Request for Judicial Review

[Belschaft]

From the Office of Belschaft, Attorney at Law, on the behalf of Mallorea and Riva​

If it please the Court, the Plaintiff hereby requests judicial review of the following questions;

1. Does the Government of The North Pacific and her court have the Jurisdiction to try individuals for actions commited outside of The North Pacific and her related off-site property?
   • The plaintiff notes that his client, Mallorea and Riva, is currently charged with the offence of treason in relation to actions committed in the region Stargate. Does The North Pacific have Jurisdictional Authority over Stargate, and if so;
     1. Is Stargate aware of this?
     2. Does The North Pacific posses Jurisdictional Authority in other regions other than The North Pacific, as well as Stargate?
2. Are non-citizens criminally liable for offences committed in breach of The North Pacific's Code of Laws?
   • The plaintiff notes that his client, Mallorea and Riva, is currently charged with the offence of treason in relation to actions committed whilst not a citizen. As a non citizen, is he criminally liable for breaches of the Codes of Laws? The plaintiff notes that when registering for RA membership you are required to 'take an oath, promising to abide by the Constitution and Legal Code of the North Pacific'. The plaintiff notes that his client has taken no such oath.

Edit: Because Flem is a spelling Nazi

 

[Hileville]

The Court will hear this matter. All parties interested may submit a brief to the Court within the next 48 hours.

 

[Flemingovia]

Who is Mallorrea and Riva? Should not a Counsel learn to spell the name of his client if he wants to be taken seriously?

And what is an Attoreny?

And finally, can I suggest that Belschaft look up the meaning of the word "Plaintiff" before he tries to get to grips with the TNP legal system. It is no place for lightweights.

 

[Belschaft]

Who is Mallorrea and Riva? Should not a Counsel learn to spell the name of his client if he wants to be taken seriously?

And what is an Attoreny?

And finally, can I suggest that Belschaft look up the meaning of the word "Plaintiff" before he tries to get to grips with the TNP legal system. It is no place for lightweights.

I thank the honourable administrator for pointing out my spelling errors. I am sure that they were a serious issue, and as such will be dealt with.

As for his suggestion that I look up the word Plaintiff, as stated on IRC, I have. I was using it correctly. I am the Plaintiff, having filed a complaint on behalf of my client.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

As this is also related to the Mall indictment, this also comes under the reference to the special prosecutor Earth

The North Pacific has an opinion pinned in this area for reference on the topics of "residency" and how that is determined in The North Pacific. The only basis for many of the procedural rights for the criminal defendant is that they were a resident of TNP.

 

[Belschaft]

I request a delay on submissions until such a time that I am able to view the legal archive and examine the precedent on this issue.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Pending a ruling from the Chief Justice, I will grant such a delay.

 

[Hileville]

Request Granted. The Court will continue to discuss these matters however.

 

[Hileville]

The Court will now hear these matters. All submissions must be in within the next 48 hours.

 

[FALCONKATS]

also here waiting

 

[Belschaft]

From the Office of Belschaft, Attorney at Law, on the behalf of Mallorea and Riva
______________________________________

Formal Brief Submissions to the Court​

Upon the matter of the first question;

Whilst Chapter One, Section One point One of the Codified Law of the North Pacific states that -

'"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 allies as governed by the Constitution.'​

- the issue of where The North Pacific posses jurisdictional rights is not defined. Whilst there can be no doubt that the Regional Assembly had good intentions when establishing a statutory duty to try individuals for aggressive actions against allied regions, in doing so it unilaterally attempted to assume legal jurisdiction over other sovereign regions without their informed consent. The plaintiff questions the constitutional legality of such action.

Whilst the legal jurisdiction of The North Pacific is not defined by any document known to the plaintiff, the following is the observed norm within NationStates;

1. The onsite region itself
2. The offsite forums of the region
3. Other related offsite property, such as a regional IRC channel

Whilst it is clearly a matter for the court, or the regional assembly should it choose to legislate upon this matter, to decide the precise nature of The North Pacific's legal jurisdiction, the plaintiff is of the opinion that such jurisdiction should be in keeping with the established norm.

Furthermore, considering that the courts ruling upon this matter will set the legal precedent that determines such, the plaintiff believes that it is the duty of the court to establish a conservative definition of The North Pacific's legal jurisdiction. The unilateral assertion of legal jurisdiction over other regions would be an unprecedented and contentious action, with serious repercussions for The North Pacific. The court should, therefore, establish a precedent in keeping with the established norms.




Upon the matter of the second question;

Whilst upon registering for membership of the Regional Assembly nations are required to take the following oath -

I, [forum user name], leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name), pledge loyalty to the region, to abide by its laws, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may immediately lose my voting privileges, permanently. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific​

- under the present system no other individual is required to take such an oath. The plaintiff notes that his client, Mallorea and Riva, currently under indicted for the crime of treason, has at no point taken such an oath, nor pledged 'to abide by its laws... no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific'. Nor, at this time or any other time, has my client been a citizen of The North Pacific. The plaintiff argues that my client cannot be tried for treason, as he is not a citizen of the North Pacific.

The real world definition of treason is, in short, the following;

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

All three of these place emphasis either on the breach of a trust, faith or confidence that one has established, specifically towards ones state. As a non-citizen does not posses such trust, faith or confidence they cannot, by the very definition of the word, commit an act of treason. The plaintiff does not deny that my client attacked an ally of The North Pacific. We deny that this constituted an act of treason; you cannot betray that which you have no loyalty to.

The regions delegate stated the following;

'I decided to err on the side of caution and consider you a citizen with rights'​

It is the opinion of the plaintiff that this action was fundamentally incorrect. My client has never, as stated above, expressed a desire or intent to be considered a citizen of The North Pacific. The assumption of intent made by the Delegate and Prosecution on the part of my client was fundamentally incorrect. Mallorea and Riva is not a citizen of The North Pacific. As such, he is fundamentally incapable of committing treason.

Spoiler: Eluvatar on Mall's status

[01:24] <Eluvatar> Mall: you were chatting rather than adspamming
[01:24] <Eluvatar> so I decided to err on the side of caution and consider you a citizen with rights
[01:24] <Mall> Elu what?
[01:25] <Eluvatar> (actually, I don't think it's an error at all)
[01:25] <Prince_Windsor> Did u get the update Eluvatar?
[01:25] <Eluvatar> I haven't logged into the Eluvatar forum acct yet
[01:25] <Eluvatar> will in afew hours
[01:26] <Prince_Windsor> ok
[01:26] <Bel> '[01:24] <Eluvatar> Mall: you were chatting rather than adspamming [01:24] <Eluvatar> so I decided to err on the side of caution and consider you a citizen with '
[01:26] <Bel> Please clarify Elu
[01:26] <Mall> Elu, meet my legal counsel.
[01:27] <Bel> Hi
[01:27] <Bel> I think we've met before, maybe?
[01:27] <Prince_Windsor> Oh, Hi Bel Welcome to TNP
[01:27] <Bel> Hey
[01:28] <Eluvatar> I see
[01:28] <Eluvatar> The decision indicates that various actions indicative of intent to reside in TNP count to make someone a resident.
[01:28] <Eluvatar> Posting adspam is not considered one.
[01:29] <Amland> hi people
[01:29] <Amland> i just lurked
[01:29] <Prince_Windsor> hey amland
[01:29] <Eluvatar> However, I don't see how discussing TNP policy viz-a-viz its allies, and suggesting different priorities, can be considered other than involvement in TNP if we are to make sure to protect the rights of all citizens. (residents being citizens by definition)
[01:29] <Bel> Hmm... so, what you are saying is that you made an assumption of intent on the part of my client?
[01:30] <Eluvatar> If your client were not a citizen and not a resident
[01:30] <Eluvatar> they would not be protected by the North Pacific bill of rights
[01:30] <Eluvatar> and I'd be free to remove them from the region without consequence.
[01:30] <Bel> That would be the basis of your claim of jurisdiction?
[01:30] <Eluvatar> I believe that is the interpretation of the court decision being cited.
[01:31] <Eluvatar> I chose to take the interpretation which was somewhat reasonable and which assured your client of rights.
[01:31] <Bel> But also made him liable for criminal charges
[01:32] <Eluvatar> Which can simply lead to him being barred from entering the region and participating in its government.
[01:32] <Eluvatar> TNP does not judicially IRC-ban or forum-ban so your client need have no fear on that account.
[01:33] <Bel> Hmm...
[01:33] * Bel nods
[01:33] * Bel is till pretty unfamiliar with TNP law, despite spending the last hour reading it all over and over
[01:33] <Eluvatar> I give you permission to quote my statements in this conversation and in conversation with Mall, so long as you quote them in full.

 

[Earth]

Formal Brief Submissions to the Court​

If it pleases the court, the prosecution moves that point 1 of the review, namely the jurisdiction of the court over matters in Stargate relies on an argument and interpretation that nobody except the Plaintiff has made. There is no claim for jurisdiction over another region, or other parts of NationStates, but over residents of The North Pacific. The prosecution is based upon the violation of a law passed by TNP, as stated in the initial filing of charges, namely the Treason Clause of the Legal Code.

2. "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 allies as governed by the Constitution.

As Stargate is defined as a "treatied ally" due to the Stargate Security Treaty, this clearly applies. The real life definition of treason has no place here, as that is not what is legally defined as treason in The North Pacific.

This prosecution has nothing to do with a claim of Jurisdictional Authority over Stargate and as such we move the first point of motion be dismissed.

Turning to the second point of the motion, questioning whether or not the crime of Treason can be applied to a non-citizen of TNP, the prosecution would point to Section 1.1 Clause 3 of the Legal Code:

3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

If you note the use of the word "nation" not "citizen" within this clause, it is clear that the legal code applies to all nations within the region, not only to those who have applied for citizenship, or taken an oath. As such we submit that it is within both the court and the delegate's power to order the ejection of a nation from the region should the crime of Treason be identified.

If that isn't enough, if you look at the Court Opinion on Residency, it clearly states: "The Bill of Rights, by its terms, protects those who are "resident" in The North Pacific. [...] Residency requires both presence and some act consistent with that Nation’s intent to remain and become part of TNP (as opposed to any other region)." It's clear to assume that by posting on the RMB as a member of TNP (I.E: contributing to the discussion on the RMB and keeping a nation in the region--both of which Mall was doing) that one consents to being treated as a resident of the region under which the law applies. Otherwise, if Mall is not considered a Resident, the Court has ruled: "Absent some legislative action that leads to a broader view of residency, then, a Nation which has not been a 'resident' of TNP is not protected under our Bill of Rights until and unless they become a 'resident' here. The answer to the first question, therefore, is 'None.'" (If that is what the belief is, then Mall is not guaranteed a trial in the first place, and is outside the jurisdiction or protection of this court.)

By taking arms against a treatied ally, one commits an attack on The North Pacific as defined by Treason.

Thank you.

 

[Belschaft]

The plaintiff wishes to point out to the prosecutor that the acts for which my client is indicted for occurred, in their entirety, within the region Stargate. If The North Pacific does not posses legal jurisdiction over said region, it cannot try my client for actions that occurred within it.

 

[Mall]

Following the Briefs submitted by Belschaft and Earth I would like to offer the following clarification surrounding many of the details which were neglected in the Brief submitted by the Special Prosecutor.

Formal Brief Submissions to the Court​

If it pleases the court, the prosecution moves that point 1 of the review, namely the jurisdiction of the court over matters in Stargate relies on an argument and interpretation that nobody except the Plaintiff has made. There is no claim for jurisdiction over another region, or other parts of NationStates, but over residents of The North Pacific. The prosecution is based upon the violation of a law passed by TNP, as stated in the initial filing of charges, namely the Treason Clause of the Legal Code.

2. "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 allies as governed by the Constitution.

As Stargate is defined as a "treatied ally" due to the Stargate Security Treaty, this clearly applies. The real life definition of treason has no place here, as that is not what is legally defined as treason in The North Pacific.

This prosecution has nothing to do with a claim of Jurisdictional Authority over Stargate and as such we move the first point of motion be dismissed.

As I have never been charged with any crimes in Stargate I must protest this statement, I am being charged for a crime which allegedly occurred in an entirely different region. Unless the region of Stargate has its government, in accordance with its constitution, find that I did indeed illegally usurp the delegacy how can TNP punish me for such actions? It must be noted that at no point did the Stargate government (or the government of TNP) contact the nation of Avir and request that it depart Stargate. In order to prove the charge of treason the prosecution would have to prove that the crime took place in Stargate, where TNP lacks jurisdiction.

Turning to the second point of the motion, questioning whether or not the crime of Treason can be applied to a non-citizen of TNP, the prosecution would point to Section 1.1 Clause 3 of the Legal Code:

3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

If you note the use of the word "nation" not "citizen" within this clause, it is clear that the legal code applies to all nations within the region, not only to those who have applied for citizenship, or taken an oath. As such we submit that it is within both the court and the delegate's power to order the ejection of a nation from the region should the crime of Treason be identified.

There are a few issues with that statement. It does not state that to have a nation in the region during such times constitutes an act of Treason, it merely states that one cannot have them in the region. It also does not state that the Court must then become involved in the situation. The question here is not whether or not I can be removed from the region, it is whether or not the Court can truly try me for the Crime of Treason. The second question that is raised is why you have oaths at all if all nations are automatically subjected to them against their will or knowledge.

If that isn't enough, if you look at the Court Opinion on Residency, it clearly states: "The Bill of Rights, by its terms, protects those who are "resident" in The North Pacific. [...] Residency requires both presence and some act consistent with that Nation’s intent to remain and become part of TNP (as opposed to any other region)." It's clear to assume that by posting on the RMB as a member of TNP (I.E: contributing to the discussion on the RMB and keeping a nation in the region--both of which Mall was doing) that one consents to being treated as a resident of the region under which the law applies.

It is important to note that the Prosecution has pointed out the entire reason for this review to be made, the fact that I had no intent to remain and become a part of TNP is unquestionable. Anyone who believes that I was intending to stay clearly did not read the comments on the RMB, and to anyone who thinks that I wished to become a part of TNP, why did I not sign up on the official forums until after these charges were lodged? I was there solely to see if I would be immediately removed due to my identity, just as I had previously had the nation in "European Union" to see if that founderless region would be warned about my presence. I had no intention of involving myself in The North Pacific. I am a noted raider who has never become involved in a Feeder or Sinker, and has throughout this process expressed his distaste for them. This is the lynchpin which proves that I am not subject to this Court, although it does raise the following interesting point.

Otherwise, if Mall is not considered a Resident, the Court has ruled: "Absent some legislative action that leads to a broader view of residency, then, a Nation which has not been a 'resident' of TNP is not protected under our Bill of Rights until and unless they become a 'resident' here. The answer to the first question, therefore, is 'None.'" (If that is what the belief is, then Mall is not guaranteed a trial in the first place, and is outside the jurisdiction or protection of this court.)

If I am indeed outside of the jurisdiction of this Court then it cannot lodge a charge of Treason against me. That authority then reverts back to the Delegate, who is incapable of declaring that I have committed Treason. He is merely capable of removing me from the region.

The points that the Court must keep in mind when considering this review are undeniable:

• 1) Regarding the actions of TNP and Stargate:
  • That the Governments of TNP and Stargate failed spectacularly during the Stargate "crisis" thereby failing to even inform the nation of Mall that such an act was Treasonous in their opinions and,
  • Stargate's Government at no point requested the nation of Avir to depart the region, nor has it even sought to bring charges against Avir for the actions that occurred in Stargate (indeed Avir has been invited to stay in the region).
• 2) I (Mall) had no intention of staying in TNP or becoming involved in the community. The RMB posts which have been pointed out prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. The Laws of TNP are clear, I am not subject to this Court.

 

[Hileville]

An extension has been asked for and granted until 23:30 EDT.

 

[Eluvatar]

With Earth's permission, I'm filing a rebuttal brief.

Rebuttal Brief Re: Belschaft et al filings on Jurisdiction

The defense counsel asserts a legal theory based on "interregional norms" which do not exist. The very home region states in its criminal code, black on white:

B. Crimes committed by users of this forum on the forum of another region of NationStates, in NationStates itself, or on any NationStates related sites shall be tried on these forums using the law of The South Pacific.

This recent bill is not however novel; The South Pacific has tried two of its citizens for actions committed well outside its borders. Specifically, Antarial was tried for acting against TSP's ally, The Pacific, under a pseudonym that never set foot in TSP and Unibot was tried for acting against the South Pacific Army (SPA) in Warzone Airspace.

Similarly, many regions have laws against forum destruction and promise to expel those who engage in it regardless of where the forum destruction takes place. TNP is a signatory to the COPS treaty under which Europeia prosecuted Rougiers in recent memory for forum destruction, despite said destruction not taking place in Europeia.

Historically, also, when NPA was a defender army in 2004-2006 this region considered acting against NPA operations abroad to be illegal and it was made clear to raider members who joined TNP that it would be illegal for them to oppose the NPA.

---

The defendant questions their citizenship status. It must be made clear that RA membership is not citizenship, nor do our laws apply exclusively to RA members. Under the court decision on residency, any nation that has acted as a resident is a resident and a citizen. I believe that means Mall must be judged one.

 

[Mall]

While I must express my minor disappointment that an extension was granted on such a generous time frame, I will acknowledge the following submission and offer my final rebuttal.

The defense counsel asserts a legal theory based on "interregional norms" which do not exist. The very home region states in its criminal code, black on white:

B. Crimes committed by users of this forum on the forum of another region of NationStates, in NationStates itself, or on any NationStates related sites shall be tried on these forums using the law of The South Pacific.

I will start off by pointing out that which is painfully obvious, this is not TSP and their norms are not relevant to this discussion in the slightest. Pressing onward:

This recent bill is not however novel; The South Pacific has tried two of its citizens for actions committed well outside its borders. Specifically, Antarial was tried for acting against TSP's ally, The Pacific, under a pseudonym that never set foot in TSP and Unibot was tried for acting against the South Pacific Army (SPA) in Warzone Airspace.

The interesting word that is used in the above is “citizen”. Both Antarial and Unibot have expectations surrounding their actions due to their activities and allegiances to their regions. These expectations were clearly broken by their actions, prompting their trials. It should also be noted that while I am not familiar with the case of Antarial, the attack of Unibot against the SPA is clearly a distinct action from attacking a region, namely that one constitutes an actual embodiment of a the home region, while the other is a sovereign entity. Of course, it should also be pointed out that TSP precedent is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

Similarly, many regions have laws against forum destruction and promise to expel those who engage in it regardless of where the forum destruction takes place. TNP is a signatory to the COPS treaty under which Europeia prosecuted Rougiers in recent memory for forum destruction, despite said destruction not taking place in Europeia.

And where did it take place? What were the details surrounding this action? By failing to submit a full brief that explains in details the arguments within (arguments which would attempt to cause a very significant precedent to be established), the Delegate has failed to truly inform this Court of anything. Once more, I can again point out that Europeia is not TNP. These legal precedents are from sovereign entities, unless the Delegate is trying to claim that TNP should simply follow the precedents set by other regions.

Historically, also, when NPA was a defender army in 2004-2006 this region considered acting against NPA operations abroad to be illegal and it was made clear to raider members who joined TNP that it would be illegal for them to oppose the NPA.

These actions occurred under a previous constitution, and as I have been told by this very Court such precedents are no longer relevant and cannot be called upon. If I wished I could call upon Goobergunch to regale us with a tale from 2004 in which Cathyy declared him to be a Persona Non Grata, only to have such an attempt rejected on the grounds that TNP authority did not extend to non-citizens.

---

The defendant questions their citizenship status. It must be made clear that RA membership is not citizenship, nor do our laws apply exclusively to RA members. Under the court decision on residency, any nation that has acted as a resident is a resident and a citizen. I believe that means Mall must be judged one.

The court only needs to ask itself one very simple question to determine this matter: Does a person who comes into a region saying that they will coup the place, and to a degree mocking the Delegate really seem like the kind of person who wants to stay and become involved? Especially when this person then brags about invading an ally of that region? The answer is clearly no. As I explained in my above brief, my intentions were clear. The Delegate has failed to address my two main points I offered, and instead has chosen to go back through history in an attempt to prove a point. Through this smokescreen however, one thing remains clear: I am not, by any standard be it TSP, Europeia, or even TNP in nature, a resident or citizen of this region. Any argument to the contrary is an argument which claims to state that I wanted to become a working, productive member of TNP. I am an active raider who has no interest in the Feeders or Sinkers. Leave me be so that I may get back to work in the world of UCRs, where my true interest lies.

 

[Hileville]

Thanks to all those who submitted briefs. Also as I didn't formally announce it an extension was given to allow Mall to rebut the last brief submitted by Eluvatar.

The Court will now convene in private to decide upon this matter.

 

[Belschaft]

Whilst the time for submissions has lapsed, I must point out a couple of glaring inaccuracies in Eluvatar's submission;

This recent bill is not however novel; The South Pacific has tried two of its citizens for actions committed well outside its borders. Specifically, Antarial was tried for acting against TSP's ally, The Pacific, under a pseudonym that never set foot in TSP and Unibot was tried for acting against the South Pacific Army (SPA) in Warzone Airspace.

Neither Antariel or Unibot were tried by TSP. Both faced impeachment charges relating to Gross Misconduct in Office, and resigned.

 

[Hileville]

Whilst the time for submissions has lapsed, I must point out a couple of glaring inaccuracies in Eluvatar's submission;

This recent bill is not however novel; The South Pacific has tried two of its citizens for actions committed well outside its borders. Specifically, Antarial was tried for acting against TSP's ally, The Pacific, under a pseudonym that never set foot in TSP and Unibot was tried for acting against the South Pacific Army (SPA) in Warzone Airspace.

Neither Antariel or Unibot were tried by TSP. Both faced impeachment charges relating to Gross Misconduct in Office, and resigned.

In the future you should be more careful to abide by this Courts rulings and deadlines.

 

[Belschaft]

Whilst the time for submissions has lapsed, I must point out a couple of glaring inaccuracies in Eluvatar's submission;

This recent bill is not however novel; The South Pacific has tried two of its citizens for actions committed well outside its borders. Specifically, Antarial was tried for acting against TSP's ally, The Pacific, under a pseudonym that never set foot in TSP and Unibot was tried for acting against the South Pacific Army (SPA) in Warzone Airspace.

Neither Antariel or Unibot were tried by TSP. Both faced impeachment charges relating to Gross Misconduct in Office, and resigned.

In the future you should be more careful to abide by this Courts rulings and deadlines.

My apologies, but both Eluvatars request for an extension and submission occurred whilst I was asleep, as did the end of the period.

 

[Eluvatar]

For the record I requested, and received, an extension of eight minutes. That's a 0.28% extension.

 

[Hileville]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the request for Review made by Belschaft on the Court's Jurisdiction​

The Court reviewed the following request:

If it please the Court, the Plaintiff hereby requests judicial review of the following questions;

1. Does the Government of The North Pacific and her court have the Jurisdiction to try individuals for actions commited outside of The North Pacific and her related off-site property?
   • The plaintiff notes that his client, Mallorea and Riva, is currently charged with the offence of treason in relation to actions committed in the region Stargate. Does The North Pacific have Jurisdictional Authority over Stargate, and if so;
     1. Is Stargate aware of this?
     2. Does The North Pacific posses Jurisdictional Authority in other regions other than The North Pacific, as well as Stargate?
2. Are non-citizens criminally liable for offences committed in breach of The North Pacific's Code of Laws?
   • The plaintiff notes that his client, Mallorea and Riva, is currently charged with the offence of treason in relation to actions committed whilst not a citizen. As a non citizen, is he criminally liable for breaches of the Codes of Laws? The plaintiff notes that when registering for RA membership you are required to 'take an oath, promising to abide by the Constitution and Legal Code of the North Pacific'. The plaintiff notes that his client has taken no such oath.

The Court has come to the following opinion on the matters presented:

Firstly the North Pacific and its Court does have the ability to try individuals for actions committed outside of the North Pacific's "property". The power that gives this Court said right is held within Section 1.1.2 of the Legal Code quoted below.

2. "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 allies as governed by the Constitution.

This Court is not going to answer the question on whether Stargate is aware that the North Pacific may try those who have harmed their region in our Courts. The Court would recommend that those interested in that answer to seek a Representative of Stargate and ask them for said answer. As for the question on Jurisdictional Authority in other regions, the Court directs you to the Legal Code specifically Section 1.1.4.

4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union and Osiris.

At the present time this Court may try individuals who have committed an act of Treason as defined by the Legal Code in the North Pacific or any of the regions listed in Section 1.1.4 of the Legal Code. The Jurisdiction of the Court begins and ends at the act of Treason.

As for the question regarding non-citizens liability for offense committed in breach of the north Pacific's Code of Laws the Court refers you to the previous decision on Residency and Forum Administration. Non-citizens are liable for committing acts in breach of the North Pacific's Code of Laws and may be tried in these Courts if they can be determined a "resident" of this region. The Court would also like to reiterate that only those nations that can be defined as a "resident" of the North Pacific are entitled and given rights under our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and/or Legal Code.

 

[Mall]

Has the Court, in this ruling, determined that I was a "resident" of the region? Or is that going to be left to the proper trial, assuming that one is pursued by the AG?

 

[Hileville]

Has the Court, in this ruling, determined that I was a "resident" of the region? Or is that going to be left to the proper trial, assuming that one is pursued by the AG?

The burden of proof on your "residency" will lie with the Prosecution if they decide to proceed with charges.

 

[Mall]

Has the Court, in this ruling, determined that I was a "resident" of the region? Or is that going to be left to the proper trial, assuming that one is pursued by the AG?

The burden of proof on your "residency" will lie with the Prosecution if they decide to proceed with charges.

Ah excellent, thank you.

 

[FALCONKATS]

I ALSO AGREE WITH THE RULING