I will consider this complaint.
This indictment is denied. There is insufficient evidence to prove malicious intent upon the part of the accused, and on top of that the following statement "At no point did the Delegate provide any evidence to support his allegation," is inaccurate.punk d: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.
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
Would the Court clarify which evidence was provided? A screenshot of a nation that is not The Minister's Fortress State of Gracius Maximus endorsing a nation in another region is hardly proof. I could post any screenshot from any region and claim that X nation belongs to Y nation and that does not make it "evidence".Mall:This indictment is denied. There is insufficient evidence to prove malicious intent upon the part of the accused, and on top of that the following statement "At no point did the Delegate provide any evidence to support his allegation," is inaccurate.punk d: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.
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
I didn't say he had proof Ivan. I said he had evidence. He had a reasonable case against you, and your continued insistence otherwise is neither here nor there.Gracius Maximus:Would the Court clarify which evidence was provided? A screenshot of a nation that is not The Minister's Fortress State of Gracius Maximus endorsing a nation in another region is hardly proof. I could post any screenshot from any region and claim that X nation belongs to Y nation and that does not make it "evidence".
Also, if this "evidence" is insufficient, which it clearly is to any reasonable individual, then the posting of it was intentional, which is the requirement of the Law, not maliciousness.
The Court has proven its effectiveness already.
Even if this is true, what is your point? The Constibillocode which you quote also says:It was malicious and was intended solely to disrupt The Minister's bid for election to the Court of The North Pacific.
The Court will not set a precedent which says that candidates looking to run for office are immune from accusations of wrongdoing. If the Court feels as though pointless accusations are being thrown around, it will simply deny the indictments. If someone is truly causing problems on a large scale with that type of tomfoolery, I will consider further action, unless shut down by the other Justices on some Constibillocodian basis.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.
First, sufficient evidence and insufficient evidence are not the same thing and should not reasonably be considered the same by the Court. Just saying he had a bag of shit and posted it and therefore can't be called on it doesn't make what I stated incorrect. You are just lazy and don't wish to deal with it.Mall:I didn't say he had proof Ivan. I said he had evidence. He had a reasonable case against you, and your continued insistence otherwise is neither here nor there.Gracius Maximus:Would the Court clarify which evidence was provided? A screenshot of a nation that is not The Minister's Fortress State of Gracius Maximus endorsing a nation in another region is hardly proof. I could post any screenshot from any region and claim that X nation belongs to Y nation and that does not make it "evidence".
Also, if this "evidence" is insufficient, which it clearly is to any reasonable individual, then the posting of it was intentional, which is the requirement of the Law, not maliciousness.
The Court has proven its effectiveness already.
Your assumption, that an inadequate case was thrown at the Court to cause you to lose the election, is incorrect. As such, the request for indictment was denied. Along with that, there is this little line from the indictment:Even if this is true, what is your point? The Constibillocode which you quote also says:It was malicious and was intended solely to disrupt The Minister's bid for election to the Court of The North Pacific.The Court will not set a precedent which says that candidates looking to run for office are immune from accusations of wrongdoing. If the Court feels as though pointless accusations are being thrown around, it will simply deny the indictments. If someone is truly causing problems on a large scale with that type of tomfoolery, I will consider further action, unless shut down by the other Justices on some Constibillocodian basis.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.
Your commentary on the effectiveness of the Court is appreciated.
He had sufficient evidence to make a reasonable case Ivan. He had a picture of a nation that certainly seemed to be yours. Whether or not it was has not ever been proven. If that is a "bag of shit" as far as evidence is concerned, then I doubt you will ever be satisfied.Gracius Maximus:First, sufficient evidence and insufficient evidence are not the same thing and should not reasonably be considered the same by the Court. Just saying he had a bag of shit and posted it and therefore can't be called on it doesn't make what I stated incorrect. You are just lazy and don't wish to deal with it.
Also, you can not determine whether or not the inadequacy of the case caused me to lose the election because you have decided not to hear the case. You can't claim I am incorrect because you are denying that such an argument can even be presented before the Court. It isn't incorrect, it is an absence. Again, because you are lazy.
Asking what my point is and then denying me due process in the same paragraph is laughable.
Also, why would you care about precedent? You would not acknowledge it or the Constitution at any rate.
No worries, I knew that this would be the result. The Court sucks, as usual. No surprise.
I stand by every word. Your opinion on the case as presented is biased in favor of the previous Delegate. That was wholly expected from the start. No worries.Mall:He had sufficient evidence to make a reasonable case Ivan. He had a picture of a nation that certainly seemed to be yours. Whether or not it was has not ever been proven. If that is a "bag of shit" as far as evidence is concerned, then I doubt you will ever be satisfied.Gracius Maximus:First, sufficient evidence and insufficient evidence are not the same thing and should not reasonably be considered the same by the Court. Just saying he had a bag of shit and posted it and therefore can't be called on it doesn't make what I stated incorrect. You are just lazy and don't wish to deal with it.
Also, you can not determine whether or not the inadequacy of the case caused me to lose the election because you have decided not to hear the case. You can't claim I am incorrect because you are denying that such an argument can even be presented before the Court. It isn't incorrect, it is an absence. Again, because you are lazy.
Asking what my point is and then denying me due process in the same paragraph is laughable.
Also, why would you care about precedent? You would not acknowledge it or the Constitution at any rate.
No worries, I knew that this would be the result. The Court sucks, as usual. No surprise.
I never said that the inadequacy of the case didn't cause you to lost the election Ivan. I said that your assumption that the case was inadequate was flawed. You are incorrect because your statement is a lie. It is purely in your opinion that there is no evidence against you.
You had due process. You have a right to have your indictment presented and considered. It was presented, and considered. It was also rejected. In fact all three of us rejected it, I was merely the person who had the free time to post it officially.
I don't care about precedent. I simply find it baffling that you have presented a case which both the Constibillocode AND common sense would seem to reject together. Such a thing is a rare occurrence.
Finally, you will not speak in that tone in this courtroom. Remember where you are, and show the due respect.
I'm glad that we've reached an understanding then. Ivan it's clear that you're not happy with the decision, or with losing the election to me. This case was decided by all three justices on the Court, as I previously stated. I'd advise that you cease baiting the Court and spamming up this thread. This matter is settled.Gracius Maximus:I stand by every word. Your opinion on the case as presented is biased in favor of the previous Delegate. That was wholly expected from the start. No worries.
And I give respect where it is deserved, not where it is demanded. This Court, especially you, gets exactly the right amount of respect from me.
You misunderstand.Mall:I'm glad that we've reached an understanding then. Ivan it's clear that you're not happy with the decision, or with losing the election to me. This case was decided by all three justices on the Court, as I previously stated. I'd advise that you cease baiting the Court and spamming up this thread. This matter is settled.Gracius Maximus:I stand by every word. Your opinion on the case as presented is biased in favor of the previous Delegate. That was wholly expected from the start. No worries.
And I give respect where it is deserved, not where it is demanded. This Court, especially you, gets exactly the right amount of respect from me.
Flemingovia vs Grosseschnauzer has already been decided: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8086534&t=7008426 . The moderating Justice handling the case had mentioned that he intended to post an addendum. However, doing so is discretionary; since he chose not to, the case is now closed. Current Justices posting addenda to the decision would amount to re-opening that case, which we are not going to do. If you believe there are unsettled questions, you will need to file for new cases, of type (review, advisory opinion, complaint) as appropriate to the questions you have.flemingovia:Could I gently remind the court that two cases on the books are still outstanding: tnp vs Grosseschnauzer and Flemingovia vs Grosseschnauzer.
Now that Grosse's leave of absence is over I am sure the court would wish to clear these matters.
My own primary reason to dismiss was unrelated to evidentiary issues. However as all the Justices agreed, even if each for different reasons, that the indictment did not provide sufficient evidence, that reason was stated for the dismissal.Gracius Maximus:Also, it isn't that I am unhappy with the Court's decision, it is that I believe the Court erred in it. You (and apparently the other Justices) are operating under a logical fallacy that since no evidence to support intent was presented in the indictment that none exists. That is absurd. The entire point of a hearing is intended to allow the Claimant to present his or her case directly to the Court. The Minister was not allowed to present evidence because the Court is too lazy to hear it. You do not know whether there are extant conversations that indicate the timing of the charge was deliberate. You do not know whether there is evidence to support the claim that the purpose of the charge was to disrupt the Justice election. You claim that such evidence is insufficient from a point of ignorance. I expected this from you. I did expect better from the other Justices and am disappointed that they have evidently been shortsighted through bias in favor of the Defendant.
The Court has not made any decision where it does not follow the law. No such precedent has been set.Gracius Maximus:Further, precedent (whether you approve of the term or not) now exists to imply, if not directly state, that no citizen of TNP needs to adhere to the Law or consider the Court relevant in any issue since the Justice(s) themselves have decided to ignore the Constitution, Legal Code and precedent. If the Court does not have to follow the Law, why should anyone else?
A THO will be appointed promptly.TNP Legal Code:4. 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.
TNP Legal Code 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.
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, Equilism, Balder and Europeia.
TNP Legal Code Section 1.3: Fraud:12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
TNP Legal Code Section 1.5: Proxying:19. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.
TNP Legal Code Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct:23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
My normal access will return after 14 April. I am traveling from 4 April to 14 April (I believe I stated 13 April in the indictment, however the 14th will primarily involve travel back home).Romanoffia:Indictment accepted.
Would you have any objection to the trial schedule starting on 5 April 2014 when you get back to normal computer access?
TNP Legal Code Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct:23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
TNP 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.
Specific Offense(s): Gross MisconductTNP Bill of Rights: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.
Oath of Office sworn by Tomb:I, The Democratic Republic of Tomb, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as WA Delegate, 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 WA Delegate, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Sev, the SHO is supposed to be a non justice, who will step in to serve as a THO should the MJ have to recuse themselves. Kialga is already a justice, so if Plem has a COI at any point, they cannot step in quickly to keep a three-person court.Severisen:Justice Plemboria will serve as the Moderating Justice. Justice Kialga will serve as the Standby Hearing Officer.
Request for Indictment
Accused: New Kenya
Complaining Party: The North Pacific
The Office of the Attorney General requests that the Court issue an indictment charging New Kenya with the crimes of: Treason, Fraud, Gross Misconduct, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.
Statement of Facts
Swedish Republic of New Kenya ('New Kenya'), registered on these forums as tSRoNK, has committed multiple offenses against the Criminal Code of TNP in the course of attempting to subvert its democratic governance. New Kenya is currently a resident of TNP.
In January, New Kenya, at the time a citizen of TNP, applied for membership in the North Pacific Armed Forces (NPA). New Kenya took the required oath, which states:
Although New Kenya lost their citizenship on March 8th due to insufficient forum activity, their membership in the NPA remained active and ongoing.I, _________ request to join The North Pacific Army. I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad. I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military. I pledge to respect the chain of command and my fellow officers at all times. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
In June, New Kenya engaged Pierconium, at the time Delegate of The Pacific, in a telegram exchange (see Telegram Exchange #1). New Kenya attempted to reach an agreement with Pierconium regarding a plan for New Kenya to win the Delegacy in the May 2016 elections for delegate, and, following that, to transform The North Pacific into, in New Kenya's words, "being one of [their] satellite regions". In order to succeed in gaining the Delegacy, New Kenya suggested that the election should be "flooded with votes". Pierconium promptly presented this information to TNP's security apparatus.
In August, New Kenya later made a similar offer to Aleisyr, who was not a citizen of TNP (Telegram Exchange #2). Again, New Kenya's plan was to stand in the September 2016 elections for Delegate, and should he win, serve as merely a figurehead while Aleisyr would act as the "true ruler".
From these two conversations, it seems clear to this office that New Kenya viewed these two nations - Pierconium and Aleisyr - as potential co-conspirators in a plot against the TNP government, and sought to enlist them as allies in preparation for seizing the delegacy.
Applicable Law
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.12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
With respect to these clauses, we contend the following:
Supporting Evidence
- That seeking to use one's nation in a coup against TNP constitutes taking up arms against her lawful government, and that offering one's nation to someone presumed or known to be an enemy of TNP in that same purpose constitutes the provision of material support for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing that government, even if the plotted coup does not materialize. Ergo, we contend that New Kenya committed Treason against TNP.
- That by holding citizenship and NPA membership under false pretenses, by intentionally swearing an oath that they did not intend to keep, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing this government, New Kenya committed Fraud.
- That by planning to overthrow the government of TNP, in violation of their sworn oaths as a citizen and as a member of the NPA, Kenya committed Gross Misconduct.
Conclusion and Recommendation
We believe the court will find in this request for an indictment sufficient evidence of malfeasance to justify charging New Kenya with the crimes we have laid out.
We also believe that even if the Court finds, contrary to our arguments, that New Kenya's crimes do not fit all three descriptions found in the Legal Code, that there will remain sufficient evidence for this office to prove beyond reasonable doubt tat New Kenya planned and attempted to commit all three. Therefore, we strongly recommend and request that New Kenya be additionally charged with three counts of Conspiracy - Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.
Signed,
Guy