Court Filings

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...
You're supposed to be a justice yet you can't see the difference between seeking an apology for a 'joke' that alleged that members of this region are habitual users of cocaine and a criminal trial on Govindia committing fraud by making that 'joke'?
 
madjack:
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...
You're supposed to be a justice yet you can't see the difference between seeking an apology for a 'joke' that alleged that members of this region are habitual users of cocaine and a criminal trial on Govindia committing fraud by making that 'joke'?
Click to expand...
My status as a Justice does not allow me to make such distinctions according what I may see, but only according to those principles set out in the law. Regardless of whether or not you seek criminal punishment or merely an apology, if there is insufficient evidence to merit a trial - and lacking persuasive new evidence not introduced in the criminal trial, which led to a conclusion of innocence, I see no reason to approve the indictment -then a trial cannot proceed. If there is such new evidence, then please introduce it; until you do so I will exercise my office with all due diligence required of it, and refuse the indictment.
 
Due to Sanctaria being appointed to the position of Deputy Minister for WA Affairs, he has been removed as a temporary justice. Instead, the Speaker and I have agreed to appoint Abbey Anumia to TNP v Eluvatar. She is already masked and everything, so should be good to go.
 
I'm going to send a note to Todd to see if we can get this show moving. The wheels of justice have moved like tar in this case.
 
Ed. Abbey has been masked to see the special private area reserved for this group of temporary hearing officers' use.
 
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...

Actually Double Jeopardy isn't being applied. The request was for a civil suit not a criminal suit. Justice Belschaft does not feel there is enough evidence to bring this to a civil trial. If the petitioner wishes for this to proceed as a Criminal Suit then he needs to speak with the Attorney General. The Court has rejected the indictment for a Civil Suit and as per the Legal Code this is final.

madjack:
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...
You're supposed to be a justice yet you can't see the difference between seeking an apology for a 'joke' that alleged that members of this region are habitual users of cocaine and a criminal trial on Govindia committing fraud by making that 'joke'?
Click to expand...

I direct you to the first comment in this post. I also do not appreciate your tone with one of my Associate Justices. The indictment has been denied and that is final.
 
Hileville:
I direct you to the first comment in this post. I also do not appreciate your tone with one of my Associate Justices. The indictment has been denied and that is final.
Click to expand...
TNP Justices: Protecting Stalkers Since 2013
 
madjack:
Hileville:
I direct you to the first comment in this post. I also do not appreciate your tone with one of my Associate Justices. The indictment has been denied and that is final.
Click to expand...
TNP Justices: Protecting Stalkers Since 2013
Click to expand...
The concern you are expressing is not one that the Court has the ability to rule on. This is not a RL Court System and is not the forum administration team. If you have a complaint other than a civil one take up with the AG.
 
Hileville:
madjack:
Hileville:
I direct you to the first comment in this post. I also do not appreciate your tone with one of my Associate Justices. The indictment has been denied and that is final.
Click to expand...
TNP Justices: Protecting Stalkers Since 2013
Click to expand...
The concern you are expressing is not one that the Court has the ability to rule on. This is not a RL Court System and is not the forum administration team. If you have a complaint other than a civil one take up with the AG.
Click to expand...
I have and have filed it with the AG. The obvious bias this court has will be confirmed if you refuse to take this new case when it's filed.
 
So, if we don't do what you want us to do, we're clearly biased in favor of stalkers. Got it. Nothing to do with law regarding jeopardy, the discretion of the court in accepting indictments (we are under no obligation, under any circumstances, to do so), or the Court's policy stance regarding allowing its halls to potentially be utilized to continue aggressive persecution of an individual as a result of personal grudges.

I don't like Govindia; I've been dealing with his frankly outrageous behavior since before you even joined NS, he's personally targeted more of my friends than you know, and I cannot understand how, administratively, his presence is still tolerated on these forums. However, those are all my personal feelings; they are completely irrelevant to the fair and just application of the law.

As a side note, I've had one more look at the civil complaint as filed. Substance aside, I must reject it on procedural grounds - TNP law makes no allowance for class actions, and the plaintiffs listed include four specific names, and the addendum of "and possibly others". A complaint drafted in this manner does not comport with the requirements of transparency imposed by the Bill of Rights, as it gives the accused less than complete information regarding those opposing him in court. As such, it could be interpreted to violate the defendant's right to have all proceedings conducted in a public and fair manner. I must therefore reject this indictment as it lacks necessary specificity in plaintiffs. If additional plaintiffs exist, find them and file with their names. If they don't, leave the vague "and maybe others" off.
 
arms.png

Indictment​
In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Earth , alleging the defendant did commit Fraud by "falsely claiming to be Sobek of the Osiris Medjai Guard in her TNP forum signature, when in fact she resigned this position in Osiris as of Jan 9. Furthermore she stands to benefit from this falsehood; the benefit being that she improves her standing and attempts, through misrepresentation, to lend more weight on a multi-regional basis, to the statements she makes."

Evidence:
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3

(The rest of these are one post, but couldn't fit on one screenshot)
Screenshot 4
Screenshot 5
Screenshot 6
Screenshot 7
Screenshot 8

Earth is hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Section 1.3.10: Fraud
10. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 11, of the Legal Code, which states that "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Reginald Carmichael (Sovreignry)
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific
 
Reginald Carmichael:
arms.png

Indictment​
In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Earth , alleging the defendant did commit Fraud by "falsely claiming to be Sobek of the Osiris Medjai Guard in her TNP forum signature, when in fact she resigned this position in Osiris as of Jan 9. Furthermore she stands to benefit from this falsehood; the benefit being that she improves her standing and attempts, through misrepresentation, to lend more weight on a multi-regional basis, to the statements she makes."

Evidence:
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3

(The rest of these are one post, but couldn't fit on one screenshot)
Screenshot 4
Screenshot 5
Screenshot 6
Screenshot 7
Screenshot 8

Earth is hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Section 1.3.10: Fraud
10. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 11, of the Legal Code, which states that "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Reginald Carmichael (Sovreignry)
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific
Click to expand...
This indictment is DENIED.
 
...JAL is always good for laughs...

...Back to business, I have not sent a telegram to Todd, but I will today so that the case TNP v. Eluvatar can be processed. I was hoping that Todd would peruse this thread and accept/deny the indictment of his own volition but I do know he has been busy. I'll PM a nudge after this posting.
 
When was madjack a Justice? I never saw him appointed or winning an election? I don't even think he posted an oath?
 
No word from Todd, btw.

Justices in this filing here - my office shall file individual indictments against the defendants listed. Do you have a problem with the complaint itself? Again, we will file individual indictments with the court.

here is the relevant complaint filing:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8085196&t=6985564

Due to my absence I appoint Sovereignry and Iro to work out the complaints. If things greatly improve on my end, I'll make a notification, but this is an important issue that I do not want to drag.
 
punk d:
No word from Todd, btw.
Click to expand...
Since there is now a Court Justice with no CoI (i.e me) I'm going to be taking over this.

Abbey and madjack will stay on as temporary hearing officers.

Please consider the indictment posted here approved.
 
Ok, in a change to the above, Abbey and Todd will be staying on as hearing officers.
 
arms.png

Indictment​
In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Madjack, alleging the defendant is not legally a Temporary Hearing Officer after failing to post a correct Oath of Office.

According to Section 4.1, the holder must post the following Oath of Office to assume office: "I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein." However, Madjack abstained from doing so and posted his own, fraudulent oath of office, reading "I currently hold the post of Temporary Hearing Officer, and you have my word I will fulfil that role to the best of my ability and acknowledge the right of the region to prosecute should my actions in that role be out of line.

My word matters more to me than most things in NS, and that is why I'm making my own oath, and not one full of overly complicated phrases that no-one without a law degree or with the energy and time to waste googling them understands." This violates the Legal Code.

Madjack is hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Section 4.2.8: Failure to Post Oath Of Office
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.
Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 11, of the Legal Code, which states that "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Iro
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific

(link to fraudelent oath)
 
Iro:
arms.png

Indictment​
In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Madjack, alleging the defendant is not legally a Temporary Hearing Officer after failing to post a correct Oath of Office.

According to Section 4.1, the holder must post the following Oath of Office to assume office: "I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein." However, Madjack abstained from doing so and posted his own, fraudulent oath of office, reading "I currently hold the post of Temporary Hearing Officer, and you have my word I will fulfil that role to the best of my ability and acknowledge the right of the region to prosecute should my actions in that role be out of line.

My word matters more to me than most things in NS, and that is why I'm making my own oath, and not one full of overly complicated phrases that no-one without a law degree or with the energy and time to waste googling them understands." This violates the Legal Code.

Madjack is hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Section 4.2.8: Failure to Post Oath Of Office
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.
Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 11, of the Legal Code, which states that "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Iro
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific

(link to fraudelent oath)
Click to expand...
This indictment is denied. The violation has not occurred yet. The law was passed by the regional assembly on January 19th and put into affect the previous appointment of Madjack by Delegate Mcmasterdonia would not have fell under this law.

The current appointment of Madjack (which has been rescinded) was made on 2/10/13. The law calls for a one week period after the appointment is made. Therefore no violation of law has happened at this point in time and the Court cannot accept this indictment.
 
arms.png

Indictment​
In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Belschaft, Isidor C. Stark, Kogvuron, Venico, and Windy, alleging the defendants broke the oath they swore on joining the Regional Assembly by not providing the Registrar with World Assembly information.

The defendants have not notified the Registrar of Confidential Puppets of any nations they control that may join the World Assembly. Neither have they notified the Registrar of the World Assembly nation they currently control. Neither have they declared to the Registrar that they do not control any nations in the World Assembly, or that may join in the future. Because such activity is in violation of the laws of The North Pacific, each of the defendants has broken the oath they swore upon joining the Regional Assembly. Each defendant was given a clear deadline to come into compliance with this law or face legal action, and received a private message from the Registrar on the forum and two telegrams from the Speaker sent to their nation in The North Pacific to that effect over the course of 13 days.
Legal Code Chapter 6:
4. Applicants must swear an oath, as follows:
Code: 
[nation]TNP Nation[/nation]
[nation]WA Nation[/nation]

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Legal Code Chapter 6:
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
Click to expand...
Belschaft, Isidor C. Stark, Kogvuron, Venico, and Windy are hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Failure to Provide WA Information:
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
Click to expand...
Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clauses 12 and 13 respectively, of the Legal Code, which state that "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," and "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Iro
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific
 
A procedural question - you've referenced the law requiring notification when seeking an indictment to eject/ban/expel from the RA, a nation, but have made no such request. Is this intentional?
 
I'm requesting a stay of execution of any or all indictments that result from this request in regards to myself, so as to allow me to come into compliance. My situation has just changed in the last couple of hours in a manner I had not anticipated, and I may be able to return to full compliance with the law.
 
Gaspo, I was just thinking that this was the seeking of an indictment... but perhaps I referenced it incorrectly. In any case, please consider this a notification of all the justices.

Also, please note that the lodger, Crushing Our Enemies, would like to remove the charges against Isidor C. Stark, Venico, and Windy for various reasons.
 
Iro:
Gaspo, I was just thinking that this was the seeking of an indictment... but perhaps I referenced it incorrectly. In any case, please consider this a notification of all the justices.

Also, please note that the lodger, Crushing Our Enemies, would like to remove the charges against Isidor C. Stark, Venico, and Windy for various reasons.
Click to expand...
Please adjust the indictment to reflect these changes, or repost it, to ensure accurate record-keeping. I will review it at that time.
 
arms.png

Indictment​
In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Belschaft and Kogvuron, alleging the defendants broke the oath they swore on joining the Regional Assembly by not providing the Registrar with World Assembly information.

The defendants have not notified the Registrar of Confidential Puppets of any nations they control that may join the World Assembly. Neither have they notified the Registrar of the World Assembly nation they currently control. Neither have they declared to the Registrar that they do not control any nations in the World Assembly, or that may join in the future. Because such activity is in violation of the laws of The North Pacific, each of the defendants has broken the oath they swore upon joining the Regional Assembly. Each defendant was given a clear deadline to come into compliance with this law or face legal action, and received a private message from the Registrar on the forum and two telegrams from the Speaker sent to their nation in The North Pacific to that effect over the course of 13 days.
Legal Code Chapter 6:
4. Applicants must swear an oath, as follows:
Code: 
[nation]TNP Nation[/nation]
[nation]WA Nation[/nation]

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Legal Code Chapter 6:
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
Click to expand...
Belschaft and Kogvuron are hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:
Failure to Provide WA Information:
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
Click to expand...
Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clauses 12 and 13 respectively, of the Legal Code, which state that "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," and "[a]ny Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final," this indictment is respectfully submitted for judicial approval.

Sincerely,

Iro
Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific
 
I will accept this indictment, but would like to be notified, preferably here or via PM if necessary, as to why the other three individuals were removed at the last minute. Charges had been filed, and as such it was not entirely in your discretion to remove them at that late hour - why the sudden focus on these two individuals instead of the other three?

Edit: Since there appears to be some confusion, when I say "I will accept", what I mean is quite literally that I will do so at some point in the future, but would like the questions regarding the sudden amendment of this indictment to be answered before I do that.
 
I would be happy to explain- there was an odd timetable between my office's work and consultation with the plaintiff, then a combination of events that occurred made the request for charges to be dropped happen after the original claim had been filed.

Let me elaborate. The Speaker wishes to drop charges against Venico and Windy because he believes they "weren't paying much attention/weren't around much, and as soon as they realized they was out of compliance, they came into compliance." Isidor, to his knowledge, left the region and therefore is not in contempt.

However, the two remaining defendants are a different story. They were active and aware of the requirement, yet consciously refused.

A quote elaborates specifically about Belschaft:
"On multiple occasions, he has shown willful defiance of my office and TNP law, and will do so again under the right circumstances. He violated his oath knowingly and intentionally. He needs to learn that he cannot selectively follow our laws depending on his personal circumstances."

This is why the Speaker wishes to charge Belschaft and Kogvuron and not Windy, Venico, or Isidor.
 
It will likely be handled today - I've been giving it a couple of days to breathe given the persistent administrative issues associated with its filing.
 
Alright, time to open trial threads. I will not be opening a trial thread regarding Belschaft, for a number of reasons.

A quote elaborates specifically about Belschaft:
"On multiple occasions, he has shown willful defiance of my office and TNP law, and will do so again under the right circumstances. He violated his oath knowingly and intentionally. He needs to learn that he cannot selectively follow our laws depending on his personal circumstances."
Click to expand...

Potential future offenses are not something the justice system punishes. Simple fact. Belschaft is, according to Eras/FEC, in full compliance with the law as of some time yesterday (a fact which was brought to my attention by Bel and confirmed by Eras). Given the questionable motives behind this indictment, and the fact that it would be seeking to punish an individual for what is alleged as an ongoing violation (which no longer exists), I find no cause to advance to a trial against Belschaft.

The indictment against Kogvuron is accepted. The indictment against Belschaft is denied for the aforementioned reasons, and the withdrawl of complaints against Windy, Venico, and Isidor is noted and accepted.
 
Whoa...we need more than that Your honor. Was he in compliance at the time of the indictment and when did he become compliant?

Further, why is the court investigating the Speaker's listing of offenders prior to the prosecution actually presenting a case?

Lastly - you accepted the indictment previously and now are rejecting one of the indictments. That's simply changing your mind after you've made a decision. In no legal document does it state that once an indictment has been accepted can it thereafter be denied.

If you do not accept the indictment with Belschaft, I shall request a review from the full court.
 
I did not accept the indictment previously. I said I would accept it. Read my actual words, please. The Court is in agreement with me on how this matter has been handled, as far as I am aware, but you are free to take the issue to the full court if you like. As to your argument that he wasn't in compliance at the time the indictment was filed, that doesn't change the fact that this is an ongoing-violation issue, not a single-offense, as the things in the Criminal Code are. Timing less relevant, so long as the alleged crime is not being committed at the time of the court's review of the indictment. Information came to my attention (and not to your office's, interestingly) indicating that it was factually impossible for you to prove Belschaft to be, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding indicated by the acceptance of the indictment, in violation of the law. Simple fact.

As I said, though, feel free to take it up with the full court. I will be proceeding to trial with Kogvuron, who has been notified concurrent with the opening of his trial thread, as per the Court Rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top