Court Filings

Can we have Gaspo assigned to Eluvatar's case please to get that one moving? I don't believe he has a conflict of interest. I think we still need the indictment approved and if approved, I think he is the only justice without a conflict of interest so we'd need 2 temporary hearing officers assigned.
 
punk d:
Can we have Gaspo assigned to Eluvatar's case please to get that one moving? I don't believe he has a conflict of interest. I think we still need the indictment approved and if approved, I think he is the only justice without a conflict of interest so we'd need 2 temporary hearing officers assigned.
Click to expand...
If no conflict of interest exists he would be the only one permitted to approve the indictment.
 
And I was retained before I ever began running for Justice.

Once the outstanding Judicial Tweak is passed, court rules will be amended to allow this case to move forward, should it be warranted. More details to come.
 
Civil Complaint

The Officer of the Attorney General hereby submits a Civil Complaint to the Court of The North Pacific on behalf of the Plaintiff, Flemingovia, charging that the Defendant, Grosseschnauzer did impune the character of the Plaintiff and made fraudulent statements against the Plaintiff which damaged the reputation of the Plaintiff. The particular Legal statute that supports the plaintiff’s argument is located under Section 1.4.10 of the Legal Code:

Legal Code of TNP. Criminal code. Section 1:4:10:
10."Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual
Click to expand...

The Plaintiff will argue that the defendant:
  • Accused the plaintiff of giving biased counsel so as to favor the plaintiff’s "political ally", Blue Wolf.
  • Accused the plaintiff of advising moderator actions in a way that is "blatantly political", in order to "achieve my[the plaintiff’s] own aims".
  • Accused the plaintiff of embarking on a "relentelessly never-ending campiagn", undermining the defendant’s authority as Root admin by claiming that he [the defendant] ""stole" the root admin account from the plaintiff.
  • Accused the plaintiff of "unilateral abuse of my [the plaintiff’s] admin powers."

The Plaintiff is seeking relief from the defendant’s aforementioned actions by way of an apology and a retraction of the defendant’s previous statements. The plaintiff did not seek criminal charges against the defendant and is only interested in clearing his name by having the defendant issue a formal apology. The office of the Attorney General conferred with the Plaintiff prior to the plaintiff’s filing of this complaint to see if the Plaintiff and the Defendant could reach an out of court settlement on the issue. The plaintiff informed this office that he had unsuccessfully made such attempts without success.

We ask that the court commence a civil proceeding against the defendant and the Office of Attorney General requests Chief Justice Hileville moderate the proceedings.

Regards,
Punk Daddy
Attorney General
Click to expand...
 
I have sent a message to delegate, McMasterdonia, requesting that he appoint a temporary hearing officer on the TNP v. Eluvatar case.
 
Your honour,

Todd McCloud has agreed to serve as the Temporary Hearing Officer for TNP v Eluvatar.

The Speaker Crushing Our Enemies agrees with the appointment.
 
We're still not entirely there yet, I'd say. While the law did just change, I'm informed Court Rules haven't yet been updated: they currently require a Justice to approve an indictment. (Not a temporary hearing officer). I'm told the rules will be changed soon.

In addition, the law states that the Delegate should appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker, after all. The Constitution says the Court will try cases etc and that the court will consist of a chief and at least two associate justices. In addition the legal code and the court rules both refer to the Court deciding on a verdict, even though the court rules introduce the notion of a single Trial Moderator.

I would like to ask the honorable Delegate and Speaker to ensure there is a complete panel for me to prove my innocence to.

Thank you co-counsel Gaspo for assisting in preparing this legal message.
 
So to be clear. The legal obligation is to provide a full panel of judges i.e. The Speaker and I will need to decide on an additional 2 judges besides the presiding officer?

I understand the issues with the indictment, though, and hopefully that will be addressed soon.
 
Court Rules do not supercede the law I would think. If they are in conflict, the law would win, no?
 
Legal Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 13
13. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
Click to expand...
An amendment to the court rules, granting Temporary Hearing Officers all the same rights and responsibilities as Justices, will fix this; you need to simply be patient while we do that. I'm sure there are other cases pending with which you can occupy yourself in the interim.
 
Gaspo:
Legal Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 13
13. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
Click to expand...
An amendment to the court rules, granting Temporary Hearing Officers all the same rights and responsibilities as Justices, will fix this; you need to simply be patient while we do that. I'm sure there are other cases pending with which you can occupy yourself in the interim.
Click to expand...
Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
Click to expand...
This gives the temporary hearing officer the power of a Justice by virtue of being called a "temporary Justice". It does not appear that additional court rules need to be added to allow a temporary hearing officer the power of a Justice.

If the court feels that there is more needed, I shall request a ruling which states a temporary hearing officers does not have temporary powers of a Justice even though the Legal Code says they do.

And can we keep the snide comments to a minimum, your honor. I am fully aware of the number of cases that are currently pending. What does that have to do with this discussion?
 
punk d:
Gaspo:
Legal Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 13
13. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
Click to expand...
An amendment to the court rules, granting Temporary Hearing Officers all the same rights and responsibilities as Justices, will fix this; you need to simply be patient while we do that. I'm sure there are other cases pending with which you can occupy yourself in the interim.
Click to expand...
Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
Click to expand...
This gives the temporary hearing officer the power of a Justice by virtue of being called a "temporary Justice". It does not appear that additional court rules need to be added to allow a temporary hearing officer the power of a Justice.

If the court feels that there is more needed, I shall request a ruling which states a temporary hearing officers does not have temporary powers of a Justice even though the Legal Code says they do.

And can we keep the snide comments to a minimum, your honor. I am fully aware of the number of cases that are currently pending. What does that have to do with this discussion?
Click to expand...
The Temporary Hearing Officer or Temporary Justice would be able to approve the indictment as per the Current Legal Code and Court Rules. No amendment would be needed to allow this to move forward. The Court will still be slightly adjusting the terminology used in the Court Rules to prevent further confusion on the subject.

Also even though the trial is moderated by a single Justice it is Court Procedure to allow a discussion period for all rulings. The Chief Justice recommends the appointment of a full temporary Court in order for the Eluvatar trial to move forward.
 
I agree that a full compliment of judges should sit on this case and it is my assumption that the temporary officer would appoint his fellow justices per the law. I don't have a problem, though, if the delegate wishes to appoint other temporary officers to fill the two other vacancies.
 
The Law states:

TNP Legal Code:
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
Click to expand...

This very clearly grants appointment power to the Court itself, as elected. It does not grant this power to temporarily appointed officers.

TNP Legal Code:
9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.
Click to expand...

This clause clearly states the Delegate will appoint the needed officers with the agreement of the Speaker. I would argue that this does not permit the Delegate and Speaker to appoint only some of the required officers.
 
I don't have a problem either way as it's easy to interpret the law both ways and I don't want that to hinder the already delayed proceedings.

My main point was to state a court rules update was not required to move forward with this case.

To the Chief Justice - would you like me to request the delegate appoint two additional Justices?
 
arms.png


Civil Complaint
Plantiffs: Mad Jack on behalf of Kingborough, McMasterdonia, Tim; and possible others
vs.
Defendant: Govindia​

Description of charges: That on the August 20th 2012, the defendant did knowingly and intentionally defame the named peoples above and attempt to defraud TNP citizens and citizens of a region TNP has relations with, by accusing the named above peoples of having an addiction or recurring habit of taking a drug that is illegal in the countries they reside.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant did so to damage the reputation of those involved. The Plaintiffs are seeking a public apology from the Defendant for this claim, and a public retraction of the comments.

Relevant links/evidence:Evidence of the claim
The logs in question that caused the claim, and explain the choice of chosen peoples

Legal code citation for Plaintiff’s claims:
​
Legal Code of TNP:
10. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Considering that a criminal prosecution of this same matter resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict, and determined that the accused's comments were protected speech, I consider the attempt to resurrect this matter as a civil complaint perplexing. I will not be approving the indictment.
 
I've found two hearing officers, just going to send a message to the Speaker now to check he agrees with the appointments.

The Speaker has agreed to the following appointments: Todd McCloud, MadJack and Sanctaria.

We hope that the court is satisfied with these appointments.
 
Belschaft:
Considering that a criminal prosecution of this same matter resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict, and determined that the accused's comments were protected speech, I consider the attempt to resurrect this matter as a civil complaint perplexing. I will not be approving the indictment.
Click to expand...
so what does this mean?
 
Govindia:
Belschaft:
Considering that a criminal prosecution of this same matter resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict, and determined that the accused's comments were protected speech, I consider the attempt to resurrect this matter as a civil complaint perplexing. I will not be approving the indictment.
Click to expand...
so what does this mean?
Click to expand...
It means that I won't be approving the indictment, and as far as I am aware neither will my fellow justices; as such, you will not be put on trial again for the same charges you were just found innocent of.
 
So...you're applying Double Jeopardy where it doesn't apply? Just because I'm found Not Guilty for a robbery in Chicago, doesn't mean I can't be tried for a robbery in New York.
 
Grimalkin:
So...you're applying Double Jeopardy where it doesn't apply? Just because I'm found Not Guilty for a robbery in Chicago, doesn't mean I can't be tried for a robbery in New York.
Click to expand...
No, the court is simply declining to pursue a matter, as is its right. I don't think there's any point in this case, and the complaint fails to substantially differentiate itself from the criminal complaint such that a different result is reasonably foreseeable to be reached. Even failing that, we're not required to accept an indictment. We can reject it if we want. I haven't decided what I'll do yet, quite frankly.
 
Belschaft:
Govindia:
Belschaft:
Considering that a criminal prosecution of this same matter resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict, and determined that the accused's comments were protected speech, I consider the attempt to resurrect this matter as a civil complaint perplexing. I will not be approving the indictment.
Click to expand...
so what does this mean?
Click to expand...
It means that I won't be approving the indictment, and as far as I am aware neither will my fellow justices; as such, you will not be put on trial again for the same charges you were just found innocent of.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you sir :)
 
Belschaft:
Govindia:
Belschaft:
Considering that a criminal prosecution of this same matter resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict, and determined that the accused's comments were protected speech, I consider the attempt to resurrect this matter as a civil complaint perplexing. I will not be approving the indictment.
Click to expand...
so what does this mean?
Click to expand...
It means that I won't be approving the indictment, and as far as I am aware neither will my fellow justices; as such, you will not be put on trial again for the same charges you were just found innocent of.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you Your Honour :)
 
Rather than publicly arguing with the justices if the complainants would like to have any of the three justices approve the indictment, perhaps they should contact my office with additional information that is substantively different than what was presented at the defendant's trial so that I can make an argument to that point.

Otherwise, I don't believe you will get very far with these justices. If you do not like it, we do have judicial elections and you can vote 'em out if you are so inclined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top