I will consider this complaint.
Court Filings
- Thread starter Hileville
- Start date
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
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:
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.
Mall
TNPer
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:
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.
Your commentary on the effectiveness of the Court is appreciated.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
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: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.
Your commentary on the effectiveness of the Court is appreciated.
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.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
For the record, The Minister withdraws the charge citing insufficient intelligence within the judicial system.
Mall
TNPer
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:
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.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
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:
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.
Mall
TNPer
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:
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.
Now that Grosse's leave of absence is over I am sure the court would wish to clear these matters.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
You misunderstand.Mall:
I indicate a lack of respect for you because you ran on a platform of disrespect for the Constitution, disrespect for the Legal Code and disrespect for precedent (i.e. the Court). You have established yourself as having no respect for the legal system of TNP. For you to claim that I should offer you some level of respect out of deference to your title is preposterous at best, outright and blatant hypocrisy at worst.
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.
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?
But, you are correct in one thing. The matter is settled. The Court is a failure as usual. Bravo.
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:
TNP v Grosseschnauzer appears to indeed be outstanding. My apologies for the oversight, the case apparently had been archived, I think by a previous Justice. I have contacted the Attorney General to coordinate with regards to its status.
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:
Your assertion in the above quoted paragraph is incorrect. There exists no logical fallacy here. What does exist is an apparent lack of understanding on your part of how our indictment process works. Once an indictment is filed, the Court is tasked to make a preliminary evaluation of its substance, and decide whether it warrants a full hearing. This decision is based on the amount of evidence submitted in the indictment and the type of allegation. The reason for this procedure is to compensate for the fact that the Attorney General in TNP has no discretion as to what cases to pursue; as a result, some discretion is given to the Court instead.
This procedure is well-established in our jurisdiction by now, and there is ample precedent for it. In this thread alone, if you take a look at the previous pages, you will find multiple occasions where it has been applied. I invite you to take a look.
In line with the above, the Court did not decide that there exists no other evidence, or that there is not enough evidence to prove conviction or injury. The Court decided that the part of the evidence presented in the indictment did not exceed the threshold required for initiating a full hearing. The difference is salient: the former type of decision attaches jeopardy, whereas the latter does not. Instead, the Adopted Court Rules clearly state that an indictment rejected through this preliminary procedure may be resubmitted, better substantiated.
If the complainant has indeed substantially more evidence as he claims, then I invite him to present us with some more of this evidence in a resubmission of his complaint.
The Court has not made any decision where it does not follow the law. No such precedent has been set.Gracius Maximus:
---------
This thread is only for specific procedural purposes, not for discussion of the Court decisions. For commentary, we have the Public Gallery. Any further unrelated posts will be split and moved there.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I concur with r3n on this decision.
I also might add that the standing in this case (damages incurred as a result of alleged 'slander', so to speak) are moot due to the participation of GM in the recent election - participating in the last election essentially vacates the original claims which would have preempted subsequent elections.
I also might add that the standing in this case (damages incurred as a result of alleged 'slander', so to speak) are moot due to the participation of GM in the recent election - participating in the last election essentially vacates the original claims which would have preempted subsequent elections.
Following the recent court ruling, I am resubmitting a civil indictment against grosseschnauzer following comments he made about me on 18th and 20th December 2012.
By this action I am seeking the restoration of my good name and my reputation as a fair and unbiased administrator of this region through:
1. An apology and retraction from Grosseschnauzer.
2. An examination of the facts of the case, and a statement from the court that Grosse’s comments were untrue and unfounded.
The basis of the indictment is simple:
On December 18th and December 20th 2012, in the thread titled "Govindia; didn't listen to Mum", Grosseschnauzer made two posts in which he repeatedly impugned my character, my actions and my impartiality as an Administrator of this forum.
The posts in question are now viewable in the moderator discussion thread "regarding Govindia." Even had they not been released, they were viewable by a large number of influential TNP nations, including the whole cabinet and the moderation/admin team.
In these posts Grosseschnauzer:
1. Accused me of giving biased counsel so as to favour my "political ally", Blue Wolf.
2. Accused me of advising moderator actions in a way that is "blatantly political", in order to "achieve my own aims".
3. Accused me of embarking on a "relentelessly never-ending campiagn", undermining Grosseschnauzer's authority as Root admin by claiming that he ""stole" the root admin account from me (something I have never, to the best of my memory, done).
3, Accused me of "unilateral abuse of my admin powers."
My reputation as a moderator/admin here is important to me, and this attack, coming as it has from the senior admin on this forum, has wounded my reputation. I am aware that this is now in ancient history, but Grosse’s leave of absence and the court delays mean that there has never been resolution of this issue.
I feel the accusations were serious enough to warrant legal challenge. Should Grosseschnauzer seek to prove these accusations in court, I am prepared to counter each of them. However, I would hope that the absurdity of the accusations made against me is apparent to the court.
I am conscious of Grosseschnauzer's fine service to this region, and all I am looking for is a simple retraction and apology - I would not seek any further punishment or damages. For this reason before going to court the first time I contacted Grosseschnauzer by PM privately, seeking a retraction and apology. However, his response was to say "I call them as I see them." I had no desire to go to court, but I now feel I still have no choice; I cannot allow the slanders against my name to stand.
By this action I am seeking the restoration of my good name and my reputation as a fair and unbiased administrator of this region through:
1. An apology and retraction from Grosseschnauzer.
2. An examination of the facts of the case, and a statement from the court that Grosse’s comments were untrue and unfounded.
The basis of the indictment is simple:
On December 18th and December 20th 2012, in the thread titled "Govindia; didn't listen to Mum", Grosseschnauzer made two posts in which he repeatedly impugned my character, my actions and my impartiality as an Administrator of this forum.
The posts in question are now viewable in the moderator discussion thread "regarding Govindia." Even had they not been released, they were viewable by a large number of influential TNP nations, including the whole cabinet and the moderation/admin team.
In these posts Grosseschnauzer:
1. Accused me of giving biased counsel so as to favour my "political ally", Blue Wolf.
2. Accused me of advising moderator actions in a way that is "blatantly political", in order to "achieve my own aims".
3. Accused me of embarking on a "relentelessly never-ending campiagn", undermining Grosseschnauzer's authority as Root admin by claiming that he ""stole" the root admin account from me (something I have never, to the best of my memory, done).
3, Accused me of "unilateral abuse of my admin powers."
My reputation as a moderator/admin here is important to me, and this attack, coming as it has from the senior admin on this forum, has wounded my reputation. I am aware that this is now in ancient history, but Grosse’s leave of absence and the court delays mean that there has never been resolution of this issue.
I feel the accusations were serious enough to warrant legal challenge. Should Grosseschnauzer seek to prove these accusations in court, I am prepared to counter each of them. However, I would hope that the absurdity of the accusations made against me is apparent to the court.
I am conscious of Grosseschnauzer's fine service to this region, and all I am looking for is a simple retraction and apology - I would not seek any further punishment or damages. For this reason before going to court the first time I contacted Grosseschnauzer by PM privately, seeking a retraction and apology. However, his response was to say "I call them as I see them." I had no desire to go to court, but I now feel I still have no choice; I cannot allow the slanders against my name to stand.
Might I ask what the timetable for this indictment will be? I only ask this to save me having to check this thread several times a day.
- Discord
- COE#7110
The court has 72 hours from the time an indictment is filed to accept or reject it.
- Discord
- COE#7110
The indictment of Grosseschnauzer is accepted. The case of Flemingovia v Grosseschnauzer will begin shortly, and I will be the moderating justice. Even though civil trials are adjudicated by a single justice, it appears that a THO needs to be appointed anyway, under the Legal Code:
A THO will be appointed promptly.TNP Legal Code:
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
Criminal Complaint
Defendant: Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
Plaintiff: TNP
The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit several criminal acts:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant solicited Venico Brightaxe's assistance in overthrowing the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly.
Relevant Laws
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.
Section 1.7: Conspiracy
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal 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.
Summary of events
On the evening of Februrary 17th and morning of the 18th, Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, using the puppet Mysterious Me, contacted Venico Brightaxe to gauge his interest in supporting a coup of The North Pacific. After explaining his plan in broad terms, outlining his endorsement count, he suggested a move to instant communication. During the Skype chat, Haafingar and Hjaalmarch confirmed his identity and discussed his exact endorsement count and requested influence estimates for ejecting the delegate. Venico then submitted the evidence to the proper authorities in TNP who requested an indictment to allow the banning of the nation in question.
Supporting Evidence
1(Original Telegrams): http://imgur.com/a/l5CER#0
2(Transcription of Skype Chat): http://pastebin.com/yqqkjDRd
3(Oath of Office of the RA, including a pledge to "responsible action as a member of her society": http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8126123&t=6923980
4(shows his birthyear as 1987, thus supporting that live:efernand87 is in fact the defendant): http://i.imgur.com/Cpjl87b.png
5(shows the founding date of H&H as January 1st, 2014, or 1 month and 18 days prior to the contact with Venico, thus linking to this statement: "This entire ideas was concieved two months ago when I made that WA nation,"): http://i.imgur.com/c0SYYnU.png
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
Signed,
Treize Dreizehn
Deputy Attorney General, The North Pacific.
Defendant: Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
Plaintiff: TNP
The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit several criminal acts:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant solicited Venico Brightaxe's assistance in overthrowing the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly.
Relevant Laws
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.
Section 1.7: Conspiracy
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal 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.
Summary of events
On the evening of Februrary 17th and morning of the 18th, Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, using the puppet Mysterious Me, contacted Venico Brightaxe to gauge his interest in supporting a coup of The North Pacific. After explaining his plan in broad terms, outlining his endorsement count, he suggested a move to instant communication. During the Skype chat, Haafingar and Hjaalmarch confirmed his identity and discussed his exact endorsement count and requested influence estimates for ejecting the delegate. Venico then submitted the evidence to the proper authorities in TNP who requested an indictment to allow the banning of the nation in question.
Supporting Evidence
1(Original Telegrams): http://imgur.com/a/l5CER#0
2(Transcription of Skype Chat): http://pastebin.com/yqqkjDRd
3(Oath of Office of the RA, including a pledge to "responsible action as a member of her society": http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8126123&t=6923980
4(shows his birthyear as 1987, thus supporting that live:efernand87 is in fact the defendant): http://i.imgur.com/Cpjl87b.png
5(shows the founding date of H&H as January 1st, 2014, or 1 month and 18 days prior to the contact with Venico, thus linking to this statement: "This entire ideas was concieved two months ago when I made that WA nation,"): http://i.imgur.com/c0SYYnU.png
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
Signed,
Treize Dreizehn
Deputy Attorney General, The North Pacific.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
The indictment of Haafingar and Hjaalmarch. The case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch will begin shortly. Ator shall be moderating justice.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Criminal Complaint
Defendant: King Durk the Awesome
Plaintiff: The North Pacific
The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit several criminal acts:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant committed treason by providing material support to a group for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The South Pacific, a treatied ally of The North Pacific. The Defendant also masked their IP in order to circumvent regional forum administration and register a second nation for membership in the Regional Assembly in violation of the nation's oath as a member of the that body.
Relevant Laws
Specific Offense(s): Treason; Fraud; Proxying; Gross Misconduct
Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): Treason: 20 April 2013 - 30 April 2013; Proxying, Fraud, Gross Misconduct: 05 December 2012 - 16 May 2013
Summary of Events: Durk supported the coup perpetrated against the Coalition of The South Pacific by Milograd, including accessing the Delegate nation to assist in purging the region and combating liberation attempts (attempts which included the NPA). He also registered for Regional Assembly membership with another account, that of Bokeryville, which gave him the benefit of two votes in the Regional Assembly.
Supporting Evidence
(Admission of guilt on the NS forums): http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=14231755#p14231755
(Application oath of Bokeryville to the Regional Assembly): http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8094081&t=6917173
(Removal of Bokeryville from the Regional Assembly due to CTE): http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8078137&t=6923980
(Screenshot of Durkadurkiranistan III posting on TSP's Regional Message Board):
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
Further, The North Pacific wishes to seek the harshest possible punishment for these crimes (Regional Assembly removal, ejection and banning).
NOTE: I will be traveling with intermittent internet connection from 4 April to 13 April.
Defendant: King Durk the Awesome
Plaintiff: The North Pacific
The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit several criminal acts:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant committed treason by providing material support to a group for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The South Pacific, a treatied ally of The North Pacific. The Defendant also masked their IP in order to circumvent regional forum administration and register a second nation for membership in the Regional Assembly in violation of the nation's oath as a member of the that body.
Relevant Laws
TNP Legal Code Section 1.1: Treason:
TNP Legal Code Section 1.3: Fraud:
TNP Legal Code Section 1.5: Proxying:
TNP Legal Code Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct:
Specific Offense(s): Treason; Fraud; Proxying; Gross Misconduct
Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): Treason: 20 April 2013 - 30 April 2013; Proxying, Fraud, Gross Misconduct: 05 December 2012 - 16 May 2013
Summary of Events: Durk supported the coup perpetrated against the Coalition of The South Pacific by Milograd, including accessing the Delegate nation to assist in purging the region and combating liberation attempts (attempts which included the NPA). He also registered for Regional Assembly membership with another account, that of Bokeryville, which gave him the benefit of two votes in the Regional Assembly.
Supporting Evidence
(Admission of guilt on the NS forums): http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=14231755#p14231755
(Application oath of Bokeryville to the Regional Assembly): http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8094081&t=6917173
(Removal of Bokeryville from the Regional Assembly due to CTE): http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8078137&t=6923980
(Screenshot of Durkadurkiranistan III posting on TSP's Regional Message Board):
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
Further, The North Pacific wishes to seek the harshest possible punishment for these crimes (Regional Assembly removal, ejection and banning).
NOTE: I will be traveling with intermittent internet connection from 4 April to 13 April.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Indictment accepted.
Would you have any objection to the trial schedule starting on 5 April 2014 when you get back to normal computer access?
Would you have any objection to the trial schedule starting on 5 April 2014 when you get back to normal computer access?
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
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:
Thank you.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
You are welcome.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
I am back but am happy to await the conclusion of the ongoing trial if that would better suit the Court.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
We can do that. It'll give me time to either take the case myself or assign one of the other justices to moderate it.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Thank you.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
You ready to roll on this case?
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
I replied via PM.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Many thanks for the response. I replied to your PM.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Criminal Complaint
Defendant: Former Delegate Tomb
Plaintiff: The North Pacific
The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit a criminal act:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant committed the crime of Gross Misconduct in regards to their duty as Delegate of The North Pacific in seeking to suppress the rights and liberties of another nation.
Relevant Laws:
Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): 8-11 May 2015
Summary of Events:
On 8 May 2015, Flemingovia applied to join the North Pacific Armed Forces (NPAF) by posting the designated oath in the official thread. On 10 May 2015, Flemingovia was contacted via whisper on IRC by then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, with concerns over his application.
Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that there was debate regarding his application to join the NPAF because of perceived negative comments regarding TNP military actions made by him (Flemingovia) on the general TNP forums.
Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that the then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, informed him that the Delegate wished for him (Flemingovia) to cease negative commentary on the actions of the NPAF and stipulated that his acceptance into the NPAF was based on his acceptance of this condition.
Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that he informed the then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, of his rights to freedom of speech and expression under Section 2 of TNP's Bill of Rights.
Further to the statements of Flemingovia, the former Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, has provided the Court with two IRC logs, one unredacted transcript (attached) between himself and the former Delegate, Tomb, and another redacted transcript (attached) between himself and Flemingovia.
In these discussions, it is clear that on 8 May 2015 a conversation between then Minister of Defense Eluvatar and former Delegate Tomb took place in which Flemingovia’s application to join the NPAF was discussed. Tomb very clearly indicated that he did not want to admit Flemingovia unless concessions to his (Flemingovia's) posting style, which would be more favorable to the NPAF operations, were made. He instructed the Minister of Defense Eluvatar to speak with Flemingovia regarding this proposal. It is clear in the discussion that Eluvatar was not wholly comfortable with the decision but felt compelled to do his duty as an appointment member of the Delegate’s cabinet.
On 10 May 2015, following the discussion between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on the same date, the former Delegate, Tomb, and Eluvatar discussed Flemingovia's rejection of the truncation of his personal rights to free speech and expression in exchange for NPAF membership. Eluvatar quoted the relevant section of the Bill of Rights to then Delegate Tomb and outlined specifically that the governmental authorities are meant to encourage freedom of speech. Then Delegate Tomb then chose to ignore this, and the Bill of Rights, and instructed Eluvatar to reject the application.
Supporting Evidence:
Conclusion and Recommendation:
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
The former Delegate was expressly informed of the potential of his actions to be a violation of TNP's Bill of Rights and he chose to ignore that warning and proceed. This action violates the guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression for the nation Flemingovia.
Further, The North Pacific acknowledges that the harshest punishment associated with a finding of guilt for Gross Misconduct of a government official is removal from office, and that the Defendant has vacated the office voluntarily, thus mooting this process. However, the law further dictates that the Court has recourse to limit said nation's rights to vote for a determinable period of time (TNP Legal Code, Chapter 2, Section 8).
Defendant: Former Delegate Tomb
Plaintiff: The North Pacific
The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit a criminal act:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant committed the crime of Gross Misconduct in regards to their duty as Delegate of The North Pacific in seeking to suppress the rights and liberties of another nation.
Relevant Laws:
TNP Legal Code Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct:
TNP Bill of Rights:
Specific Offense(s): Gross MisconductTNP Bill of Rights:
Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): 8-11 May 2015
Summary of Events:
On 8 May 2015, Flemingovia applied to join the North Pacific Armed Forces (NPAF) by posting the designated oath in the official thread. On 10 May 2015, Flemingovia was contacted via whisper on IRC by then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, with concerns over his application.
Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that there was debate regarding his application to join the NPAF because of perceived negative comments regarding TNP military actions made by him (Flemingovia) on the general TNP forums.
Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that the then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, informed him that the Delegate wished for him (Flemingovia) to cease negative commentary on the actions of the NPAF and stipulated that his acceptance into the NPAF was based on his acceptance of this condition.
Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that he informed the then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, of his rights to freedom of speech and expression under Section 2 of TNP's Bill of Rights.
Further to the statements of Flemingovia, the former Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, has provided the Court with two IRC logs, one unredacted transcript (attached) between himself and the former Delegate, Tomb, and another redacted transcript (attached) between himself and Flemingovia.
In these discussions, it is clear that on 8 May 2015 a conversation between then Minister of Defense Eluvatar and former Delegate Tomb took place in which Flemingovia’s application to join the NPAF was discussed. Tomb very clearly indicated that he did not want to admit Flemingovia unless concessions to his (Flemingovia's) posting style, which would be more favorable to the NPAF operations, were made. He instructed the Minister of Defense Eluvatar to speak with Flemingovia regarding this proposal. It is clear in the discussion that Eluvatar was not wholly comfortable with the decision but felt compelled to do his duty as an appointment member of the Delegate’s cabinet.
On 10 May 2015, following the discussion between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on the same date, the former Delegate, Tomb, and Eluvatar discussed Flemingovia's rejection of the truncation of his personal rights to free speech and expression in exchange for NPAF membership. Eluvatar quoted the relevant section of the Bill of Rights to then Delegate Tomb and outlined specifically that the governmental authorities are meant to encourage freedom of speech. Then Delegate Tomb then chose to ignore this, and the Bill of Rights, and instructed Eluvatar to reject the application.
Supporting Evidence:
Oath of Office sworn by Tomb:
[16:55:31] <Tomb> Hi Eluvatar 
[16:56:03] <Tomb> Eluvatar, I wanted to get in touch with you regarding a recent NPA application, that of Flemingovia's.
[16:56:36] <Tomb> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8216864&t=7279690
[16:56:48] <Tomb> ^ Is the application.
[17:01:00] <Tomb> I wanted to discuss with you whether it'd be wise to admit Flemingovia or not. Flemingovia has insulted the NPA on many multiple occasions, actually, every time they have a chance to do so.
[17:04:28] <Tomb> Also the timing of Flemingovia's NPA application is concerning me. Right when we're about to pass an amendment that'd require someone to report operations, he applies to join.
[17:17:49] <Eluvatar> He's quite transparent about that
[17:21:00] <Tomb> I don't get why a person as opposed to the NPA and its operations as Flemingovia would request to join it. I mean, if we want to admit Flemingovia, we should at least get in touch with him about his criticism of the organization.
[17:21:27] <Eluvatar> I would be perfectly happy to have a chat with flemingovia
[17:21:35] <Eluvatar> he's stated he'd be interested in defensive operations
[17:21:52] <Eluvatar> perhaps he liked working with the broader Lazarene liberation effort
[17:23:12] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns
[17:23:23] <Tomb> I'm glad that he has an interest in it. And I'd appreciate it you talk to him. That'd be great.
[17:23:41] <Eluvatar> I suppose it's the subtleties of distinctions between TNP as a whole and NPA
[17:24:41] <Tomb> <Eluvatar>: I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns ---> My concerns of admitting Flem, or my concerns regarding the on-going amendment in discussion?
[17:25:06] <Eluvatar> the former
[17:30:59] <Tomb> Eluvatar, does it make sense for an army general or officer to criticize his own army and call some of their operations "panty raids" in front of the whole region? As he gets up the ranks of the NPA, I don't think it'd be to the best of our army's interest to have someone like that if his behavior continues.
[17:31:18] <Tomb> He’d drive away potential recruits, to begin with. Now, I certainly, don’t mind hearing his complaints. I’m always opened to criticism as long as its constructive, but Flem’s behavior towards the NPA has been far from constructive.
[17:31:38] <Tomb> As of late at least.
[17:31:46] <Eluvatar> I didn't find it offensive :/
[17:31:50] <Eluvatar> But maybe I have a different perspective
[17:40:28] <Tomb> Maybe. Of course, I have the highest respect for Flem, and I really appreciate the contributions they've give to the region. I'd love for Flem to join the NPA and participate, but I also want to make sure that he's going to be acting in the best interest of the NPA once in.
[17:49:47] <Eluvatar> I see it differently
[17:50:07] * Tomb nods.
[17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
[17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[17:57:30] <Eluvatar> Yeah that's even more misinterpretable
[17:58:07] <Eluvatar> how are we going to distinguish constructive from unconstructive?
[17:58:17] <Tomb> Constructive:
[17:58:20] <Eluvatar> why is satire that entertains unconstructive, he'll ask, etc
[18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he’s welcome aboard. I’m not asking for much anyways. If not, there’s always a next time, as they say.
[18:25:15] <Eluvatar> I see.
[16:56:03] <Tomb> Eluvatar, I wanted to get in touch with you regarding a recent NPA application, that of Flemingovia's.
[16:56:36] <Tomb> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8216864&t=7279690
[16:56:48] <Tomb> ^ Is the application.
[17:01:00] <Tomb> I wanted to discuss with you whether it'd be wise to admit Flemingovia or not. Flemingovia has insulted the NPA on many multiple occasions, actually, every time they have a chance to do so.
[17:04:28] <Tomb> Also the timing of Flemingovia's NPA application is concerning me. Right when we're about to pass an amendment that'd require someone to report operations, he applies to join.
[17:17:49] <Eluvatar> He's quite transparent about that
[17:21:00] <Tomb> I don't get why a person as opposed to the NPA and its operations as Flemingovia would request to join it. I mean, if we want to admit Flemingovia, we should at least get in touch with him about his criticism of the organization.
[17:21:27] <Eluvatar> I would be perfectly happy to have a chat with flemingovia
[17:21:35] <Eluvatar> he's stated he'd be interested in defensive operations
[17:21:52] <Eluvatar> perhaps he liked working with the broader Lazarene liberation effort
[17:23:12] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns
[17:23:23] <Tomb> I'm glad that he has an interest in it. And I'd appreciate it you talk to him. That'd be great.
[17:23:41] <Eluvatar> I suppose it's the subtleties of distinctions between TNP as a whole and NPA
[17:24:41] <Tomb> <Eluvatar>: I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns ---> My concerns of admitting Flem, or my concerns regarding the on-going amendment in discussion?
[17:25:06] <Eluvatar> the former
[17:30:59] <Tomb> Eluvatar, does it make sense for an army general or officer to criticize his own army and call some of their operations "panty raids" in front of the whole region? As he gets up the ranks of the NPA, I don't think it'd be to the best of our army's interest to have someone like that if his behavior continues.
[17:31:18] <Tomb> He’d drive away potential recruits, to begin with. Now, I certainly, don’t mind hearing his complaints. I’m always opened to criticism as long as its constructive, but Flem’s behavior towards the NPA has been far from constructive.
[17:31:38] <Tomb> As of late at least.
[17:31:46] <Eluvatar> I didn't find it offensive :/
[17:31:50] <Eluvatar> But maybe I have a different perspective
[17:40:28] <Tomb> Maybe. Of course, I have the highest respect for Flem, and I really appreciate the contributions they've give to the region. I'd love for Flem to join the NPA and participate, but I also want to make sure that he's going to be acting in the best interest of the NPA once in.
[17:49:47] <Eluvatar> I see it differently
[17:50:07] * Tomb nods.
[17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
[17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[17:57:30] <Eluvatar> Yeah that's even more misinterpretable
[17:58:07] <Eluvatar> how are we going to distinguish constructive from unconstructive?
[17:58:17] <Tomb> Constructive:
[17:58:20] <Eluvatar> why is satire that entertains unconstructive, he'll ask, etc
[18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he’s welcome aboard. I’m not asking for much anyways. If not, there’s always a next time, as they say.
[18:25:15] <Eluvatar> I see.
[00:35:57] <flemingovia> Is an interview normal for NPA applications? I did not realise.
[00:36:00] <flemingovia> Fire away.
...
[01:37:40] <Eluvatar> Basically, there's some confusion about how to understand your application.
[01:38:00] <Eluvatar> There are definitely those who see it negatively, and feel like you've been attacking the NPA for months and months, why do you want to join it
[01:38:07] <Eluvatar> A bit of a limited perspective perhaps
[01:40:08] <flemingovia> You say "There are those..." does this mean that there has been a debate taking place?
[01:40:47] <Eluvatar> Yes
[01:40:50] <flemingovia> "Those" implies more than Gladio.
[01:41:27] <Eluvatar> The Delegate, being my boss, has the final word
[01:41:53] <flemingovia> Does the delegate usually get involved in NPAF applications?
[01:41:55] <Eluvatar> I would very much like you to join, and there will be plenty to do that you won't mind doing, I think,
[01:42:09] <Eluvatar> but the Delegate wants your promise to stop making a laughingstock of the NPA
[01:42:12] <Eluvatar> basically
[redacted]
[01:42:42] <Eluvatar> The Delegate has been involved on occasion i think, but not in a while.
[01:43:25] <flemingovia> I trust you quoted the Bill of Rights: "Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed,"
[01:44:42] <Eluvatar> not in so many words
[01:46:03] <flemingovia> "And shall be encouraged by the governmental authority of the region" would seem to be the key phrase here.
[01:47:43] <Eluvatar> I expressed, rather, that we seemed to have a difference in philosophyh
[01:47:46] <Eluvatar> *philosophy
[01:47:50] <Eluvatar> or perspective
[01:48:12] <flemingovia> So as it stands, unless I agree to a gagging order, my application to join the NPAF will be rejected?
[01:48:18] <Eluvatar> well
[01:48:22] <Eluvatar> We had an involved discussion
[01:49:45] <Eluvatar> [17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
...
[01:50:06] <flemingovia> Elu, the NPAF regularly accepts applicants who have made no more than two or three posts on the forum, whost trustworthiness is unknown and who disappear after a few weeks of inactivity. If I am rejected after Gladio has said publicly that I am not to be trusted, you realise how this will look?
...
[redacted]
[01:51:26] <Eluvatar> I quote the above to mean that clearly Tomb doesn't envision complete gag order
[01:51:29] <Eluvatar> but nonetheless
[01:51:33] <flemingovia> I do not understand. Is Tomb putting free-speech conditions on my application or not?
[01:52:03] <Eluvatar> I am not to admit you without a promise to "respect the organization"
[01:52:10] <Eluvatar> meaning to not ridicule it, I guess
[01:52:32] <flemingovia> Well, that is your call.
[redacted]
[01:53:09] <flemingovia> First off, it will APPEAR as if there is an issue of Trust - espcially since Gladio has brought that up.
[01:53:27] <flemingovia> Second, there are serious implications for the Bill of Rights.
[01:53:36] <Eluvatar> I can and will say that you have my full confidence.
[01:53:41] <Eluvatar> wherever and whenever you like
[01:53:52] <flemingovia> That;s what Tomb said too.
[01:54:17] <Eluvatar> >.<
[01:54:23] <Eluvatar> I mean, publicly.
[01:54:41] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure it'd be right for me to explicitly say "I disagree with the decision I'm implementing"
[01:55:00] <Eluvatar> but I can probably fairly phrase any action to reflect that it's not my personal opinion
[01:55:54] <flemingovia> Phrase as you will.
[01:56:08] <flemingovia> You realise there will be a legal challenge under the Bill of Rights?
[01:56:21] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[01:56:26] <Eluvatar> I have to write briefs... D:
[01:56:36] <flemingovia> The NPAF is, at the very least, putting conditions on my membership that they do not put on any other applicant.
[01:56:52] <flemingovia> Unless all other applicants have to agree to a gagging clause?
[01:57:42] <Eluvatar> Applicants agree to follow the NPA Code
[01:57:56] <flemingovia> I think I swore to that effect.
[01:58:02] * Eluvatar skims it over...
[01:58:58] <Eluvatar> > 1. All NPA personnel shall pledge and offer their obedience (in this order) to the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, this Code, all senior High Command Officers, and senior Commissioned Officers (in a particular mission), in all matters pertaining to the NPA. Disobedience may result in disciplinary action.
[01:59:02] <Eluvatar> I guess that's ^ ?
[01:59:24] <Eluvatar> :-/
[01:59:53] <Eluvatar> but in general the NPA Code is constructed liberally, much like the rest of TNP
[02:00:19] <flemingovia> Annd this trumps the Bill of Rights?
[02:00:19] <Eluvatar> "Common sense" arguments that NPA members /obviously/ mustn't speak ill of the NPA would not find support from me
[02:00:56] <flemingovia> I think "obedience" pertains to military and security matters.
[02:00:57] <Eluvatar> Generally speaking soldiers surrender some rights when joining a military
[02:01:01] <Eluvatar> I would too yes
[02:01:09] <Eluvatar> there's a separate section regarding secrecy
[02:05:30] <Eluvatar> I would definitely prefer an outcome where you join the NPA
[redacted]
[02:08:43] <flemingovia> well, the NPA has my application on the table. All I seem to be getting in return is suspicion and hostility. I made clear the reasons for my applicaiton- i am happy to join in army missions, and am interested in helping with the administration of task within the army. Gladio has said I am not to be trusted, and Tomb has said he wants me to agree to
[02:09:05] <flemingovia> give up my Bill of Rights protection. So tell me, where should the movement come from?
[02:09:17] <Eluvatar> I have no suspicions
[02:09:32] <Eluvatar> I do not believe you would ever leak NPA secrets to anyone (and besides, you already have that ability
)
[02:10:05] <Eluvatar> I don't really see satire that you often aim all over the place in TNP as relevant
[02:10:10] <Eluvatar> (personally)
[02:10:11] <flemingovia> in Ten years or more i have never once broken a confidence or betrayed a trust. Which is why Gladio's comments made me so annoyed.
[02:10:25] <flemingovia> Especially when Tomb effectively backed them up.
[02:10:33] <Eluvatar> I'd have been annoyed myself.
[02:10:41] <Eluvatar> (in your place)
[02:11:24] <flemingovia> If I was in the NPAF I would not leak mission information. Or do anything to compromise NPAF security. Period.
[02:11:44] <flemingovia> And as I have said, the NPAF regualrly takes on applicants on far less assurance.
[02:13:37] <Eluvatar> I know.
[02:13:48] <Eluvatar> And yeah, it couldn't possibly work if it didn't accept newbies.
[02:15:50] <flemingovia> Either way, I would be grateful if you would either accept or reject my application; that would make things clearer.
[02:16:52] <Eluvatar> I'd rather get an opportunity to consult again with Tomb first.
[02:17:02] <Eluvatar> a three person conversation would probably be the ideal.
[02:17:08] <Eluvatar> Maybe thursday?
[02:19:15] <flemingovia> I would prefer if the application was not left that long. It would look odd since most applicants are dealt with in 24 hours.
[02:20:11] <flemingovia> As things stand you would have to leapfrog my application and deal with the newbie follwing me.
[02:20:36] <flemingovia> And that would scream "we have some reason to believe that Flem is a security risk"
[02:20:49] <flemingovia> Especially following Gladio's comments.
[02:22:22] <flemingovia> I would aslo protest that conditions are being put on my application that are not put on any other applicant.
[02:22:36] <flemingovia> I am being singled out here.
[02:24:12] <flemingovia> ffs, even Govindia was in the army for a long time. Did anyone put conditions on what he could and could not talk about?
[02:24:53] <Eluvatar> preaching to the choir
[02:26:43] <flemingovia> Tomb is making an assumption - that I will continue to post about the NPAF as I am now once I am in the NPAF. He is doing that on no evidence, and seeking to put pre-conditions on my application.
[02:27:14] <Eluvatar> To be fair, a promise to do what you were going to do anyway isn't much of a pre-condition
[02:27:26] <Eluvatar> My problem with it comes to the broadness of his words
[02:27:41] <flemingovia> Now any officer of the NPAF can be dismissed. But to reject someone before they have even joined on the basis of what they MIGHT do, is unjust.
[02:28:21] <Eluvatar> the final phrasing was [redacted]
[02:28:28] <flemingovia> I am not going to be giving any undertakings beyond those given by every other applicant in posting their oath.
[02:34:46] <flemingovia> Tomb has said [redacted]
[02:35:07] <Eluvatar> yes
[02:35:14] <flemingovia> Now I cannot work out from his words whether he is saying deny the application if Flem does not agree to a gagging order."
[02:36:48] <flemingovia> So I think he has left the ball in your court.
[02:38:11] <flemingovia> Can i remind you of this:
[02:38:13] <flemingovia> "No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. "
...
[02:38:49] <flemingovia> So if you are putting me under conditions that you do not put any other applicant under... that is also a breach of the BoR.
...
[02:39:05] <Eluvatar> I serve at the Delegate's pleasure
[00:36:00] <flemingovia> Fire away.
...
[01:37:40] <Eluvatar> Basically, there's some confusion about how to understand your application.
[01:38:00] <Eluvatar> There are definitely those who see it negatively, and feel like you've been attacking the NPA for months and months, why do you want to join it
[01:38:07] <Eluvatar> A bit of a limited perspective perhaps
[01:40:08] <flemingovia> You say "There are those..." does this mean that there has been a debate taking place?
[01:40:47] <Eluvatar> Yes
[01:40:50] <flemingovia> "Those" implies more than Gladio.
[01:41:27] <Eluvatar> The Delegate, being my boss, has the final word
[01:41:53] <flemingovia> Does the delegate usually get involved in NPAF applications?
[01:41:55] <Eluvatar> I would very much like you to join, and there will be plenty to do that you won't mind doing, I think,
[01:42:09] <Eluvatar> but the Delegate wants your promise to stop making a laughingstock of the NPA
[01:42:12] <Eluvatar> basically
[redacted]
[01:42:42] <Eluvatar> The Delegate has been involved on occasion i think, but not in a while.
[01:43:25] <flemingovia> I trust you quoted the Bill of Rights: "Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed,"
[01:44:42] <Eluvatar> not in so many words
[01:46:03] <flemingovia> "And shall be encouraged by the governmental authority of the region" would seem to be the key phrase here.
[01:47:43] <Eluvatar> I expressed, rather, that we seemed to have a difference in philosophyh
[01:47:46] <Eluvatar> *philosophy
[01:47:50] <Eluvatar> or perspective
[01:48:12] <flemingovia> So as it stands, unless I agree to a gagging order, my application to join the NPAF will be rejected?
[01:48:18] <Eluvatar> well
[01:48:22] <Eluvatar> We had an involved discussion
[01:49:45] <Eluvatar> [17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
...
[01:50:06] <flemingovia> Elu, the NPAF regularly accepts applicants who have made no more than two or three posts on the forum, whost trustworthiness is unknown and who disappear after a few weeks of inactivity. If I am rejected after Gladio has said publicly that I am not to be trusted, you realise how this will look?
...
[redacted]
[01:51:26] <Eluvatar> I quote the above to mean that clearly Tomb doesn't envision complete gag order
[01:51:29] <Eluvatar> but nonetheless
[01:51:33] <flemingovia> I do not understand. Is Tomb putting free-speech conditions on my application or not?
[01:52:03] <Eluvatar> I am not to admit you without a promise to "respect the organization"
[01:52:10] <Eluvatar> meaning to not ridicule it, I guess
[01:52:32] <flemingovia> Well, that is your call.
[redacted]
[01:53:09] <flemingovia> First off, it will APPEAR as if there is an issue of Trust - espcially since Gladio has brought that up.
[01:53:27] <flemingovia> Second, there are serious implications for the Bill of Rights.
[01:53:36] <Eluvatar> I can and will say that you have my full confidence.
[01:53:41] <Eluvatar> wherever and whenever you like
[01:53:52] <flemingovia> That;s what Tomb said too.
[01:54:17] <Eluvatar> >.<
[01:54:23] <Eluvatar> I mean, publicly.
[01:54:41] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure it'd be right for me to explicitly say "I disagree with the decision I'm implementing"
[01:55:00] <Eluvatar> but I can probably fairly phrase any action to reflect that it's not my personal opinion
[01:55:54] <flemingovia> Phrase as you will.
[01:56:08] <flemingovia> You realise there will be a legal challenge under the Bill of Rights?
[01:56:21] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[01:56:26] <Eluvatar> I have to write briefs... D:
[01:56:36] <flemingovia> The NPAF is, at the very least, putting conditions on my membership that they do not put on any other applicant.
[01:56:52] <flemingovia> Unless all other applicants have to agree to a gagging clause?
[01:57:42] <Eluvatar> Applicants agree to follow the NPA Code
[01:57:56] <flemingovia> I think I swore to that effect.
[01:58:02] * Eluvatar skims it over...
[01:58:58] <Eluvatar> > 1. All NPA personnel shall pledge and offer their obedience (in this order) to the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, this Code, all senior High Command Officers, and senior Commissioned Officers (in a particular mission), in all matters pertaining to the NPA. Disobedience may result in disciplinary action.
[01:59:02] <Eluvatar> I guess that's ^ ?
[01:59:24] <Eluvatar> :-/
[01:59:53] <Eluvatar> but in general the NPA Code is constructed liberally, much like the rest of TNP
[02:00:19] <flemingovia> Annd this trumps the Bill of Rights?
[02:00:19] <Eluvatar> "Common sense" arguments that NPA members /obviously/ mustn't speak ill of the NPA would not find support from me
[02:00:56] <flemingovia> I think "obedience" pertains to military and security matters.
[02:00:57] <Eluvatar> Generally speaking soldiers surrender some rights when joining a military
[02:01:01] <Eluvatar> I would too yes
[02:01:09] <Eluvatar> there's a separate section regarding secrecy
[02:05:30] <Eluvatar> I would definitely prefer an outcome where you join the NPA
[redacted]
[02:08:43] <flemingovia> well, the NPA has my application on the table. All I seem to be getting in return is suspicion and hostility. I made clear the reasons for my applicaiton- i am happy to join in army missions, and am interested in helping with the administration of task within the army. Gladio has said I am not to be trusted, and Tomb has said he wants me to agree to
[02:09:05] <flemingovia> give up my Bill of Rights protection. So tell me, where should the movement come from?
[02:09:17] <Eluvatar> I have no suspicions
[02:09:32] <Eluvatar> I do not believe you would ever leak NPA secrets to anyone (and besides, you already have that ability
)[02:10:05] <Eluvatar> I don't really see satire that you often aim all over the place in TNP as relevant
[02:10:10] <Eluvatar> (personally)
[02:10:11] <flemingovia> in Ten years or more i have never once broken a confidence or betrayed a trust. Which is why Gladio's comments made me so annoyed.
[02:10:25] <flemingovia> Especially when Tomb effectively backed them up.
[02:10:33] <Eluvatar> I'd have been annoyed myself.
[02:10:41] <Eluvatar> (in your place)
[02:11:24] <flemingovia> If I was in the NPAF I would not leak mission information. Or do anything to compromise NPAF security. Period.
[02:11:44] <flemingovia> And as I have said, the NPAF regualrly takes on applicants on far less assurance.
[02:13:37] <Eluvatar> I know.
[02:13:48] <Eluvatar> And yeah, it couldn't possibly work if it didn't accept newbies.
[02:15:50] <flemingovia> Either way, I would be grateful if you would either accept or reject my application; that would make things clearer.
[02:16:52] <Eluvatar> I'd rather get an opportunity to consult again with Tomb first.
[02:17:02] <Eluvatar> a three person conversation would probably be the ideal.
[02:17:08] <Eluvatar> Maybe thursday?
[02:19:15] <flemingovia> I would prefer if the application was not left that long. It would look odd since most applicants are dealt with in 24 hours.
[02:20:11] <flemingovia> As things stand you would have to leapfrog my application and deal with the newbie follwing me.
[02:20:36] <flemingovia> And that would scream "we have some reason to believe that Flem is a security risk"
[02:20:49] <flemingovia> Especially following Gladio's comments.
[02:22:22] <flemingovia> I would aslo protest that conditions are being put on my application that are not put on any other applicant.
[02:22:36] <flemingovia> I am being singled out here.
[02:24:12] <flemingovia> ffs, even Govindia was in the army for a long time. Did anyone put conditions on what he could and could not talk about?
[02:24:53] <Eluvatar> preaching to the choir
[02:26:43] <flemingovia> Tomb is making an assumption - that I will continue to post about the NPAF as I am now once I am in the NPAF. He is doing that on no evidence, and seeking to put pre-conditions on my application.
[02:27:14] <Eluvatar> To be fair, a promise to do what you were going to do anyway isn't much of a pre-condition
[02:27:26] <Eluvatar> My problem with it comes to the broadness of his words
[02:27:41] <flemingovia> Now any officer of the NPAF can be dismissed. But to reject someone before they have even joined on the basis of what they MIGHT do, is unjust.
[02:28:21] <Eluvatar> the final phrasing was [redacted]
[02:28:28] <flemingovia> I am not going to be giving any undertakings beyond those given by every other applicant in posting their oath.
[02:34:46] <flemingovia> Tomb has said [redacted]
[02:35:07] <Eluvatar> yes
[02:35:14] <flemingovia> Now I cannot work out from his words whether he is saying deny the application if Flem does not agree to a gagging order."
[02:36:48] <flemingovia> So I think he has left the ball in your court.
[02:38:11] <flemingovia> Can i remind you of this:
[02:38:13] <flemingovia> "No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. "
...
[02:38:49] <flemingovia> So if you are putting me under conditions that you do not put any other applicant under... that is also a breach of the BoR.
...
[02:39:05] <Eluvatar> I serve at the Delegate's pleasure
[00:35:57] <flemingovia> Is an interview normal for NPA applications? I did not realise.
[00:36:00] <flemingovia> Fire away.
...
[01:37:40] <Eluvatar> Basically, there's some confusion about how to understand your application.
[01:38:00] <Eluvatar> There are definitely those who see it negatively, and feel like you've been attacking the NPA for months and months, why do you want to join it
[01:38:07] <Eluvatar> A bit of a limited perspective perhaps
[01:40:08] <flemingovia> You say "There are those..." does this mean that there has been a debate taking place?
[01:40:47] <Eluvatar> Yes
[01:40:50] <flemingovia> "Those" implies more than Gladio.
[01:41:27] <Eluvatar> The Delegate, being my boss, has the final word
[01:41:53] <flemingovia> Does the delegate usually get involved in NPAF applications?
[01:41:55] <Eluvatar> I would very much like you to join, and there will be plenty to do that you won't mind doing, I think,
[01:42:09] <Eluvatar> but the Delegate wants your promise to stop making a laughingstock of the NPA
[01:42:12] <Eluvatar> basically
[01:42:25] <Eluvatar> [18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[01:42:25] <Eluvatar> [18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he’s welcome aboard. I’m not asking for much anyways. If not, there’s always a next time, as they say.
[01:42:42] <Eluvatar> The Delegate has been involved on occasion i think, but not in a while.
[01:43:25] <flemingovia> I trust you quoted the Bill of Rights: "Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed,"
[01:44:42] <Eluvatar> not in so many words
[01:46:03] <flemingovia> "And shall be encouraged by the governmental authority of the region" would seem to be the key phrase here.
[01:47:43] <Eluvatar> I expressed, rather, that we seemed to have a difference in philosophyh
[01:47:46] <Eluvatar> *philosophy
[01:47:50] <Eluvatar> or perspective
[01:48:12] <flemingovia> So as it stands, unless I agree to a gagging order, my application to join the NPAF will be rejected?
[01:48:18] <Eluvatar> well
[01:48:22] <Eluvatar> We had an involved discussion
[01:49:45] <Eluvatar> [17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
...
[01:50:06] <flemingovia> Elu, the NPAF regularly accepts applicants who have made no more than two or three posts on the forum, whost trustworthiness is unknown and who disappear after a few weeks of inactivity. If I am rejected after Gladio has said publicly that I am not to be trusted, you realise how this will look?
...
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[01:50:14] <Eluvatar> [17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[01:50:16] <Eluvatar> [17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[01:50:21] <Eluvatar> [17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[01:51:26] <Eluvatar> I quote the above to mean that clearly Tomb doesn't envision complete gag order
[01:51:29] <Eluvatar> but nonetheless
[01:51:33] <flemingovia> I do not understand. Is Tomb putting free-speech conditions on my application or not?
[01:52:03] <Eluvatar> I am not to admit you without a promise to "respect the organization"
[01:52:10] <Eluvatar> meaning to not ridicule it, I guess
[01:52:32] <flemingovia> Well, that is your call.
[redacted]
[01:53:09] <flemingovia> First off, it will APPEAR as if there is an issue of Trust - espcially since Gladio has brought that up.
[01:53:27] <flemingovia> Second, there are serious implications for the Bill of Rights.
[01:53:36] <Eluvatar> I can and will say that you have my full confidence.
[01:53:41] <Eluvatar> wherever and whenever you like
[01:53:52] <flemingovia> That;s what Tomb said too.
[01:54:17] <Eluvatar> >.<
[01:54:23] <Eluvatar> I mean, publicly.
[01:54:41] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure it'd be right for me to explicitly say "I disagree with the decision I'm implementing"
[01:55:00] <Eluvatar> but I can probably fairly phrase any action to reflect that it's not my personal opinion
[01:55:54] <flemingovia> Phrase as you will.
[01:56:08] <flemingovia> You realise there will be a legal challenge under the Bill of Rights?
[01:56:21] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[01:56:26] <Eluvatar> I have to write briefs... D:
[01:56:36] <flemingovia> The NPAF is, at the very least, putting conditions on my membership that they do not put on any other applicant.
[01:56:52] <flemingovia> Unless all other applicants have to agree to a gagging clause?
[01:57:42] <Eluvatar> Applicants agree to follow the NPA Code
[01:57:56] <flemingovia> I think I swore to that effect.
[01:58:02] * Eluvatar skims it over...
[01:58:58] <Eluvatar> > 1. All NPA personnel shall pledge and offer their obedience (in this order) to the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, this Code, all senior High Command Officers, and senior Commissioned Officers (in a particular mission), in all matters pertaining to the NPA. Disobedience may result in disciplinary action.
[01:59:02] <Eluvatar> I guess that's ^ ?
[01:59:24] <Eluvatar> :-/
[01:59:53] <Eluvatar> but in general the NPA Code is constructed liberally, much like the rest of TNP
[02:00:19] <flemingovia> Annd this trumps the Bill of Rights?
[02:00:19] <Eluvatar> "Common sense" arguments that NPA members /obviously/ mustn't speak ill of the NPA would not find support from me
[02:00:56] <flemingovia> I think "obedience" pertains to military and security matters.
[02:00:57] <Eluvatar> Generally speaking soldiers surrender some rights when joining a military
[02:01:01] <Eluvatar> I would too yes
[02:01:09] <Eluvatar> there's a separate section regarding secrecy
[02:05:30] <Eluvatar> I would definitely prefer an outcome where you join the NPA
[redacted]
[02:08:43] <flemingovia> well, the NPA has my application on the table. All I seem to be getting in return is suspicion and hostility. I made clear the reasons for my applicaiton- i am happy to join in army missions, and am interested in helping with the administration of task within the army. Gladio has said I am not to be trusted, and Tomb has said he wants me to agree to
[02:09:05] <flemingovia> give up my Bill of Rights protection. So tell me, where should the movement come from?
[02:09:17] <Eluvatar> I have no suspicions
[02:09:32] <Eluvatar> I do not believe you would ever leak NPA secrets to anyone (and besides, you already have that ability)
[02:10:05] <Eluvatar> I don't really see satire that you often aim all over the place in TNP as relevant
[02:10:10] <Eluvatar> (personally)
[02:10:11] <flemingovia> in Ten years or more i have never once broken a confidence or betrayed a trust. Which is why Gladio's comments made me so annoyed.
[02:10:25] <flemingovia> Especially when Tomb effectively backed them up.
[02:10:33] <Eluvatar> I'd have been annoyed myself.
[02:10:41] <Eluvatar> (in your place)
[02:11:24] <flemingovia> If I was in the NPAF I would not leak mission information. Or do anything to compromise NPAF security. Period.
[02:11:44] <flemingovia> And as I have said, the NPAF regualrly takes on applicants on far less assurance.
[02:13:37] <Eluvatar> I know.
[02:13:48] <Eluvatar> And yeah, it couldn't possibly work if it didn't accept newbies.
[02:15:50] <flemingovia> Either way, I would be grateful if you would either accept or reject my application; that would make things clearer.
[02:16:52] <Eluvatar> I'd rather get an opportunity to consult again with Tomb first.
[02:17:02] <Eluvatar> a three person conversation would probably be the ideal.
[02:17:08] <Eluvatar> Maybe thursday?
[02:19:15] <flemingovia> I would prefer if the application was not left that long. It would look odd since most applicants are dealt with in 24 hours.
[02:20:11] <flemingovia> As things stand you would have to leapfrog my application and deal with the newbie follwing me.
[02:20:36] <flemingovia> And that would scream "we have some reason to believe that Flem is a security risk"
[02:20:49] <flemingovia> Especially following Gladio's comments.
[02:22:22] <flemingovia> I would aslo protest that conditions are being put on my application that are not put on any other applicant.
[02:22:36] <flemingovia> I am being singled out here.
[02:24:12] <flemingovia> ffs, even Govindia was in the army for a long time. Did anyone put conditions on what he could and could not talk about?
[02:24:53] <Eluvatar> preaching to the choir
[02:26:43] <flemingovia> Tomb is making an assumption - that I will continue to post about the NPAF as I am now once I am in the NPAF. He is doing that on no evidence, and seeking to put pre-conditions on my application.
[02:27:14] <Eluvatar> To be fair, a promise to do what you were going to do anyway isn't much of a pre-condition
[02:27:26] <Eluvatar> My problem with it comes to the broadness of his words
[02:27:41] <flemingovia> Now any officer of the NPAF can be dismissed. But to reject someone before they have even joined on the basis of what they MIGHT do, is unjust.
[02:28:21] <Eluvatar> the final phrasing was "agree to work constructively"
[02:28:28] <flemingovia> I am not going to be giving any undertakings beyond those given by every other applicant in posting their oath.
[02:34:46] <flemingovia> Tomb has said "i am not saying deny the application"
[02:35:07] <Eluvatar> yes
[02:35:14] <flemingovia> Now I cannot work out from his words whether he is saying deny the application if Flem does not agree to a gagging order."
[02:36:48] <flemingovia> So I think he has left the ball in your court.
[02:38:11] <flemingovia> Can i remind you of this:
[02:38:13] <flemingovia> "No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. "
...
[02:38:49] <flemingovia> So if you are putting me under conditions that you do not put any other applicant under... that is also a breach of the BoR.
...
[02:39:05] <Eluvatar> I serve at the Delegate's pleasure
[00:36:00] <flemingovia> Fire away.
...
[01:37:40] <Eluvatar> Basically, there's some confusion about how to understand your application.
[01:38:00] <Eluvatar> There are definitely those who see it negatively, and feel like you've been attacking the NPA for months and months, why do you want to join it
[01:38:07] <Eluvatar> A bit of a limited perspective perhaps
[01:40:08] <flemingovia> You say "There are those..." does this mean that there has been a debate taking place?
[01:40:47] <Eluvatar> Yes
[01:40:50] <flemingovia> "Those" implies more than Gladio.
[01:41:27] <Eluvatar> The Delegate, being my boss, has the final word
[01:41:53] <flemingovia> Does the delegate usually get involved in NPAF applications?
[01:41:55] <Eluvatar> I would very much like you to join, and there will be plenty to do that you won't mind doing, I think,
[01:42:09] <Eluvatar> but the Delegate wants your promise to stop making a laughingstock of the NPA
[01:42:12] <Eluvatar> basically
[01:42:25] <Eluvatar> [18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[01:42:25] <Eluvatar> [18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he’s welcome aboard. I’m not asking for much anyways. If not, there’s always a next time, as they say.
[01:42:42] <Eluvatar> The Delegate has been involved on occasion i think, but not in a while.
[01:43:25] <flemingovia> I trust you quoted the Bill of Rights: "Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed,"
[01:44:42] <Eluvatar> not in so many words
[01:46:03] <flemingovia> "And shall be encouraged by the governmental authority of the region" would seem to be the key phrase here.
[01:47:43] <Eluvatar> I expressed, rather, that we seemed to have a difference in philosophyh
[01:47:46] <Eluvatar> *philosophy
[01:47:50] <Eluvatar> or perspective
[01:48:12] <flemingovia> So as it stands, unless I agree to a gagging order, my application to join the NPAF will be rejected?
[01:48:18] <Eluvatar> well
[01:48:22] <Eluvatar> We had an involved discussion
[01:49:45] <Eluvatar> [17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
...
[01:50:06] <flemingovia> Elu, the NPAF regularly accepts applicants who have made no more than two or three posts on the forum, whost trustworthiness is unknown and who disappear after a few weeks of inactivity. If I am rejected after Gladio has said publicly that I am not to be trusted, you realise how this will look?
...
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[01:50:14] <Eluvatar> [17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[01:50:16] <Eluvatar> [17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[01:50:21] <Eluvatar> [17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[01:51:26] <Eluvatar> I quote the above to mean that clearly Tomb doesn't envision complete gag order
[01:51:29] <Eluvatar> but nonetheless
[01:51:33] <flemingovia> I do not understand. Is Tomb putting free-speech conditions on my application or not?
[01:52:03] <Eluvatar> I am not to admit you without a promise to "respect the organization"
[01:52:10] <Eluvatar> meaning to not ridicule it, I guess
[01:52:32] <flemingovia> Well, that is your call.
[redacted]
[01:53:09] <flemingovia> First off, it will APPEAR as if there is an issue of Trust - espcially since Gladio has brought that up.
[01:53:27] <flemingovia> Second, there are serious implications for the Bill of Rights.
[01:53:36] <Eluvatar> I can and will say that you have my full confidence.
[01:53:41] <Eluvatar> wherever and whenever you like
[01:53:52] <flemingovia> That;s what Tomb said too.
[01:54:17] <Eluvatar> >.<
[01:54:23] <Eluvatar> I mean, publicly.
[01:54:41] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure it'd be right for me to explicitly say "I disagree with the decision I'm implementing"
[01:55:00] <Eluvatar> but I can probably fairly phrase any action to reflect that it's not my personal opinion
[01:55:54] <flemingovia> Phrase as you will.
[01:56:08] <flemingovia> You realise there will be a legal challenge under the Bill of Rights?
[01:56:21] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[01:56:26] <Eluvatar> I have to write briefs... D:
[01:56:36] <flemingovia> The NPAF is, at the very least, putting conditions on my membership that they do not put on any other applicant.
[01:56:52] <flemingovia> Unless all other applicants have to agree to a gagging clause?
[01:57:42] <Eluvatar> Applicants agree to follow the NPA Code
[01:57:56] <flemingovia> I think I swore to that effect.
[01:58:02] * Eluvatar skims it over...
[01:58:58] <Eluvatar> > 1. All NPA personnel shall pledge and offer their obedience (in this order) to the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, this Code, all senior High Command Officers, and senior Commissioned Officers (in a particular mission), in all matters pertaining to the NPA. Disobedience may result in disciplinary action.
[01:59:02] <Eluvatar> I guess that's ^ ?
[01:59:24] <Eluvatar> :-/
[01:59:53] <Eluvatar> but in general the NPA Code is constructed liberally, much like the rest of TNP
[02:00:19] <flemingovia> Annd this trumps the Bill of Rights?
[02:00:19] <Eluvatar> "Common sense" arguments that NPA members /obviously/ mustn't speak ill of the NPA would not find support from me
[02:00:56] <flemingovia> I think "obedience" pertains to military and security matters.
[02:00:57] <Eluvatar> Generally speaking soldiers surrender some rights when joining a military
[02:01:01] <Eluvatar> I would too yes
[02:01:09] <Eluvatar> there's a separate section regarding secrecy
[02:05:30] <Eluvatar> I would definitely prefer an outcome where you join the NPA
[redacted]
[02:08:43] <flemingovia> well, the NPA has my application on the table. All I seem to be getting in return is suspicion and hostility. I made clear the reasons for my applicaiton- i am happy to join in army missions, and am interested in helping with the administration of task within the army. Gladio has said I am not to be trusted, and Tomb has said he wants me to agree to
[02:09:05] <flemingovia> give up my Bill of Rights protection. So tell me, where should the movement come from?
[02:09:17] <Eluvatar> I have no suspicions
[02:09:32] <Eluvatar> I do not believe you would ever leak NPA secrets to anyone (and besides, you already have that ability
)[02:10:05] <Eluvatar> I don't really see satire that you often aim all over the place in TNP as relevant
[02:10:10] <Eluvatar> (personally)
[02:10:11] <flemingovia> in Ten years or more i have never once broken a confidence or betrayed a trust. Which is why Gladio's comments made me so annoyed.
[02:10:25] <flemingovia> Especially when Tomb effectively backed them up.
[02:10:33] <Eluvatar> I'd have been annoyed myself.
[02:10:41] <Eluvatar> (in your place)
[02:11:24] <flemingovia> If I was in the NPAF I would not leak mission information. Or do anything to compromise NPAF security. Period.
[02:11:44] <flemingovia> And as I have said, the NPAF regualrly takes on applicants on far less assurance.
[02:13:37] <Eluvatar> I know.
[02:13:48] <Eluvatar> And yeah, it couldn't possibly work if it didn't accept newbies.
[02:15:50] <flemingovia> Either way, I would be grateful if you would either accept or reject my application; that would make things clearer.
[02:16:52] <Eluvatar> I'd rather get an opportunity to consult again with Tomb first.
[02:17:02] <Eluvatar> a three person conversation would probably be the ideal.
[02:17:08] <Eluvatar> Maybe thursday?
[02:19:15] <flemingovia> I would prefer if the application was not left that long. It would look odd since most applicants are dealt with in 24 hours.
[02:20:11] <flemingovia> As things stand you would have to leapfrog my application and deal with the newbie follwing me.
[02:20:36] <flemingovia> And that would scream "we have some reason to believe that Flem is a security risk"
[02:20:49] <flemingovia> Especially following Gladio's comments.
[02:22:22] <flemingovia> I would aslo protest that conditions are being put on my application that are not put on any other applicant.
[02:22:36] <flemingovia> I am being singled out here.
[02:24:12] <flemingovia> ffs, even Govindia was in the army for a long time. Did anyone put conditions on what he could and could not talk about?
[02:24:53] <Eluvatar> preaching to the choir
[02:26:43] <flemingovia> Tomb is making an assumption - that I will continue to post about the NPAF as I am now once I am in the NPAF. He is doing that on no evidence, and seeking to put pre-conditions on my application.
[02:27:14] <Eluvatar> To be fair, a promise to do what you were going to do anyway isn't much of a pre-condition
[02:27:26] <Eluvatar> My problem with it comes to the broadness of his words
[02:27:41] <flemingovia> Now any officer of the NPAF can be dismissed. But to reject someone before they have even joined on the basis of what they MIGHT do, is unjust.
[02:28:21] <Eluvatar> the final phrasing was "agree to work constructively"
[02:28:28] <flemingovia> I am not going to be giving any undertakings beyond those given by every other applicant in posting their oath.
[02:34:46] <flemingovia> Tomb has said "i am not saying deny the application"
[02:35:07] <Eluvatar> yes
[02:35:14] <flemingovia> Now I cannot work out from his words whether he is saying deny the application if Flem does not agree to a gagging order."
[02:36:48] <flemingovia> So I think he has left the ball in your court.
[02:38:11] <flemingovia> Can i remind you of this:
[02:38:13] <flemingovia> "No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. "
...
[02:38:49] <flemingovia> So if you are putting me under conditions that you do not put any other applicant under... that is also a breach of the BoR.
...
[02:39:05] <Eluvatar> I serve at the Delegate's pleasure
[16:15:25] <Eluvatar> so I spoke to flemingovia
[16:18:36] <Tomb> Yeah
[16:20:05] <Eluvatar> He does not wish to make any assurances that are not demanded of other applicants, and views this as an attack on the freedom of speech
[16:20:26] <Eluvatar> noting that our bill of rights goes above and beyond requiring protection of freedom of speach in saying that it must be _encouraged_ by the government
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> >
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> 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
[16:20:48] <Eluvatar> +.
[16:21:18] <Tomb> I expected as much.
[16:21:20] <Eluvatar> Am I instructed to deny his application?
[16:21:28] <Tomb> Yes, please.
[16:43:30] <Eluvatar> done
[16:18:36] <Tomb> Yeah
[16:20:05] <Eluvatar> He does not wish to make any assurances that are not demanded of other applicants, and views this as an attack on the freedom of speech
[16:20:26] <Eluvatar> noting that our bill of rights goes above and beyond requiring protection of freedom of speach in saying that it must be _encouraged_ by the government
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> >
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> 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
[16:20:48] <Eluvatar> +.
[16:21:18] <Tomb> I expected as much.
[16:21:20] <Eluvatar> Am I instructed to deny his application?
[16:21:28] <Tomb> Yes, please.
[16:43:30] <Eluvatar> done
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
The former Delegate was expressly informed of the potential of his actions to be a violation of TNP's Bill of Rights and he chose to ignore that warning and proceed. This action violates the guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression for the nation Flemingovia.
Further, The North Pacific acknowledges that the harshest punishment associated with a finding of guilt for Gross Misconduct of a government official is removal from office, and that the Defendant has vacated the office voluntarily, thus mooting this process. However, the law further dictates that the Court has recourse to limit said nation's rights to vote for a determinable period of time (TNP Legal Code, Chapter 2, Section 8).
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Might I ask the Court for an update regarding this indictment? While the Court Rules do stipulate that the Court will endeavor to accept or reject a criminal indictment within 72 hours, it is generally accepted that it will at least acknowledge the indictment within this time frame.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Thank you.
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:
Guy
TNPer
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.
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
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