Peanut Gallery, et. al. comments from Criminal Complaint

Greater Peterstan

Greater Peterstan

TNPer
As this trial has become a matter of regional interest (perhaps because it is a slow month), I thought I would give this thread another close read.

Can I ask a stupid question? What, exactly and precisely, are the criminal charges against JAL? (ie. What specific, written laws, existing at the time of the offense, were actually broken?)

I've read the various versions and accounts of the events themselves, which are certainly fascinating, but I don't think the charges have actually been expressly written in this thread - which is pretty odd given the advanced state of court proceedings. (timetables, witness lists presented, etc.)

Again, not expressing an opinion about the validity or invalidity of the charges, but I believe that clarity and transparency is in the public interest.
 
There ought to be plenty of time for a clear and specific reading of the charges.

Here is the original accusation, truncated for clarity:

Durkadurkiranistan II of course illegally seized the Delegacy and ejected hundreds of innocent nations without warning, notification, or cause ... John Ashcroft Land broke his Regional Assembly oath when he did these actions ...and he has not been charged with these crimes in our courts
Click to expand...

So, matching these accusations against the part of the criminal code or constitution should be no big deal, right? I'm a newbie, so a look through the Docs will do me good. Let's take a tour, shall we?

Bill of Rights:

6. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such act.

...

8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...

No, that can't be it - the prescribed consequences here are recalls and judicial reviews, not a criminal trial.

Hmmm ... What about the Constitution?

Article VI: Ejection and Banning

Section 1: Use of Ejection and/or Banning

1. Ejection and/or banning from the region The North Pacific may be prescribed as a punishment for violations of regional laws. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.
2. The Delegate is permitted to eject and/or ban violators of NationStates rules without prior or further consultation from the Government.
3. The Delegate is required to eject and/or ban Nations and/or Players that have been sentenced in the Courts to be ejected or banned from the region for breaking regional laws.
4. The Delegate is to inform the region and the Government of all ejections or bannings carried out in a timely manner.
5. The Delegate, in carrying out these duties, must maintain an adequate level of regional influence.

Section 2: Legal Recourse

1. In the case where a Nation feels that their banning or ejection was unwarranted, they may appeal their case to the full three-person Court that shall have the power to overturn the Delegate's ruling and order the unbanning of the nation.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... It seems to me that a delegate WOULD have the authority to eject members (and I don't really see anything that requires "warning" or "notification"

Of course, there is the possibility of appeal. But that is no indication that ejecting nations - even arbitrarily - would consititute a crime, as such. So I guess that leaves, "Illegally seizing the Delegacy".

I don't see anything, specifically, about that at all. Sure- elections are prescribed - but who gets to be delegate seems to me to be part of NS gameplay mechanics, not TNP law - certainly no written law that I can find.

So I guess that leaves this breaking the oath. Which we have established does not actually exist in written law. I DID read something interesting about that in the bill of rights:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code...
Click to expand...

AND

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

So ... I ask again (begging forgiveness and patience), on what basis is this criminal proceeding moving forward?
 
By my understanding the matter at hand is not charges against JAL, those were filed but I have not seen any indication the AG has acted upon them. The motion made was by JAL himself, to have the rejection of his application to the RA reversed.
 
Greater Peterstan:
Hmmm ... It seems to me that a delegate WOULD have the authority to eject members (and I don't really see anything that requires "warning" or "notification"
Click to expand...

Constitution:
4. The Speaker of the Assembly, and the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall each be elected to 4-month terms.
Click to expand...

JAL is not "The Delegate". The Delegate is a lawfully elected official from an election by Regional Assembly. He was not elected to the position and can't be lawfully characterized as WA Delegate.

Greater Peterstan:
Of course, there is the possibility of appeal. But that is no indication that ejecting nations - even arbitrarily - would consititute a crime, as such. So I guess that leaves, "Illegally seizing the Delegacy".
Click to expand...

Legal Code:
TNP LAW 22
Enumeration of Prohibited Acts

The following acts shall be illegal for Nations of The North Pacific, in both the NationStates region "The North Pacific" and on the off-site forum, unless specifically specified otherwise.

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 and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Seizing the delegacy from lawful and elected delegate which are a part of the government = overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific

Does the answers satisfied your concerns on the question of criminal charges against the defendant?
 
Technically, JAL didn't seize the delegate seat from a legal and lawfully elected delegate, in actuality he took the seat from Groovistan, who had surpassed the legally appointed delegate Ermarian just a day before (because Ermarian was completely inactive and had allowed his endorsements to drop to a dangerously low level).

You can be cross with him for his actions after taking the delegate, but you really can't claim he took control from a lawful and elected delegate because Groovistan was never elected, appointed, or even part of the government in any way.
 
JAL wasn't authorized to take the Delegacy under the Constitution.

More recently, the original version of the oath he most recently posted in the R.A. membership application thread was not in compliance with the prescribed oath. (It was not worded in the prescribed manner stated in Law 28.) That's the violation. Whether his amendment later was in good faith or not or nullified the violation, or whether he even posted the oath in good faith at all, is what is at issue. If JAL is found to have violated Law 28, or that the posted oath was not in good faith compliance, then the rejection of the application was proper, and leaves the question of whether he is entitled to apply in the future (since his sincerity about the oath in the future would be in question.)

That's what everyone is dancing around, but that's what involved in clear cut black-and-white.
 
Technically, JAL didn't seize the delegate seat from a legal and lawfully elected delegate, in actuality he took the seat from Groovistan, who had surpassed the legally appointed delegate Ermarian just a day before (because Ermarian was completely inactive and had allowed his endorsements to drop to a dangerously low level).

You can be cross with him for his actions after taking the delegate, but you really can't claim he took control from a lawful and elected delegate because Groovistan was never elected, appointed, or even part of the government in any way.
Click to expand...

He was also not authorized to passed over Ermarian endorsement counts and he refuse to step down after Delegate (Flem, I think?) was elect.

Regardless though, his action afterward can be categorized as Treason since he did undermine and overthrow the lawful government of The North Pacific by establishing another unlawful government on his own forum. (another violation of the constitution on official forum)

Anyway, we should stop and let the court rule on this. I just want to refute the claim that there is no legal ground for charges against JAL.
 
Your Honours, I have no idea (genuinely) quite what a Peanut Gallery is, but i am posting to say that the day set for the opening of the trial is here, and the defence counsel is present.


edit: I have looked up peanut gallery. Thank you google.
 
This thread demonstrates the confusion I want addressed, and relegating me to the "peanut gallery" hasn't made your own court procedures more open and transparent.

However, since the expression originates with hecklers throwing peanuts at sub-standard vaudeville acts, it is strangely appropriate, and I'll wear it with pride.

As a member of the RA I have every right to observe and ask questions related to the free, fair and open implementation of the constitution and legal code.

On the one hand we hear:

Seizing the delegacy from lawful and elected delegate which are a part of the government = overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific. Does the answers satisfied your concerns on the question of criminal charges against the defendant?
Click to expand...

Actually, NO. Because on the other hand we hear:

More recently, the original version of the oath he most recently posted in the R.A. membership application thread was not in compliance with the prescribed oath. (It was not worded in the prescribed manner stated in Law 28.) That's the violation.
Click to expand...

What is the story - just keep throwing shit at the wall until you find a piece that manages to stick?

It is NOT too much to ask for someone in an official capacity to read the official goddamn charges against a defendant, when the goddamn trial is about to goddamn begin. It is a basic tenant of an open and transparent goddamn legal system. Even rapists, murderers and war criminals are afforded that right.

Presenting the specific charge in hand, with enough evidence to proceed against that specific charge should be the first goddamn step in the process - not something that members of the public (let alone a representative of the Regional Assembly) should have to search for, or beg for.

Again, I have no opinion (or interest, truthfully) in the guilt or innocence of JAL or anyone else. But if the case is so "black and white", read the damn charges that the defendant faces, and then get on with the job of proving your case.
 
The trial had net begun yet so I'm unsure why you are so upset with the lack of evidence when the prosecutor have yet been allow to present it in accordance with the court procedure. It is the duty of the court to decide if the evidence is sufficient to prosecute the defendant or not.

As for the charges, this are the charge I think you ask for. I take it from the first post by Eluvatar.

It has been brought to my attention that John Ashcroft Land, leader of the Poo Dynasty, was also leader of Durkadurkiranistan II. Durkadurkiranistan II of course illegally seized the Delegacy and ejected hundreds of innocent nations without warning, notification, or cause.

John Ashcroft Land broke his Regional Assembly oath when he did these actions, and in this post he describes them and his motivations in detail, under the name "The Poo Dynasty". Recently, John Ashcroft Land reapplied to the Regional Assembly, listing his nation as "The Poo Dynasty".
Click to expand...

I think it's treason.
 
Mr. Peterstan, firstly, please watch you tone and show some civility in the court area.

Secondly, do not assume.

Thirdly, I had split the topic because the thread was getting off topic and people like you, who were not involved in the case and was just observing, was interfering with court business.
 
First of all, apologies for letting my emotions get the better of me in this esteemed court. However, this is a response to having my basic and legitimate questions and concerns ignored, marginalized and stonewalled; and seeing many of the established powers circle their wagons on this issue.

The trial had net begun yet so I'm unsure why you are so upset with the lack of evidence
Click to expand...

I'm not, nor ever were, upset by the lack of evidence. The quality of the evidence is for the court to decide. I'm upset by the fact that there hasn't ever been a clear and specific articulation of the charges, clearly referenced against the legal code that defines the crimes.

As in ... JAL is charged with breaking this law: _________________________________________________________

Which is articulated in this part of the legal code: _______________________________________________________

I'm certain that at least some of the accusations leveled against JAL ARE in the legal code (although finding some of others is difficult). But that isn't the point.

For the fair and transparent administration of justice to take place, the accused (and their defense team) needs to know specifically what the charges are. Simply crying, "Treason!" or "Oath-breaking!" doesn't meet that standard.

The public needs to know too. The right to this information is articulated in several places in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I had split the topic because the thread was getting off topic and people like you, who were not involved in the case and was just observing, was interfering with court business.
Click to expand...

The only thing that I'm interfering with is your ability to play fast and loose with the Bill of Rights, Constitution and the Legal Code. Due process is guaranteed in TNP and an official reading of the specific charges by a Crown or District Attorney is an important part of the process. This is Law 101 in a free and democratic society.

It has become clear to me that there are lots of people around here that are so committed to "getting" JAL, that they're willing to take all kinds of shortcuts to get there. I don't know him, and his crimes here were before my time, but no criminal is worth circumventing due process.

Indeed - this the exact opposite of best practice for high-profile cases. In high-profile cases you should make double sure that all of the I's are dotted and T's are crossed, and that due process is followed to the letter. Otherwise, your high profile criminal will walk on a technicality, or on appeal.

I have never said not to pursue JAL, or anyone else who has committed a crime against the TNP. By all means, go get him. But live up to the highest standards of fairness and transparency while doing so, or cede your positions to those are willing to.

Monitoring and commenting on the actions of this court is my right as a Citizen, my responsibility as a RA member, and my pleasure as a Member of the Peanut Gallery.
 
I think it's great that you pursue your agenda; especially when it's related to the law of the region and the right of each nations so I see no problem with your posts so far.

This post by the prosecution is the charges against JAL. It is to my satisfaction on the question of the clarity of the charges and it is my hope that this will answer a lot of your concerns over the situation.
 
The post by the AJ gives the charges under which the accused is being prosecuted. I think we can all agree that it does not give the reason why he is being prosecuted.
 
Circular Argument. He is accused because he is accused.

Are you saying that the reason for his being put on trial right now is not to give a veneer of legitimacy to the rejection of his RA application?
 
flemingovia:
Circular Argument. He is accused because he is accused.

Are you saying that the reason for his being put on trial right now is not to give a veneer of legitimacy to the rejection of his RA application?
Click to expand...
The Attorney General suggested that it would be appropriate to let the court judge the question, yes.

If the Court rules in the defendant's favor on all counts then surely he will be admitted.
 
Are you saying that the reason for his being put on trial right now is not to give a veneer of legitimacy to the rejection of his RA application?
Click to expand...

The decision on his RA membership was already made before the event. I have no concern over it's legitimacy and I also believe that you have already petitioned the court to review my decision on his RA membership so it is a separate case.

Unless of course, the defense counsel is afraid that he will be unable to prove the defendant innocence and is instead trying to sway this into a smear campaign against the prosecutor and the person who file the charges?
 
Felasia:
The reason for the accused being prosecuted is that he is accused of committing those crimes.
Click to expand...
(1) Is there no burden of production in the North Pacific, (2) This is circular and rests independently on groundless evidence,
 
Greater Peterstan:
I had split the topic because the thread was getting off topic and people like you, who were not involved in the case and was just observing, was interfering with court business.
Click to expand...

The only thing that I'm interfering with is your ability to play fast and loose with the Bill of Rights, Constitution and the Legal Code. Due process is guaranteed in TNP and an official reading of the specific charges by a Crown or District Attorney is an important part of the process. This is Law 101 in a free and democratic society.

It has become clear to me that there are lots of people around here that are so committed to "getting" JAL, that they're willing to take all kinds of shortcuts to get there. I don't know him, and his crimes here were before my time, but no criminal is worth circumventing due process.

Indeed - this the exact opposite of best practice for high-profile cases. In high-profile cases you should make double sure that all of the I's are dotted and T's are crossed, and that due process is followed to the letter. Otherwise, your high profile criminal will walk on a technicality, or on appeal.

I have never said not to pursue JAL, or anyone else who has committed a crime against the TNP. By all means, go get him. But live up to the highest standards of fairness and transparency while doing so, or cede your positions to those are willing to.

Monitoring and commenting on the actions of this court is my right as a Citizen, my responsibility as a RA member, and my pleasure as a Member of the Peanut Gallery.
Click to expand...
I think you are not understanding. For threads like the complaint thread and trial threads, those are places where OFFICIAL COURT BUSINESS is conducted.

That means, anyone else not involved in the case, is the peanut gallery, and should post elsewhere to not interfere with court business. It is not interfering with your regional constitutional rights. It's keeping order and professionalism.
 
Order and professionalism? When even the jusices are not sure how many charges, or what charges, JAL is accused of? Order and professionalism when two hearings have been conflated into one with no guidance as to how the different issues will be unravelled? Order and professionalism when the court sets dates, promises judgements, then ignores the dates? Order and professionalism when Govindia, for God's sake, is left to mind the shop while the Chief Justice disappears for days on end.

please define order and professionalism. I am having trouble recognising either in this case.
 
Heh, well order and professionalism has never been the strong suit of yours and your client's.

I think Gov is right on here, if people want to discuss what the court is doing there is no reason it has to be in the same thread as official business. There is no harm in a 'discussion' thread in the same forum, though calling it a discussion thread might have been more widely understood.
 
A law adopting statutes of limitation and repose was adopted by the R.A. under the previous Constitution, but that law was among those that were repealed as part of the adoption of the current Constitution.
 
Topid:
Heh, well order and professionalism has never been the strong suit of yours and your client's.
Click to expand...
I am not sure to what you are alluding. I have never been a justice in TNP (as far as I remember). The defence has, I think, so far conducted itself with due professionalism in this trial.
 
Felasia:
Are you saying that the reason for his being put on trial right now is not to give a veneer of legitimacy to the rejection of his RA application?
Click to expand...

The decision on his RA membership was already made before the event. I have no concern over it's legitimacy and I also believe that you have already petitioned the court to review my decision on his RA membership so it is a separate case.

Unless of course, the defense counsel is afraid that he will be unable to prove the defendant innocence and is instead trying to sway this into a smear campaign against the prosecutor and the person who file the charges?
Click to expand...
Under TNP law it is not for the defence to prove the accused's innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove his guilt.

A minor correction, but an important legal point.
 
flemingovia:
Topid:
Heh, well order and professionalism has never been the strong suit of yours and your client's.
Click to expand...
I am not sure to what you are alluding. I have never been a justice in TNP (as far as I remember). The defence has, I think, so far conducted itself with due professionalism in this trial.
Click to expand...
I don't think your snippy, almost snobbish, flippant attitude here would be considered "professionalism"
 
Ah, but this is a peanut gallery. Here I kick off the shoes.

Believe me, I have put a lot of time into preparing the defence brief. There are serious issues here concerning the government of TNP, and I have not attempted at any point in the trial to be flippant.

As far as the "snobbish" goes, I think here we may be facing a cultural issue. The British middle class (guilty of that) tend to be a little more formal in speech than some other races, and I am (probably) at least a generation older than most of the posters on this forum. That may make for a certain formality in my speech. However much I am down wit de yoof of today, blood, it does not come naturally to me.

In my defence, I was brought up watching Perry Mason on TV. When I post in the trial thread I think WWPD: "What would Perry do?"
 
I'm well aware of how formal the British middle class is, I'm Indian and we carried many of your speaking mannerisms still you know ;)

Still, your earlier post above did come off that way.
 
Govindia:
I'm well aware of how formal the British middle class is, I'm Indian and we carried many of your speaking mannerisms still you know ;)

Still, your earlier post above did come off that way.
Click to expand...
In which case, I apologise. That was not my intent.
 
This is just.... stupid. What a crock of a trial. How could you bunch of douche-canoes elect the two most incompetent ass-hats of all time as Justices?

Speaking of the Justices, why are ALL OF YOU presiding over this trial? And why is a Justice allowed to rule on an issue that DIRECTLY affects him (re: Gov denying flem's intent to call him as a witness)? Conflict of interest, anyone? Anyone? And why...why...

Dear Lord, you people make want to go kick a puppy.
 
Grimalkin:
This is just.... stupid. What a crock of a trial. How could you bunch of douche-canoes elect the two most incompetent ass-hats of all time as Justices?

Speaking of the Justices, why are ALL OF YOU presiding over this trial? And why is a Justice allowed to rule on an issue that DIRECTLY affects him (re: Gov denying flem's intent to call him as a witness)? Conflict of interest, anyone? Anyone? And why...why...

Dear Lord, you people make want to go kick a puppy.
Click to expand...
If you're going to post here, please do so in a civil manner. Please refrain from such outbursts in future. Thank you.
 
Do something about it, you little pissant.

And in case you were wondering, you are one of the asshats. The trial has barely begun and you've already shown how incompetent you are as a justice. Really, both of you should watch a little less Law and Order.

You still didn't answer me, though. Why are all of you presiding over this farce?
 
The people presiding over the trial are those the electorate in TNP have chosen as their justices.

vox populi vox dei.

They have chosen to preside jointly over the trial, which is a little confusing but at least means that delays are reduced.
 
Actually, considering that the prosecution has not actually produced any evidence to back up their accusations, other than to quote the constitution, the trial would be streamlined a lot if one of the justices was simply to rule that my client had no charge to answer with regard to his application to the RA, and we just got on with our lives.

There is a danger that this trial will do no favours to TNP's reputation in the wider world.
 
flemingovia:
Actually, considering that the prosecution has not actually produced any evidence to back up their accusations, other than to quote the constitution, the trial would be streamlined a lot if one of the justices was simply to rule that my client had no charge to answer with regard to his application to the RA, and we just got on with our lives.

There is a danger that this trial will do no favours to TNP's reputation in the wider world.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that by objecting to Exhibit E, you showed yourself to be aware of the evidence the prosecution submitted.

On the subject of the Regional Assembly membership, we disagree mainly not in a matter of fact but in a matter of legal interpretation. It would not be appropriate for the Court to judge that matter summarily, as it did with your objection to exhibit E.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top