The North Pacific v. JAL

Eluvatar:
OOC: Apologies for the delay, was doing manual labour all day.

The Prosecution objects to the objection to Exhibit E!!

The law against Sedition makes no mention of "Delegate," and Blue Wolf II was the elected Vice Delegate. The prosecution intends to argue that the message in question was seditious in nature. The Act says:

[quote="TNP Law 22: Enumeration of Prohibited Acts]Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

By sending a multitude of messages asking nations to unendorse the Vice Delegate, assisting in the continued tenure of an illegal delegacy, the prosecution will argue that the defendant was performing sedition.

The Prosecution had not yet posted an opening statement as it anticipated that Discovery would not be uncontentious. It is as yet unclear what may be mentioned in this opening statement.[/quote]Your anticipation is not relevant here Eluvatar. You agreed to a deadline and the Court is waiting for your opening statement Eluvatar. You had more than 72 hours since the original deadline was posted.

and Flem, I believe the court had already decided on how the court is going to proceed, did it not?
 
Actually, nope it has not. The court has ussued several contadictory statements.

Both issues will be heard together....
the issues will be heard seqentially...

All I am asking is in what order the complaints will be heard. And the defence petitions that the issue of my client's denial of RA membership is heard first.

There is a simple logic to this: The result of the prosecution of my client may well prejudice my client's complaint concerning his RA membership.

The result of my client's complaint is not going to influence his trial, since the prosecutors case rests entirely on matters that took place months ago.

Simples.
 
exhibits a-f entered as evidence with no objections
Click to expand...

My ruling on Exhibit E is Sustained and will not be able to be used as evidence but Exhibit A,B,C,D and F will be entered as evidence with no objections.
Click to expand...

ON re-reading these statements seem to be self contradictory. Can the chief justice clarify his ruling on Exhibit E?
 
Since the prosecution has missed the deadline set by the court, can I ask what the response of the justices will be?

from the defence bench it appears that the prosecution is running this trial rather than the justices.
 
that exhibit e cannot be using during the trial and the charges will be defended and prosecuted during this trial so please can we start on the opening statements or i will have a ruling. the court's patients is run very thin.
 
May it please the Court,

Eleven months ago, the defendant acting under the name "Durkadurkiranistan II" illegally seized power in the region through the use of illegal sedition and lies against an inactive delegate. Following this, the defendant stood against constitutional democracy in the North Pacific and this Constitution and proceeded to forcibly ejected hundreds of our fellow nations.

Today, the defendant seeks to join the Regional Assembly. He telegraphs his intentions by ostentatiously promising not to abide by our constitution. His counsel tells us that we should be lenient, that we should forgive and forget. The office of the Attorney General agrees with our Speaker that the defendant is dangerous and we hope that the Court will agree.

Oh but so-and-so was also a rogue delegate, and they are not barred from the Regional Assembly, one might suggest. To that, the prosecution asks that one recall the civil war with the Crimson Court. Many of our fellow nations supported the Crimson regime for a time, and it was decided by the Delegate that collectively as a region we would be best served by reconciliation. Therefore, Great Bights Mum informally declared amnesty for the Crimson Court's supporters. This includes Gracius Maximus (Imhotep). This includes Dalimbar. The scope of this forgiveness was sweeping, precisely because there were so many who had supported Lewis and Clark's regime. That is precisely why the amnesty was made. The defendants actions were made far later, and without any legitimate grievances against the government. It is a clear line to draw.

If, however, the prosecution's explanation of why trials have not been held for other undemocratic delegates seems insufficient, the Attorney General's office lastly notes that it has not received Complaints about any other former tyrants. The Attorney General's office is not tasked with proactive investigation, that is a task for an internal intelligence agency or similar organization.

Having covered why the defendant is distinct, let us explore what crimes he has actually committed.

Firstly, by seizing the Delegacy without being empowered to do so by either an election or a decision of the Security Council, the defendant violated all of the Constitution's rules on the Delegacy. The Constitution specifies that the Delegate will be elected, that the Vice Delegate will serve in their stead when necessary, and that the Security Council may delineate a further chain of succession for continuity of governance. Exhibit A shows the weeks when the Defendant held the Delegacy last year. The defendant's capture of the delegacy is described in the defendant's own words, in Exhibit B. In Exhibit C, we see discussion of how the seizure took place, and how it "cant be called anything other than a coup." (Dyr Nasad Oct 2 2010, 01:44 AM Post #13) In Exhibit D we also see discussion of the election, how the defendant did not update the WFE to reflect the winner of the election, and an allusion to the violence the defendant inflicted on the region. In Exhibit F, we again see mention of how Flemingovia was elected Delegate and yet the defendant began his ejection spree.

While the Bill of Rights clause 11 allow for emergency action "consistent as practicable" with the Constitution, in order for the defendant's actions to have been emergency action he would have had to have "express consent" of the region's nations, and he proudly tells us he had no intention of acting "consistent as practicable" with the constitution: the defendant says he wanted to replace (undemocratically, one might note) the government with a "more democratic" one, and yet he goes on to state that he threw out that idea in favor of seeking "to make the largest mark possible while I still could."

The defendant's delegacy was illegal.

Secondly, an explicit charge is made of sedition, on the means by which the defendant seized the Delegate seat. The Defendant describes in Exhibit B that "I countered with an unendorsement telegram of my own, and Ermarian's endorsement count plummeted by 20-25 endorsements." -- a clear confession to an intentional attempt to incite revolt within the region "The North Pacific" in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Finally, in ejecting hundreds of nations, the defendant used force. TNP Law 28 specifies that "3. Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific." The prosecution asks the Court to affirm that the defendant's unsanctioned use of force makes them ineligible for membership in the Regional Assembly.

Thank you and good night.
 
FALCONKATS:
that exhibit e cannot be using during the trial and the charges will be defended and prosecuted during this trial so please can we start on the opening statements or i will have a ruling. the court's patients is run very thin.
Click to expand...
Exhibit E excluded from the prosecution's arguments under protest.
 
FALCONKATS:
that exhibit e cannot be using during the trial and the charges will be defended and prosecuted during this trial so please can we start on the opening statements or i will have a ruling. the court's patients is run very thin.
Click to expand...
So Mr. Flemingovia, does that answer your question ?
 
please can the defence have a clear statement that we will be hearing the charges against my client BEFORE the court rules on the matter of my client's rejection from the regional Assembly?

I believe the defence has made a clear argument why the order should be the other way round and would be interested to hear why this cannot be.

I fear this trial will severely prolong the denial of my client's entry into the RA, curtailing his human rights.

I thank the Chief Justice for the clarification concerning exhibit E.
 
Your honour, despite the bench's clear ruling on this matter the Prosecutor's opening statement once again bundles together the two issues - the rejection of my client's RA application and his supposed actions against the region 11 months ago.

Please could the prosecutor be reminded that we are considering these two matters seperately?

Concerning the detail of his opening statement:


Eleven months ago, the defendant acting under the name "Durkadurkiranistan II" illegally seized power in the region through the use of illegal sedition and lies against an inactive delegate. Following this, the defendant stood against constitutional democracy in the North Pacific and this Constitution and proceeded to forcibly ejected hundreds of our fellow nations.
Click to expand...

Objection. The proseuctor states as fact what this hearing is to determine.

His counsel tells us that we should be lenient, that we should forgive and forget.
Click to expand...

Objection. Prosecution is putting words into the defence mouth. We can make our own case, thank you.

Attorney General agrees with our Speaker that the defendant is dangerous
Click to expand...

Onjection. The description of my client as "dangerous" is perjorative. Under discovery the prosecution has given no evidence at all that my client IS dangerous, only that he once WAS dangerous.

In addition, the Speaker has been called as a witness, and the prosecutor is leading the witness.

Therefore, Great Bights Mum informally declared amnesty
Click to expand...

Objection. This court is concerned with legal issues, not informal amnesties.

The defendant's delegacy was illegal.
Click to expand...

Objection. The prosecution presupposes the outcome of this trial. That is for the justices to decide.

Thank you and good night.
Click to expand...

The bench may wish to have a word with the prosecution about flippancy. this is not vaudeville.
 
flemingovia:
Your honour, despite the bench's clear ruling on this matter the Prosecutor's opening statement once again bundles together the two issues - the rejection of my client's RA application and his supposed actions against the region 11 months ago.

Please could the prosecutor be reminded that we are considering these two matters seperately?
Click to expand...
The prosecution addressed the matter of the TNP Law 28 clause in a separate paragraph of its opening statement. The Court has decided to hear all these matters in one context, and the prosecution will abide by its decision.

flemingovia:
Concerning the detail of his opening statement:


Eleven months ago, the defendant acting under the name "Durkadurkiranistan II" illegally seized power in the region through the use of illegal sedition and lies against an inactive delegate. Following this, the defendant stood against constitutional democracy in the North Pacific and this Constitution and proceeded to forcibly ejected hundreds of our fellow nations.
Click to expand...

Objection. The proseuctor states as fact what this hearing is to determine.
Click to expand...

It is an introductory summary. The prosecution relates how the evidence we have provided incontrovertibly shows its veracity, however.

flemingovia:
His counsel tells us that we should be lenient, that we should forgive and forget.
Click to expand...

Objection. Prosecution is putting words into the defence mouth. We can make our own case, thank you.
Click to expand...

I apologize, your opening statement did not quite say outright what I thought it had. You certainly do note that other illegal or rogue delegates have been forgiven, and oppose, as you state it, the singling out of your client, however.

flemingovia:
Attorney General agrees with our Speaker that the defendant is dangerous
Click to expand...

Onjection. The description of my client as "dangerous" is perjorative. Under discovery the prosecution has given no evidence at all that my client IS dangerous, only that he once WAS dangerous.

In addition, the Speaker has been called as a witness, and the prosecutor is leading the witness.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of public record that the Speaker made the complaint which initiated these proceedings.

As to danger, it might be instructive to remember the proverb "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

flemingovia:
Therefore, Great Bights Mum informally declared amnesty
Click to expand...

Objection. This court is concerned with legal issues, not informal amnesties.
Click to expand...

By informally the prosecution merely means that the words "declare" and "amnesty" were absent from the declaration of amnesty. May it please the court to review said declaration here. "No Crimson Order member shall be prosecuted for his actions. They were seeking to build a better TNP. It is, after all, what we all want."

The defendant's delegacy was illegal.
Click to expand...

Objection. The prosecution presupposes the outcome of this trial. That is for the justices to decide.
Click to expand...

In its opening statement, the defense concedes:

Defense's Opening Statement:
From time to time he [the defendant] has also committed grievous wrongs against this region, which have made us bitter opponents. The prosecution has used these past wrongs as the basis of their charges against my client.

The defence denies none of these historical accusations. The past actions of my client are matters of public record.
Click to expand...

Which is it? Does the defense merely argue that the Attorney General is unfair or does the defense revise its earlier statement as to the facts?

Thank you and good night.
Click to expand...

The bench may wish to have a word with the prosecution about flippancy. this is not vaudeville.
Click to expand...

Do you want your figgin toasted?
 
Your honours may also wish to remind the prosecution that objections are made to the bench, and it is for the justices to respond to them.

Unless the justices have abdicated their place and the Attorney General is running the trial now as well as conducting the prosecution?
 
REQUSTING a sidebar of councils please lets keep the question and the statement from the prosecution to the issue at hand the first issue that is on hand is only the charge of the rejection of the defendant RA application the defense objection is sustained.
 
I thank your honour for clarification that the first issue at hand is the legality of my client’s Regional Assembly application. Defence is happy to limit discussions at this time to that issue.

The openness of membership of the Regional Assembly is one of the proudest traditions of the region. To the surprise of those from other regions, TNP often admits members to the RA with only a post or two on the forum, or who (as the prosecution admits) have formerly partaken in coups against the region. Many nations who once posed a threat to the region have gone on to illustrious careers in TNP. In fact, my learned opponent, the Attorney General, has been a beneficiary of such inclusiveness in the past.

Under our laws, admission to the RA is dependent only upon five things (Law 28, article 1):

First, having a nation in TNP.
Second, posting the oath.
Third, refraining from threat against the region
Fourth, refraining from interference in the actions of the NPA or NPIA.
Fifth, refraining from the use of a proxy server.

The defence submits as evidence this extract from the TNP legal code:

Section One

Membership in The North Pacific Regional Assembly does not require UN membership, in accorance with the TNP Bill of Rights. However, the following requirements must be met and confirmed for membership.

1. Assembly member applicants must maintain a nation in The North Pacific.

2. Each member Nation will by oath, abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.

3. Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.

4. Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or Intelligence Agencies, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet.

5. The use of a proxy server by an applicant for Regional Assembly member status is grounds for automatic denial of Regional Assembly member] application.

a. Proxy server usage is defined as the use of an IP connection with the intent of rendering a forum user anonymous, aka proxy spoofing, or any such practice designed to allow a member to have multiple accounts on the TNP forum.
Click to expand...

The defence asks the court to note that there is nothing in the laws of TNP concerning PAST actions against the region. There is nothing in the legal code about speculation concerning the nation’s motives for making application.

All applicants are subject, before approval, to a security check. To prevent government abuses this too is carefully outlined in our legal code:

In Article 2, section 1 we read:

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...

Your honours, I was director of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency for some years, and an administrator of the forum for many years. I took part in many, many vetting processes. I can state that in all that time no application was denied without concerns about IP address, multiple applications to the RA (often when a member forgot they were already a RA member) or intel evidence that the individual posed a clear and present threat to the region. In the issue of applications to the Regional Assembly the vetting by the Speaker is simply to ensure that the membership criteria are fulfilled.

Concerning my client, all of the membership criteria were in order. He posted what has been known as “the jocular oath”, but this was quickly corrected. He had a nation in TNP. He used no proxy server. He made no serious threat against the region, as I am sure the Speaker will concede. When one seriously wants to coup a region, they do not announce it in their RA application.

The Speaker and the prosecution have repeatedly been challenged to provide any evidence that my client proved a present threat to the region. History is irrelevant, under the laws of TNP. Present threat is the issue.

No evidence has ever been produced, and requests by both defence and justice Govindia have been ignored. Defence is perfectly happy for the evidence of clear and present danger to the North Pacific to be given to the court in camera. The defence urges the justices to demand such evidence from the prosecution, because the basis on which my client’s RA application was denied is crucial to this case.

Your honours, the basis of our region's laws is innocence until PROVEN guilty. Denial of my client's RA application presupposed his guilt, his sinister motives, and was a vindictive retribution for his past actions as delegate. in punishing my client for past acts, the speaker took upon himself the perrogative of the court, and has sought through the court to povide a veneer of legal justification for his unconstitutional action.

Defence asks the court to overturn the rejection of my client's RA application, preferably backdated to the time of application.
 
On the question of admission of the defendant to the Regional Assembly, it is clear that the defendant violates the requirements.

Firstly, ejection is the one action in NationStates which is most clearly and unequivocally force. The defendant ejected thousands of nations. The defense does not appear contend that the defendant did not use force. Nor does the defense contest that these ejections were unsanctioned.

What the defense does contest is that TNP Law 28's requirement applies to past indiscretions. One might ask, what then would the meaning of clause 3? If the use of force only makes one ineligible during the actual use of force, this clause is never applicable. Even seconds later, the action would be "in the past" and "not current. Of course, the defense argues that in the past, applications have only been denied for being a clear and present danger-- but none of these denials were under clause 3. Clause 3 clearly is not about threats to North Pacific security per se. It enjoins against threats or use of force "against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region" -- clearly, as the law states "other nation or region" it is not limited the way the defense appears to indicate.

It is absurd to suggest that a law cannot apply to the past. The most reasonable argument one could make might be that the requirement applies only while the nation is in the Assembly; but of course, the defendant was an Assembly member when he committed his crimes.

Finally, to the defense's contention that the non-approval of the defendant's application was illegally extrajudicial, the prosecution draws the Court's attention to TNP Law 28 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3, "3. The Speaker will work with the forum Administrators and any Intelligence information provided to the Speaker, to ensure applicant compliance with membership eligibiliy.". The Speaker is explicitly empowered to enforce Law 28.

Thank you.
 
In considering this matter the court enforces the laws of TNP as they exist, not how the prosecution might wish they had been written.

I take the above statement by the prosecution to mean that the government officials had, and have, no evidence or witnessses of current threat from JAL to the region. Therefore their case depends on the interpretation of LAw 28 clause 3.

The problem for the prosecution is that the clearest reading of this clause, like the other clauses in that section, is that it refers to current conduct, not past actions. It does not read "never having used force...." or "never having acted in a manner inconsistent with the constitution..."

The prosecution wishes the court to believe that the law could not possibly refer to current threat, so must refer to past actions. Let the defence help the prosecution understand with this simple scenario:

A hypothetical raider organisation (let's call them the Green Chickens) decides that the easiest way to take TNP would be by infiltration, given the low level of RA membership. They instruct 12 of their members to move a puppet into TNP and apply to join the RA, thinking that at the next election this bloc will swing the delegate election to one of their own candidates. They would then legally control the delegacy. One of the applicants lets the plot slip, and raises suspicion. Further investigation unveils the plot, and their application to the RA is denied. The Green Chickens are foiled.

That is a clear and valid use of clause 3, and refers to current, not historic, threat.

in short, this court is concerned with the law as it is written, not what we might wish was in the law.

I will repeat the request made earlier: the defence requests the court to instruct the prosecution to produce the actual evidence it has that JAL poses a current threat to the region. I am sure we would all like to see it - if it exists.
 
It would be a violation of procedure to introduce any evidence at this stage. You know very well that no evidence that fits the criteria you have sought out is forthcoming.
 
I thank my honourable friend. I am sure it will speed this court's processes immeasurably to learn that there is absolutely no evidence that my client poses a current threat to the region.
 
The prosecution has presented seven pieces of evidence. Six of them have been accepted by the Court. As we are no longer in the Discovery stage of procedures, the prosecution would be in contempt of court if it were to introduce any new evidence or witnesses.

The prosecution looks forward to cross-examining the Defense's witnesses.
 
The defence requests that the court subpoenas the first witness: Limitless Events.

Since Limi is banned from this forum we request that the court grant him temporary permission to post.
 
Administrative note: the user "Limi" was already masked with access to posting here. The user "Limitless Events" is banned.
 
I thank the court. Limi, please could you give a brief outline of your history with this region, and the reasons why your access to the forum is so curtailed?
 
Objection, Irrelevant!

Under the Court Rules of Evidence and Procedure at Trials or Hearings Rule 5B,
Rules:
B - ‘‘Relevant evidence’’ means evidence that is material to the issues of the case, that is, the evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the ultimate action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Click to expand...

A broad history of the activities of Limitless Events has nothing to do with whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, it has nothing to do with whether he is in breach of Law 28's requirements.
 
Your honours, in opening statements the defence gave both the name of this witness and the reasons for calling him:

The defence intends to call two witnesses to demonstrate that the North Pacific does not always act in a fair way, devoid of personal animosity. We ask the court to call to the stand Govindia, who has been barred from the North Pacific’s irc channel. We also ask the court to call Limitless Events, who has been barred from this forum and from the Regional Assembly. These witnesses do not have a direct bearing on this case, but their testimony will prove that justice in TNP is not always even handed.
Click to expand...

Defence accepts that the calling of Govindia has been ruled out, but no objection was raised at the time to the calling of Limitless events, or the reasons for the calling, by either the prosecution or the bench.

It is a little late now to be raising objection.
 
flemingovia:
I thank the court. Limi, please could you give a brief outline of your history with this region, and the reasons why your access to the forum is so curtailed?
Click to expand...
In October 2006 I was serving as MoIIA who was charged with overseeing RA membership. At the time TNP was in a state of "war" with The Lexicon, a war that I saw as pointless. I decided that I would try for delegate in the upcoming elections and make one of my goals to end this conflict. I knew I did not have enough support within the region and so looked to The Lexicon for support. I brought my idea of being delegate to the Lexicon High Council, providing them with a list of IPs I received from a LWU Intel forum as a means of gaining their trust. I then began to use my position as MoIIA to admit Lexiconians into the RA until Shoeless Joe provided the information I gave to The Lexicon to TNP at which time my account was banned and my IP at the time banned by flemingovia removing all access to the forum. At the time I declined having a trial because of things happening in RL at the time.

Fast forward a couple months later and I came back to the region and onto the forum using an easy to spot proxy under the name Activini where I proceeded to endotart and run an unendorsement campaign against GBM who was delegate at the time at one point having DEN troops sneak into the region to make Emperor Matthius delegate for a brief period of time. I then decided to leave TNP alone due to RL reasons.

Fast forward to May 2010 when I came back to the forum as a guest and noticed that I could actually view the forum. I then decided to see if I could register an account and to my surprise I was able to not knowing at the time I was using a different email than my old account which for some reason I registered using my MSN email and not the standard one I use for NS. I at no point attempted to hide my identity using a name associated with me and using nations easily identified with me in my subsequent RA application.

The RA application I mentioned above was accepted without question by then Speaker Dyr Nasad. The only admin to contact me was Elu informing me that flemingovia had noticed I was back and that while I had not been banned yet there was the potential to be. I reapplied for RA membership in mid July and was accepted in by default due to the then Speaker Grimalkin not responding to my application for 14 days. I then left once more following the debacle of elections held one year ago.

I came back most recently in mid March and once again applied to the RA, even having the RA mask at the time, but this time was told no because the admin team told Speaker Felasia that I was still banned despite the fact that I'm freely able to access these forums and post in them. I was the given the Citizens mask by Grosseschnauzer and told I could appeal the decision to all the admins but chose not to as there were 2 admins and 2 mods at the time and I felt that half of them held a bias against me which would result in an automatic failure of my appeal.
 
Given your experience of TNP would you describe the government processes in the region as even handed, without prejudice and fair?
 
flemingovia:
Given your experience of TNP would you describe the government processes in the region as even handed, without prejudice and fair?
Click to expand...
That is a tricky question to answer, but overall I'd have to say no it isn't.

GBM ejected the nation of Activini illegally, and while the nation in question was seeking to subvert her rule as delegate due process was not followed. Was she ever put on trial? No, charges were brought forth by the Minister of Justice but were quickly dismissed under the guise of no office holder can be impeached after their term in office is over despite the MoJ never asking for her to be impeached anywhere at any point in the discussion.

For reference the topic I speak of can be found at: http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/topic/632723
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top