Outside comment on the JAL case

[Grosseschnauzer]

Yesterday, 7:10 AM Like many others Eluvatar has fought against the constitutional government of TNP. His action was during the Lexicon war, and has been freely acknowledged by him:

Eluvarar


I was a footsoldier in the early attempts to fill TNP with endotarts and try and take the delegacy. These attempts failed. I also made a bunch of nice-looking pictures for the Lexiconian side as propaganda: I have put them available for you to look at here



This sounds to me very much like using force in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the North Pacific.

My point, made at various points in the trial, is that if a player can be barred from the RA because of actions against the region long past, for which they have never been tried and for which they have never been convicted, then a significant number of RA members should never have been admitted. This includes several in high position in the region.

MY client has been singled out - largely for political reasons. Felasia and Gross decided that my client was guilty and a present threat.
All the defence has asked, throughout the trial is "show us the EVIDENCE of that threat." Otherwise you have no intel or evidence but just instinct, guesswork and "Schnauser senses"

And that is not enough to block a legitimate RA application.

I see the situation differently

Any act prior to the adoption of the current Constitution cannot be prosecuted due to the statute of limitation that was in effect under the last Constitution.

On the other hand, acts since the current Constitution was adopted have to be adjudged under what is prohibited under the current governing documents of TNP. There are differences in language and perceptions. There is no statute of limitations in the current system.

Off the record, and as I said in one of my post in response to questioning, the Speaker does have authority to make a judgment in the context of an RA application, but that decision is subject to a judicial review proceeding. Whether the current case is such a review is hard for me to know since this was started as a criminal complaint and not as solely a judicial review. I would have handled the whole thing differently as a criminal proceeding and a judicial review proceeding have different procedures and different standards, and it seem to me this case somehow got them combined.

 

[Flemingovia]

yes, but since JAL has not been convicted of any crime nor (until now) accused of any illegal act in the court, the statute of limitations does not apply.

You need to distinguish between act and guilt. Actions are a matter of historical record; guilt is a matter of legal decision.

Both JAL and Eluvatar and many others have, in the distant past, taken action against the government of TNP. NEither have been (until now) accused in court or put on trial. But only JAL had his RA application blocked.

This is a political trial, designed to provide a shred of legal justification for a damn fool action by Felasia which was, pretty much, contrary to the bill of rights and constitution.

 

[Eluvatar]

yes, but since JAL has not been convicted of any crime nor (until now) accused of any illegal act in the court, the statute of limitations does not apply.

You need to distinguish between act and guilt. Actions are a matter of historical record; guilt is a matter of legal decision.

Both JAL and Eluvatar and many others have, in the distant past, taken action against the government of TNP. NEither have been (until now) accused in court or put on trial. But only JAL had his RA application blocked.

This is a political trial, designed to provide a shred of legal justification for a damn fool action by Felasia which was, pretty much, contrary to the bill of rights and constitution.

Use of force in a manner not sanctioned need not be against the government.

While 2006 is significantly further into the past (five times further) than 2010, you have a point. A weak one, I believe, however. I didn't actually eject anyone from the North Pacific illegally. I did however gather a large number of endorsements. It's not as clear that that is force. Certainly, there are bill of rights provisions to consider with regard to the right to endorse, and the right to political speech.

The way we have handled endorsement gatherers, historically, makes this a point of some confusion as well. Was Kitabo (Mr Gaunt) sanctioned by the Constitution in gathering hundreds of endorsements? Certainly he was tolerated, even encouraged, to hold them. Perhaps we can consider intent, and I freely agree that in 2006 my intent was in fact to seize power in a manner unsanctioned by the constitution of the time; in order to convoke a constituent assembly to write a new one

 

[Flemingovia]

Use of force in a manner not sanctioned need not be against the government.

yes, and "Hello beautiful. What's a supermodel like you doing in a seedy bar like this?" does not have to be a chat up line .... but it generally is.

 

[Govindia]

Grosse, who was the outside comment from in the first post?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I wanted to make some comments outside the trial thread, that's all and that meant a separate thread.

 

[Flemingovia]

So gross, what is the connection between JAL banning nations a year ago and his applying to join the RA now. I have been on this trial for months and I still do not see the connection.