Govindia's ban Article VI Section 2 review

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
Govindia May 14 2012 04:08 AM:
I am formally filing a complaint against Blue Wolf II.

He has violated the Constitution and possibly the Legal Code in that roughly a few hours ago, I was banned from the region for no reason.

My nation, Ramaba, is not in the WA and I have violated no laws, nor have been convicted of a crime worthy of banishment.

I am also not a security threat.

I am requesting the ban be overturned and BW be prosecuted for his actions.
Click to expand...
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8048256&t=6797872

I have determined that this Complaint should have been filed with the Court and not the Attorney General's office, since it seeks review of an ban or ejection by the Delegate. The Court has first and primary jurisdiction under Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution.

Should the Court desire the opinion of this office, once the parties (Govindia and Blue Wolf) and amicus file their statements on the matter, then we will try and provide our opinion; this office has not conducted any more than a quick overview of the matter at this point and are not yet prepared for expressing an official position. We would be as interested as the Court would be for the actual evidence on the matter, and not hearsay, which is all we've seen, as well as needing an explanation of the legal basis the Delegate acted, which we've not seen.
 
I must object. This proceeding can not happen without the presence of a full Three-Person Court, currently we only have two Justices. Until a third can either be appointed or election, I motion for this proceeding to be sidelined until one of those two things occur. To follow through before that happens would open this entire review to potential bias not to mention be in total violation of the law.
 
I said the hold would be temporary. Former Justice Mahaj will be the third member of the Court for this case. All interested parties may file a brief within the next 48 hours.
 
I believe the tradition is for the accuser to get the first word in while the accused gets the last. Gov has accused me of wrongly banning him so it is only right he speaks first. I, for my part, have no interest in justifying my actions against a silent accuser. However, if Gov makes an "11 hour" speech I would request additional time to respond. If the 48 hours expires without a brief being submitted, I will stand to take questions from any of the presiding Judges but I will not issue a formal brief without knowing what laws I supposedly violated when the puppet Ramaba was banned.
 
Actually, if it pleases the Court, perhaps the Delegate might enlighten us as to the actual basis in the law, and the facts he contends, support his act of banning and ejection. And I would suggest that, in this case, the actual accuser is the Delegate, Blue Wolf, and not the nation that was ejected who is seeking review of the Delegate's action.
I'm sure the Court and the Attorney General's office would both be interested in having that explanation first.
 
I finallly now have access to the Internet, albeit via 3G Android phone <_<.

As I indicated elsewhere, I am in the process of moving, and that I will be on sporadically. As my computer is packed up, the only way I can access things for the moment is via my phone and public computers.

If BW is indeed dropping the accusations, then I expect him to remove my nation from the banlist and issue an apology for his inappropriate behaviour immediately.
 
Well, Gov is the one who says I violated the law by banning him so I'm waiting to hear from him to see what laws I supposed broke. I'm not really sure how I'm going to defend my actions when I don't know what I supposedly did wrong.
 
Your honour, Blue Wolf is found in violation of the following provisions of the Bill of Rights:

5. 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 acts.
Click to expand...

This was a flagrant abuse of power as I violated no laws in this region that warranted an ejection and banning from the region, nor did I violate any RMB policies that would have also warranted banjection.

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
Click to expand...

Your honour, I was not charged with any crime, nor convicted, nor sentenced by a Court of Law to a punishment that warranted the delegate to banject me. In short, his behaviour was disproportionate to anything I have done.

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. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

There was no declaration at all, nor was there any declaration that I was a security threat. I am a loyal member of the Army and as my WA is not in TNP it does not pose any security threat to any member of the Security Council, which includes the Delegate and the Vice Delegate.

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...

By refusing to be accountable and transparent in his administration, including when banning me, he has violated this provision in that he engaged in this inappropriate and illegal action without first notifying me or bringing me to court.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

In engaging in this behaviour he has in fact disregarded the Constitution, specifically also the following:

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.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it show I violated regional laws, as all nations are innocent until proven guilty. I have not been charged with any crime, nor have violated NS rules, and BW did not inform the Government or the region of my ejection in a timely manner.

In doing so he is in violation of the Constitution with his behaviour. I once again, demand that BW be appropriately punished for his actions, my nation reinstated without haste into the region so I can return to the Regional Assembly as my membership should be, and a formal sincere apology given to myself and to the region from Blue Wolf.
 
The Court will now discuss this matter. Also when a deadline is set it will be kept. I extended the deadline twice to allow for comment both parties had plenty of time to submit a brief.
 
One observation from the AG:

The Bill of Rights applies to all nations resident within The North Pacific. There's a pinned thread with the Court's opinion on what constitutes "residency" and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution applies to all resident nations; contrawise, those provisions and protections do not apply to non-residents.

Govindia's nation in TNP was a resident nation, and there has been nothing to suggest otherwise at the time of the ejection and banning. The CTE matter, in fact, can be used to demonstrate that Govindia is a resident, in that as soon as the nation was revivied, it was returned to TNP. Such an act is consistent with the intent to be and remain a resident of TNP.
 
If you wrote it, I doubt I will learn much of anything from it.

In any case, if it will please the Court, I would like to point out that Mahaj's nation has recently CTEd. I request the Court appoint a new third member for this review as Mahaj is now ineligible to serve.
 
Your Honours, it is clear BW violated the law as I indicated. He has failed to follow the deadline and clearly has no arguments as he knows I did nothing wrong to warrant removal from the region.

I hope the court can recognise my claims as reasonable and legitimate.
 
Please do not comment further in this thread until the Court has reached a decision. I have approached someone to replace Mahaj so the Court can get a ruling on this matter delivered.
 
Actually, it won't be from that; Blue Wolf would have a conflict of interest since he was the Delegate whose action is under review by the Court.
 
HAng on ... I have thought of a loophole.

according to adopted rules, it is only a conflict of interest if the Chief Justice decides that it is a conflict of interest. So all we need is for the CJ to declare that there is no conflict of interest, and we can get on with things.

Boom shaka laka. See what happens with much gin? everything is possible.
 
Flem misread the rule, or read it too quickly:
A - Whenever, due to conflict of interest, unavailability, or other cause, the Chief Justice (or the Associate Justice with greatest seniority in the case of vacancy, absence, or unavailablity of the Chief Justice) determines it appropriate, a hearing officer shall be promptly appointed to preside for a particular proceeding.
Click to expand...

The Cheif Justice determines whether its appropriate to appoint a hearing officer, not whether there is a conflict of interest.
 
Hileville:
Earth and Scanigrad are appointed as Temporary Court Officers to hear over this case.
Click to expand...
I object to Earth being a Court Officer over my case. She has personal bias towards me stemming from personal issue from other regions and I do not think she can review this case with proper levels of impartiality and fairness.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem misread the rule, or read it too quickly:
A - Whenever, due to conflict of interest, unavailability, or other cause, the Chief Justice (or the Associate Justice with greatest seniority in the case of vacancy, absence, or unavailablity of the Chief Justice) determines it appropriate, a hearing officer shall be promptly appointed to preside for a particular proceeding.
Click to expand...

The Cheif Justice determines whether its appropriate to appoint a hearing officer, not whether there is a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
So who does determine whether there is a conflict of interests or not? Because at the moment Govindia seems to be calling the shots. I think it obvious that this ought to be the call of the Chief Justice.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I wonder if there will be a judge left that can serve.
Click to expand...
I am happy to serve, if called upon. My impartiality and even-handedness is famed throughout Nationstates.

indeed, I hold an honourary degree in impartiality from the department of Objectivity in the University of Fairness in the region of Neutrality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top