adjourned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top