Court Filings

In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Flemingovia, alleging the defendant violated the Legal Code by running for multiple offices.

The defendant announced intent and accepted nominations to run for multiple offices in the March Judicial Elections, in a post found here.

Flemingovia is hereby charged with disobeying the following section of the Legal Code:

Legal Code Chapter 4:

5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 13 of the Legal Code, which state 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

Don't you think Iro that the Election Commissioners are expected uphold the law themselves when accepting or rejecting nominations for the election? They probably just need reminding of the relevant section of the legal code.

When you post things like this I feel that we need an idiocy clause in the criminal code.

The fact that the Election Commissioners actually posted his nominations in the official tracking thread and have had ample time to correct themselves says otherwise. If they'd wanted to reject the nomination, they could have done it by now.

Furthermore, this indictment is not against the North Pacific, it is against Flemingovia. Whatever the ECs do at any moment, in their own respects, is their problem. FLEMINGOVIA is being charged with running. If he'd made it onto the ballot, it would be different, but the fact is that he broke the law, and Election Commissioners don't have the power to punish him for that.

Please refrain from making derogatory comments to my work unless you have fact beside them- it makes me sad and personally hurt, McM. I understand if you thought this was a jab at the law and your agents, but it's not, and I apologize if I offended you or the ECs.

I shall defend myself vigorously and at great length against these scurrilous accusations.

I demand my several months in court.

The office of Deputy Attorney General has clearly become a political tool of the oligarchy to prevent a candidate running whose values appeal to the masses but do not match their political agenda.

My defence shall be a complex web of argument, built around seemingly unconnected pieces of evidence brought forward in a stunning climax to a brilliant conclusion which shall leave the jury with no choice but to acquit.

Perry Mason will be proud.

Point of order, your honourjusticeships,

Please could the court set up a screen beween myself and Iro's enormous priapic coat of arms in the orginal indictment?

I find its enormous girth and length to be quite offputting and embarassing to watch. It seems to be growing in front of my very eyes. I have never, ever seen one so huge before. I mean, I think i am pretty well endowed in the coat of arms department, but blimey, he could put someone's eye out with that one.

PLease could he be put behind a modesty screen and this hearing adjourn until the size of his coat of arms shrinks a bit? I would also recommend a cold shower and thinking of something else for a while.

flemingovia:

Point of order, your honourjusticeships,

Please could the court set up a screen beween myself and Iro's enormous priapic coat of arms in the orginal indictment?

I find its enormous girth and length to be quite offputting and embarassing to watch. It seems to be growing in front of my very eyes. I have never, ever seen one so huge before. I mean, I think i am pretty well endowed in the coat of arms department, but blimey, he could put someone's eye out with that one.

PLease could he be put behind a modesty screen and this hearing adjourn until the size of his coat of arms shrinks a bit? I would also recommend a cold shower and thinking of something else for a while.

Click to expand...

You are reminded this is a Court thread. Do not cross the line again.

Iro:

Indictment​

In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Flemingovia, alleging the defendant violated the Legal Code by running for multiple offices.

The defendant announced intent and accepted nominations to run for multiple offices in the March Judicial Elections, in a post found here.

Flemingovia is hereby charged with disobeying the following section of the Legal Code:

Legal Code Chapter 4:

5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

Click to expand...

Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Clause 13 of the Legal Code, which state 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

Click to expand...

I would suggest you remind the EC's of this clause before pursuing this any further.

---

Hile beat me to it.

I've already reminded the EC's and they will fix it as soon as they can. Cormac has also reminded Flemingovia of the law.

Your Honors, as one of the three Election Commissioners for this election I request that the frivolous charges brought by a laughably incompetent Attorney General's office against Flemingovia be dismissed. The relevant section of the Legal Code is not part of the criminal code and does not carry any criminal penalty for noncompliance. The matter has been addressed by Election Commissioners and, had it not been addressed, the proper route for the Attorney General's office to pursue would not have been criminal charges -- something that a more competent Attorney General and his more competent deputies will likely know in the future.

Cormac Stark:

Your Honors, as one of the three Election Commissioners for this election I request that the frivolous charges brought by a laughably incompetent Attorney General's office against Flemingovia be dismissed. The relevant section of the Legal Code is not part of the criminal code and does not carry any criminal penalty for noncompliance. The matter has been addressed by Election Commissioners and, had it not been addressed, the proper route for the Attorney General's office to pursue would not have been criminal charges -- something that a more competent Attorney General and his more competent deputies will likely know in the future.

Click to expand...

I do not appreciate your attitude towards the Attorney General's Office. Take it somewhere else as it will not be tolerated. This is not the pace for your personal feelings to be expressed. This forum is for the Court to Communicate acceptance or denials of Indictments the Attorney General submits. If you don't like the indictment take it up with the Attorney General in his office.

That being said the Indictment is denied.

Am I therefore to be subject to the summary whim of the election commissioners and denied a chance to argue my case in court?

the original indictment was so official-looking too. He even used the word "pursuant."

flemingovia:

Am I therefore to be subject to the summary whim of the election commissioners and denied a chance to argue my case in court?

the original indictment was so official-looking too. He even used the word "pursuant."

Click to expand...

The EC's are doing their job as per the Legal Code. If you disagree with their interpretation of the Legal Code file a Request for Review.

I appreciate Flemingovia's candor, but I'm happy that the ECs are finally doing their job. Let's go ahead and withdraw those charges, even though they've already been denied, so someone can't chuck them at me later.

Cormac, I know this has become somewhat of a laughingstock, but... ah, what the hell. Continue on.

---

Accused: Ravania
Complaining Party: The North Pacific
Prosecutors: Gaspo, Belschaft

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court issue an indictment charging Ravania with the crimes of Treason^(LC-C1S1.1) and Espionage^(LC-C1S1.2).

Relevant Sections of Law

---

Legal Code - Chapter 1 Section 1.1:

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.
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.
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, Osiris and Equilism.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Click to expand...

Legal Code - Chapter 1 Section 1.2:

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.

Click to expand...

Statement of Facts

It is hereby alleged by the Office of The Attorney General that on the 18^th of March 2013 the accused, Ravania, illegally transmitted information he had accessed as a Private in The North Pacific Army (NPA) to his superiors and colleges in The United Defenders League (UDL). Ravania was, at that time, aside from being a Private in the NPA both a Citizen and Regional Assembly Member of The North Pacific (TNP) and a Lieutenant in the UDL.

The information in question consisted of a thread from a restricted NPA section of the TNP forums, in which Acting Delegate Blue Wolf II and former Delegate MCMasterdonia discussed a NPA deployment order issued by the former, and that MCMasterdonia was opposed to. Further, this operation - namely the support of the occupation of a region by the name of Warhammer 40000 - was one that Ravania and the UDL were opposed to and had recently attempted to liberate the region.

This incident was then discovered and reported to the NPA by Eluvatar, commander of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency (NPIA) and a fellow UDL Lieutenant, on the evening of the 19^th of March 2013. Due to a sense of duty, at the same time Eluvatar informed the UDL Capitalis de Societate, henceforth referred to as Commanding Officer, Unibot of his actions.

Subsequent to this, and following informal communications via Internet Relay Chat (IRC), at 03:04 AM (GMT) on the 20^th of March The UDL released an official statement, issued by UDL Commanding Officer Unibot, acknowledging both receipt of the information and that Ravania was the source. Further, at 10:12 PM (GMT) that same day a second official statement was released, this time issued by acting UDL Commanding Officer Earth, again confirming these details.

Shortly before the UDL issued their second official statement Ravania posted a personal statement acknowledging guilt, at 08:48 PM GMT on the 20^th of March.

Following these incidents a number of investigations have been ongoing, of which the Office of The Attorney General has been a part. At this point in time, whilst the investigations are not concluded, we are confident that a sufficient evidentiary basis exists for us to seek indictment.

Supporting Evidence

Exhibit One: First UDL Official Statement (03:04 AM GMT 20/03/13)
Exhibit Two: Second UDL Official Statement (10:12 PM GMT 20/03/13)
Exhibit Three: Ravania's Statement (08:48 PM GMT 20/03/13)


Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the evidence above, and the significance of the crime, the Office of the Attorney General strongly urges the Court to accept this indictment, as this Office is confident in the strength of the case and the evidence in its possession.

Signed,
Belschaft, Deputy Attorney General

Indictment accepted.

I will be the Moderating Justice for this trial, I will be notifying the defendant and starting the trial thread shortly, in accordance with the current Court Rules.

Request for Indictment​

Accused: Iro
Complaining Party: Flemingovia
Prosecuting Counsel: Gaspo

The Office of the Attorney General requests that the Court consider an indictment charging Iro with the crime(s) of: Malicious Prosecution.

Relevant Sections of Law

Oath of 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.

Click to expand...

Statement of Facts

During the most recent Judicial election period, Iro and Flemingovia were nominated for Attorney General. Flem was also nominated for all three justice positions. Following the acceptance of their nominations by both individuals, Iro (who was at the time a Deputy Attorney General appointed by PunkD) filed charges alleging that Flem had violated the Legal Code by attempting to run for office. Flem was later disqualified from the election, and Iro's complaint was denied by the Court. Iro then withdrew the complaint, noting that it had been resolved by the election commissioners. Flem protested Iro's actions throughout this process, and shortly thereafter filed this complaint, alleging violation of his rights. A more detailed timeline of the events alleged is available HERE, but has been omitted from this post for brevity. The structure of that timeline has been sufficiently verified by this office. The complainant alleges that Iro violated his constitutional rights (which Iro was bound to uphold as a government official under his Oath of Office), damaged his campaign, and abused his authority to achieve these goals. Such acts are barred by the Oath of Office, and the primary remedy for such violations is recall, as outlined by the Legal Code.

Supporting Evidence

Iro's Complaint
Iro's post regarding his reasons for the complaint
Flemingovia's Discussions of this issue, which give rise to this claim.

Conclusion and Recommendation
The Office of the Attorney General expects that Justice PunkD will not participate in any way in this matter, as he was responsible for appointing and supervising Iro throughout the duration of the events at issue in this case.

Rights violations broadly fall under the category of Torts, and as such this matter has been investigated by this Office as a tort action, as there is no evident criminal avenue to follow. The Legal Code provides Recall as a remedy for violations of the Oath of Office which binds government officials to the Constitution and Bill of Rights; Flemingovia made no apparent attempt to pursue this specifically enumerated remedy.

Malicious prosecution is not specifically defined by our Legal Code. However, under its poorly drafted terms, a government official may be charged with any crime that can be imagined. Given the facts here, a Malicious Prosecution cause of action seems most appropriate. As a general rule, proving such a charge requires proving the elements as follows: (1) the malicious and intentional start of a legal proceeding, (2) a lack of probable cause to support the complaint, and (3) that the claim be dismissed in favor of the victim of malicious prosecution.

Malicious prosecution is a civil tort, generally - it is not a criminal matter. Furthermore, as a general rule prosecutors are immunized from personal liability pursuant to their duties, and may be removed from office if the public is displeased with their behavior. Our Legal Code provides for this, specifying recall as the remedy should a Government Official violate their oath of office. (See Legal Code 4.1.3). Recall should have been the proper recourse in this case, and a failure on the part of the complainant to pursue the appropriate legal remedy, in favor of a criminal proceeding, should alone bar this complaint for proceeding.

Turning to the elements, this Office believes that it will struggle most substantially in addressing elements (1) and (3) of malicious prosecution. (1) will be challenging in that proof of malicious intent is difficult to obtain conclusively without a direct admission of malicious intent from the accused, which is not present in this case. Furthermore, we again run into the concept of prosecutorial immunity to allow prosecutors to conduct their work without fear of personal repercussions should their case turn out to be unsuccessful. Should the Court disregard this principle, this Office would find itself open to direct litigious assault from every acquitted defendant, simply becaues the case didn't turn out as a win for the prosecutor.

(3) will be challenging because the complaint was not dismissed as such, but was instead never even accepted by the Court. This is largely a matter of semantics, however, and thus may be resolved through a favorable judicial determination.

Overall, this Office does not feel that the interests of the public, the government, or the Court will be furthered by moving forward in this matter. The claim is tenuous and the policy considerations of establishing precedent for this type of suit are significant. A reprimand of Iro might have been appropriate, and he clearly should have asked another member of the Office to examine the issue rather than choose to get involved personally, due to his conflict of interest. Flemingovia had the Recall process available and specified for Oath of Office violations, but he did not pursue this option.

It is the opinion of this Office that a criminal complaint is neither necessary nor appropriate here. A matter of this nature is much more at home in a civil proceeding, but it is not the obligation of this Office to address such matters, nor does this office believe, based on all the evidence it has available, that any such claim would have a reasonable basis upon which to proceed.

Signed,
Gaspo, Attorney General

we again run into the concept of prosecutorial immunity to allow prosecutors to conduct their work without fear of personal repercussions should their case turn out to be unsuccessful.

Click to expand...

PLease could you show me where there is prosecutorial immunity in TNP law? I cannot find it.

This indictment is (admittedly late - apologies for that) denied. There is insufficient evidence to merit a trial taking place - there is no evidence of the "malicious" nature of the charges that have been filed.

Request for Indictment​

Accused: Tim
Complaining Party: Gaspo

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court issue an indictment charging Tim with the crime(s) of: Treason x 1, Espionage x 2, Conspiracy x 2, and Fraud x 1.

Relevant Sections of Law

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.
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.
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, Osiris and Equilism.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.

Section 1.3: Fraud
8. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
9. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Click to expand...

Section 1.7. Conspiracy
19. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Click to expand...

Statement of Facts

The first set of charges (Treason/Espionage/Conspiracy/Fraud) arises out of Tim’s actions while Vice Delegate. When the NPA raided Warzone Africa in October 2012, Tim addressed Jamie regarding a leak of classified NPA information. An excerpt of that log is reproduced below. Tim served as a government official of The North Pacific at that time, yet received and refused to disclose information regarding a serious breach of TNP security, out of loyalty to the UDL. He also spoke to mcmasterdonia, again refusing to disclose the identity of the leak, while bragging about how he would become Delegate. The NPA and the UDL were at war in Warzone Africa at that time - this constitutes aiding the enemy in a time of conflict. Possession of classified documents, while refusing to disclose them, constitutes Espionage, and his work to cover up this incident, through his refusal to disclose the information constitutes Conspiracy with whoever the leak was. Lastly, Tim later claimed that the logs were anonymous, yet did not indicate so originally, instead refusing to declare their ownership. This lie satisfies the requirements for a Fraud charge.

The second set of Treason/Espionage/Fraud charges arises out of the Ravania affair, the details of which are well-known. Tim refused to participate in the investigation, despite his presence in the channel at the time of the leak and his oath to the Constitution as an RA member.

Evidence supporting these charges is included below.

Supporting Evidence

Conclusion and Recommendation
It is the opinion of the AG’s Office that these very serious charges be accepted immediately and proceed to trial as soon as possible. The charges arising from the earlier incident date to October, and must be addressed. The information pertaining to these was provided by members of the government to this office, and Tim’s behavior indicates a clear pattern of protecting UDL resources to the detriment of TNP and in violation of her laws. These charges must be answered.

The Attorney General's Office wishes to thank Jamie and Mcmasterdonia in particular for bringing evidence of these serious crimes to the attention of this Office, and for expressing a willingness to testify in support of these logs.

The AG’s Office asks that PunkD recuse himself, due to his public statements regarding his opinion of the Ravania affair, and that Hileville recuse himself due to his longstanding and deep involvement with the UDL, particularly around the time pertaining to the first set of events leading to these charges. Additional evidence supporting these charges surely exists, and will hopefully be uncovered through depositions.

Signed,
Gaspo
Attorney General of The North Pacific

After reading through the material presented, it is my opinion that the case warrants going to trial.

You've asked for the recusal of myself and Hileville. Speaking only for me - I am not aware of the comments of which you speak made at the time. Were these comments that you believe would prejudice me towards TNP's or the defendant's case? I'm looking for clarity as I have not formed an opinion on this matter but knowing me, it's cetainly possible that during the events described above I expressed opinions.

Nonetheless, I'm looking for the AG's office to supply more meat to the recusal request potato beyond "due to his statements regarding his opinion of the Ravania affair". The office did not request my recusal in that particular case, so I am trying to understand the connection here.

Thank you, sir.

Wait you are asking me to recuse myself because I was a member of the UDL? I don't think so. I am no longer a member of the UDL and do not have a conflict of interest with any to do with the organization.

I was not a member of the organization in October of 2012 and was not involved with any discussions that occurred within the UDL on the Ravania incidents earlier this year.

Agreed, Hileville.

I see no basis for the AG's desire to recuse you. In fact, if the AG is seeking your recusal simply because at some point in time you were a member of the UDL and that fact alone is justification for your recusal in this case, it would set an extremely bad precedent. If the AG, has other facts supporting his request, he should make those known.

I'll have to dig through logs to find Punkd's comments - I have a rather clear memory of statements which could be construed as prejudicial, having been made. I merely requested recusal in the interests of ensuring the objectivity of this Court.

Hile, I asked you to recuse yourself because, regardless of specific timelines, you have had lengthy and significant contact with basically every person I have to call as a witness, as well as the defendant. You may not have been a member at that time, but you were in charge of all UDL relations with GCRs at one point. You sitting on this case would be like a judge refusing to recuse himself from a DUI trial concerning his ex-wife, because "we were already divorced when she ran over that group of school children." Technically speaking, no conflict existed at that specific point in time, but the substantial degree of contact over a long period of time, with literally everyone involved in this matter, creates the appearance of potential bias, though both you and I know none would exist. I have to ask, however, in the interests of protecting the system and what it stands for. Fair trial only works if society believes the trial is fair.

Also, I can't believe I forgot to ask Wolf to recuse himself - he was Acting Delegate at the time of the Ravania affair and may be called to testify by either side as a witness.

punk d:

I see no basis for the AG's desire to recuse you. In fact, if the AG is seeking your recusal simply because at some point in time you were a member of the UDL and that fact alone is justification for your recusal in this case, it would set an extremely bad precedent. If the AG, has other facts supporting his request, he should make those known.

Click to expand...

See my previous post and divorce analogy - sometimes prior contact, even if not specifically coinciding with the events in question, create a situation where there is great risk of the appearance of bias. I hope that the Chief Justice can recognize that not only is the technical letter of this Court's regulations critical, but also that our society believes in the impartiality of this system.

Thank you for the added clarification, counselor.

Without specific comments and just "clear memory" I don't believe there is a reason to recuse myself in this case.

Also - I take Justice Hileville at his word that he was not involved in any of the discussions concerning ravania and as such is not prejudiced. We do not know the depths of Hileville's relationship with the UDL and thus your divorce analogy may not be appropriate because, to my knowledge, Hileville has not ever intimated that his time in the UDL was akin to a spousal relationship. It could have been a one-night stand, a short-term girlfriend, or what have you. And given the nature of TNP that we all "know" one another it would be nigh unto impossible to have justices who did not know the defendants they were judging.

Thus, without a specific factual basis and given Justice Hileville's record of impartiality, justice would be best served by not recusing him.

As for me, I'd like to give your office 24 hours to find any evidence showing that I could be prejudiced in this case. If in that time you have provided said evidence I will have no problem recusing myself from this case. But to my knowledge, I have said nothing and certainly have no opinions on this matter that makes me lean one way or the other in this case. I'm providing this timeframe so that I don't add myself to the case and later recuse myself. Let's have it settled once and for all.

I do note your request for BW to recuse himself as you may call him as a witness. In that light it makes sense for him to be recused.

I'd like to name Treize Dreizehn (Pharaoh of Osiris) as my Defense Attorney.

I'd like to echo the concerns of the Attorney General in regards to the recusal requests and would like to officially ask for the recusal of PunkD, Hileville, and Blue Wolf in this matter. All three of these judges are fair and honest and it is because of that that I am certain they will grant these requests.

With regards to PunkD: We are also currently searching for the same logs Gaspo is, in order to demonstrate statements which could be considered prejudicial and that we also recall fairly clearly.

With regards to Hileville: Hileville has worked with almost everyone involved with regards to these charges, and closely. We would be remiss not to request his recusal, if for no other reason than the very real possibility he could be called as a witness.

And finally Blue Wolf: Gaspo has already indicated our primary concerns, his position during some of the events in question guarantee he will be a witness during the trial.

With regards to Hileville: Hileville has worked with almost everyone involved with regards to these charges, and closely. We would be remiss not to request his recusal, if for no other reason than the very real possibility he could be called as a witness.

Click to expand...

Asking me to recuse myself because I have worked with those involved in a trial is insane. If we are going to ask anyone to recuse themselves who have worked with those involved we will never have any justices. I had absolutely nothing to do with the proposed cases and did not partake in anything surrounding such. If you wish to provide me with details as to why I would be called as a witness I will reconsider.

Until such a time details are provided I do not see any reason whatsoever that I need to recuse myself in this matter.

Having provided 24 hours to the AG to supply evidence which would indicate any prejudice I may have and seeing no additional evidence provided, I will not be recusing myself from these proceedings.

Because recusal is not a finite situation, and because this court has been paralyzed through after the fact recusals, I am not going to commence this trial until I find a suitable THO. I will then appoint that THO as the moderator for these proceedings. I find it doubtful I will be asked to recuse myself, but I'll leave open the possibility.

Consider this case accepted by the court and proceedings will commence when I find a replacement for Blue Wolf. As a note: should Hileville be called as a witness he would of course be required to recuse himself from this matter.

And one final note to the Attorney General - I do hope that his mention of BW being called as a witness was done in good faith as I do not like recusing potential witnesses who are not later called to testify.

I do not believe I have any conflict of interest in this case and request of the Chief Justice to stay on for the duration. Also, I am stating clearly now that I refuse to be a witness for either the Defense or the Prosecution unless the Chief Justice specifically deems my testimony paramount to either party.

I had no role with any of the Warzone exhibits offered up by the AG or even the Warzone operation itself. I did not gather that information nor act upon it in any way. In the case of the Ravania scandal, I was merely a figurehead, in fact I wasn't even the first government official Eluvatar came to in order to present his logs against Rav. I do believe that was then DMoD Scand. Any hand I had in that affair dealt solely with the fallout, not the initial inquiry, and was mostly concerning TNP-UDL relations.

There are plenty of other more involved, more qualified, and more knowledgeable witnesses to be called for this case. Despite my position as NPA General and then Vice-Delegate, I was merely a second hand observer, at best.

I'm curious why so uninvolved a party (I noted his need as a witness because I could easily see the Defense having such a need) as BW is being forcibly excluded, while a former high-rankign member of the organization whose member is here on trial is being permitted to continue on this case. I am particularly stunned by this court's refusal to recognize joint requests from both parties to the proceedings. I remind the justices that what matters above all else is that the people believe this court to be unbiased, regardless of whether or not bias exists. Your actions cast doubt on that belief.

I would like 24 hours of my own in order to familiarize myself with this case as well as to produce the logs indicated in my motion for the recusal of Punk D.

Apologies for the double-post, but I have examined the legal code and am unable to find any indication that you possess the authority to forcibly recuse a Justice, PunkD. Not in tehe Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or this Court's own rules. Recusals must be voluntary on the part of the Justice. The drafters were clearly under the (apparently mistaken) impression that the Justices would be capable of that degree of self-examination, to be entrusted with such power.

I would also note that, even if the Court remains intractable, the Chief Justice has failed to name a Moderating Justice for this proceeding, as is required by this Court's rules.

Mr AG - you apparently didn't read this:

Because recusal is not a finite situation, and because this court has been paralyzed through after the fact recusals, I am not going to commence this trial until I find a suitable THO. I will then appoint that THO as the moderator for these proceedings.

Click to expand...

Also - The CJ has no authority to force anyone to be recused. Yes, the justices can make the decision themselves. I think of my co-justices as my teammates in justice. As mentioned in the same post as I discussed the moderating justice selection, I don't want these proceedings to become a mockery.

Treize - you can request a recusal at any point in time during the proceedngs if you find a legitimate conflict of interest. As can the AG. I gave the AG a timeframe simply because I didn't want to stop/start these proceedings. It was a courtesy, not a time limiter.

Here's what I am going to do, since this continues to be discussed...I will serve as moderating justice for these proceedings. I will open proceedings by Monday and during the interim, I would advise both parties to put together whatever evidence to support your requests for recusal. This is a reversal from the quoted statement above and so folks don't miss it, I've bolded the important part.

I am also asking both the AG and defendant's counsel to cease from using this thread as the place to argue about recusing the justices. In the interest of justice, we'll have this conversation as a motion detailed request within the trial. But, let me be clear the burden of recusal rests with you.

I have sent notice to Tim of the pending court proceedings.

Gaspo:

I would also note that, even if the Court remains intractable, the Chief Justice has failed to name a Moderating Justice for this proceeding, as is required by this Court's rules.

Click to expand...

It's not the court. The AG has to actually decide to prosecute.

Roman, this case has already been dealt with: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7069101/1/

There are currently no cases, of any kind, pending before the court.

I see that now.

Civil Complaint​

Defendant: Jamie
Plaintiff: The Minister of Gracius Maximus

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did injure the PLAINTIFF as follows:

Civil Complaint Offennses

The Delegate nation sought to infringe upon the Minister's rights to fair and equal treatment under the Bill of Rights and Constitution by leveling spurious criminal accusations against his nation during the Justice Election cycle. This led directly to his loss of at least one vote in the election, possibly others. The Minister contends that without this breach of trust between the Delegate and a member of the Regional Assembly the election outcome might have been different.

Relevant Laws

Bill of Rights:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

Click to expand...

Summary of events

On 17 July 2013 the Delegate posted this Criminal Complaint against The Minister, accusing him of being in another region and performing an act of treason. This led to one nation switching its vote from Gracius Maximus to Funkadelia, thus providing a 2 vote swing in the favor of the latter in relation to the former. This differentiation would have resulted in at least a tie for the third Justice position between Funkadelia and Malashaan. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that other nations that would likely have voted for The Minister, but who did not express their displeasure publicly as Ash did, thus resulting in an alternative format of the Court.

At no point did the Delegate provide any evidence to support his allegation, as is required within the directions for pursuing a Criminal Complaint. At no point did any nation step forward to substantiate this baseless claim. It was malicious and was intended solely to disrupt The Minister's bid for election to the Court of The North Pacific. The timing of this allegation without merit could serve no other purpose.

Supporting Evidence

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7080764/1/

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Attorney General makes no recommendation in this case and instead leaves to the discretion of the court to take up the matter.



Signed,
Punk Daddy
Attorney General, The North Pacific