Mall Trial Discussions

Hileville

Hileville

TNPer
TNP Nation
Hileville
Discord
Dennrick#0489
So we have a couple of requests for review the first found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6927701/1/#new
SchaftSchaftandSchaft2.png


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 question;

  1. Does the ejection and banning of the nation Mall prior to a criminal trial and conviction constitute a breach of the right of my client, Mallorea and Riva, to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, as per the Bill of Rights?
    • The plaintiff notes that at approximately 5:30PM on the 25th of June my client, Mallorea and Riva, specifically his nation Mall, was ejected and banned from The North Pacific under the provisions of the Legal Code, specifcally Chapter 3, Section 3.3
    • The plaintiff notes that the Bill of Rights states that 'In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence'.
Click to expand...

The second found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6927180/1
SchaftSchaftandSchaft2.png


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.
Click to expand...

Also the actual Indictment was filed in this thread: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6926879/1/
 
Going to start off with the second request as it seems to be one that is easier.

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?
Click to expand...

As per the Legal Code yes if said individual commits an action against The North Pacific's Allies.
Treason Clause:
Section 1.1: Treason
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The North Pacific may try someone for an act of Treason as it is defined as an act against TNP or its allies. That is as far as TNP's Judicial power goes.
Is Stargate aware of this?
Click to expand...
This Court cannot answer for Stargate's Government and I would suggest he asks them.
Does The North Pacific posses Jurisdictional Authority in other regions other than The North Pacific, as well as Stargate?
Click to expand...
Again the only Judicial Power TNP has when it comes to other regions is to try someone for an act of Treason against TNP.

Are non-citizens criminally liable for offences committed in breach of The North Pacific's Code of Laws?[/quote
Yes as per previous ruling of this Court on Forum Administration and Residency. (Pinned in the Court area)
Click to expand...
 
And now to address the first request I listed.

Does the ejection and banning of the nation Mall prior to a criminal trial and conviction constitute a breach of the right of my client, Mallorea and Riva, to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, as per the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

Yes it would. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of TNP and the section of the legal code on Court Trial Procedures:
Legal Code:
10. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
Click to expand...

This very clearly goes against the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights:
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...
 
Actually while reviewing the first request a little further it wouldn't be against his right.

Section 9 of the Bill of Rights:
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...

This allows for the ejection before a trial to be legal.

While I initially thought it does go against his rights the next section of the Bill of Rights would state it doesn't.
 
Well now it contradicts one part of the Bill of Rights but is legal according to another part of the Bill of Rights. I will have to think about this one.
 
Okay another throw in here on the first request. The legal code goes against what is set out in the Constitution specifically Article 6.

Article 6 of the Constitution:
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...

I would say that the specific section of the legal code is unconstitutional.
 
So now do we rule the entire thing unconstitutional or just the part about ejecting and banning?

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
10. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
11. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
12. Once an ejection is performed, the Government must notify the ejected nation of their rights within one hour, and publicly submit a criminal proceeding to the court within six hours.
13. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
14. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
15. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
16. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
17. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.
Click to expand...

I would say the first part of 10 and 12 are unconstitutional. Although it could be argued that the first part of 10 could stay since an indictment would mean a trial and therefore if the Delegate just can't act on said indictment immediately it would be Constitutional.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the request for Review made by Belschaft on the Legality of Mall's Ejection and Banning​

The Court reviewed the following request:

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

  1. Does the ejection and banning of the nation Mall prior to a criminal trial and conviction constitute a breach of the right of my client, Mallorea and Riva, to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, as per the Bill of Rights?
    • The plaintiff notes that at approximately 5:30PM on the 25th of June my client, Mallorea and Riva, specifically his nation Mall, was ejected and banned from The North Pacific under the provisions of the Legal Code, specifcally Chapter 3, Section 3.3
    • The plaintiff notes that the Bill of Rights states that 'In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence'.
Click to expand...

The Court has taken into consideration in this ruling the following:

Article 6 of the Constitution:
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...
Sections 7 and 8 of the Bill of Rights:
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.

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...
Section 3.3 of the Legal Code:
Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
10. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
11. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
12. Once an ejection is performed, the Government must notify the ejected nation of their rights within one hour, and publicly submit a criminal proceeding to the court within six hours.
13. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
14. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
15. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
16. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
17. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.
Click to expand...

The Court believes that while the right to be presumed innocent until guilt is proven is in fact a right of all nations of the North Pacific it also believes that this right has not been infringed upon by the recent actions of the Delegate. The reason for this being Section 8 of the Bill of Rights gives express permission to allow for ejection and banning to occur as per the Constitution or Legal Code prior to a trial being had. However, the Court also has determined the following when it comes to the Constitutionality of said ejection and banning.

As per the quoted Article 6 of the Constitution it does not allow for ejections and/or bannings to take place unless it falls underneath the following stipulations:

Stipulations of Article 6 of the Constitution:
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...

Therefore it is determined by this Court that Article 3.3 Sections 10-12 of the Legal Code is Unconstitutional.

The Court orders that the Delegate remove the nation of Mall from the Regional Ban list immediately. If the Prosecution shall wish to continue with charges of treason the Court will proceed with the Trial pending further decisions of this Court on other matters.



Above is the first ruling on Judicial Review. I found it easier to rule the whole thing Unconstitutional as they are several clauses that go against the Constitution. Let me know what you think and if you agree.
 
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:

Request for Review:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Section 1.1.2 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.
Click to expand...

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.

Section 1.1.4 of the Legal Code:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Posted suggested decision. We are only looking at the second decision here as the first has already been delivered. Let me know what you think and if anything should be added/removed/changed.
 
Also we should probably determine whether or not Mall is a "resident". I would say he is as he posted 10+ times on the RMB stating intent to stay in the region. Whether this was of the joking nature or not really does not matter to me. I believe the intent is there. I will have to root through the RMB and his nation to get the posts for you.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top