Request for Review: Oath violation by former RA members

[Eluvatar]

I would like to ask the Court to consider whether illegal or otherwise RA oath-violating acts by a former member of the Regional Assembly constitute oath violations in the sense required in clause 3.10 of the legal code for expulsion from the Regional Assembly pending trial.

Spoiler: Context

Whilst I recognize the charges and a trial thread will be created shortly, I cannot approve the requested indictment to expel JAL from the Regional Assembly. Section 3.3.10 of the Legal Code authorises such action only for reason of oath violation, and unless the Attorney General is capable to providing evidence that JAL did indeed violate an oath he had taken during the relevant period of time - not including previous oaths taken for positions or memberships since lapsed - then such action would be grossly illegal.

While the Law clearly states that any ruling by a Justice on a request to restrict a citizen pending trial is final and therefore I may not and will not, as no person should, appeal Belschaft's ruling, I believe the ruling was made using dangerously faulty reasoning.

If allowing one's nation to Cease to Exist, or withdrawing one's nation from The North Pacific, declining to enter this Forum for over 15 days, or even simple resignation from the Regional Assembly is enough to release one from one's word as below,

I, John Ashcroft Land, as the leader of The North Pacific nation of Drunk Montanans, pledge loyalty to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for reasons other than for official government business, that I may be stripped of my right to vote and required to reapply. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. I further understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. In this manner, I petition the Speaker of The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific region for membership in the Regional Assembly.

then a path for a great number of abuses is opened.

Persons who acquired classified information while Regional Assembly members and distributed it after allowing for their removal from the Regional Assembly would not be violating their oath. A person who resigned from the Regional Assembly could seize the Delegacy and it wouldn't be a violation of their oath under this determination, and it would not block their rejoining the Regional Assembly until after a trial was completed. Indeed any sort of crime could be committed immediately after resigning, whereupon a person could reapply to join the Regional Assembly and the Speaker would be obliged to accept them until such time as the Court finds them guilty.

This doctrine is pernicious and ought not be used as precedent.

It is my understanding that once membership of the Regional Assembly has lapsed a new application must be made for re-admittance, including once again taking the oath. JAL himself has taken the oath twice in the current application thread, first on August the 12th and then on November the 16th. This has led me to conclude that the oath cannot be considered to be in force whilst you are not a member of the Regional Assembly, just as my own previous oath as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is no longer in force now that I am a Court Justice; if it was in force you would not have to take it once more.

Whilst you are quite right in stating that this creates a number of serious loopholes that could potentially be exploited, it is nevertheless the law to my understanding. I invite you to submit this issue to judicial review where my fellow justices can make such a decision.

 

[Hileville]

The Court will review this matter. Due to the potential ramifications with a decision the Court will allow a period of 72 hours for all nations wishing to submit a brief on the matter.

 

[punk d]

Pending what the court determines in this situation, I would like to ask the court to reconsider its stated position with respect to the pending case against JAL and the AG’s request that his voting rights be suspended pending the outcome of the trial.

It is my estimation that given the nature of the crime JAL is charged with, he should have his voting rights immediately suspended. Whether he is JAL, Durk, TNP Freedom Fighters, or the man on the moon, the player behind these aliases has ‘allegedly’ attempted to undermine the sitting delegate of the region and was cavalier enough to admit as much openly on an IRC channel.

If the law defends such action, I believe we’re going to need to make some changes to the law in order to avoid future abuse. That’s not necessarily and issue for the courts, but I am hopeful that our current laws will support the position the AG’s office is taking. I hope to supply a brief on the matter, but if not I hope the justices will conclude that crimes committed against TNP whether committed under an official capacity or not are subject to the penal code.

 

[Chasmanthe]

JAL has never been found guilty of any crime. I'm not sure what the basis would be for restricting his rights before a verdict has been reached. The RA did not deem it appropriate to deny JAL re-admission.

 

[Belschaft]

Pending what the court determines in this situation, I would like to ask the court to reconsider its stated position with respect to the pending case against JAL and the AG's request that his voting rights be suspended pending the outcome of the trial.

It is my estimation that given the nature of the crime JAL is charged with, he should have his voting rights immediately suspended. Whether he is JAL, Durk, TNP Freedom Fighters, or the man on the moon, the player behind these aliases has 'allegedly' attempted to undermine the sitting delegate of the region and was cavalier enough to admit as much openly on an IRC channel.

If the law defends such action, I believe we're going to need to make some changes to the law in order to avoid future abuse. That's not necessarily and issue for the courts, but I am hopeful that our current laws will support the position the AG's office is taking. I hope to supply a brief on the matter, but if not I hope the justices will conclude that crimes committed against TNP whether committed under an official capacity or not are subject to the penal code.

Firstly, I would like to note that I will be reclusing myself from this review.

Secondly, to address the Attorney Generals comments;

The law makes no allowance for either the nature of the crime a defendant is charged with. Nor is the issue whether or not the defendant committed them under an official capacity. The law provides for one set of circumstances, and one alone, where an individual can be removed from the Regional Assembly by the courts; breach of oath. You made no attempt to present such a case, and in fact admitted in your brief that he was not - to my understanding, and I believe your own - under oath when he committed the acts you accuse him of.

That you continue to press for such an expulsion on illegal grounds is something I find shocking.

 

[punk d]

Justice Belshaft,

This office may make a number of requests in order to understand the breadth of latitude the court will afford this office.

Understanding those parameters better, I submit the following brief:

In determining whether or not to summarily restrict the voting rights of John Ashcroft Land, the court should consider the context and long reaching effects of its ruling. JAL recently swore an oath on May 5, 2012 (referenced in OP) and was a member of the Regional Assembly under that Oath until June 20, 2012 when his nation CTE'd.

In JAL's most recent application to the Regional Assembly he said:

I promise not to let my nation CTE for the eleventy billionth time. I swear!

JAL had previously applied to the Regional Assembly in August with his nation CTE'ing in September, which followed the application in May with a CTE in June. I haven't gone back further, but I suspect that JAL has allowed his nation to CTE on a number of occasion.

I establish JAL's recent RA Membership history to argue that his recent removal has been a 'passive withdrawal' meaning that by not doing the minimal required (log into his nation) he was forced from the RA at least twice in the past half year. However, during that same time, I found no evidence that JAL actively withdrew from the Regional Assembly and instead, as noted in his recent application, he promised not CTE again so that his RA status was not removed. Indeed, if JAL had not CTE'd he would have never been removed from the Regional Assembly.

This begs the question as to whether JAL ever voluntarily rescinded the oath he made on May 5, 2012 following his forced expulsion from the RA on June 20, 2012 until the time he reapplied for membership in mid-August (August 11th). Obviously, the court should not recognize that nations are continuously held to their oath if they are removed from the Regional Assembly and never return or return after an extended leave. I do not believe the period between June 20 until August 11 constitutes as an 'extended leave'. Instead, I would argue JAL utilized his lack of RA status during this time period to conduct the criminal activities for which he is now being tried knowing that even if his activities were discovered he could become a member of the Regional Assembly because the alleged activities took place after the Speaker removed him from the RA for CTE'ing.

I ask the court to take into consideration that JAL has applied twice after the time period he allegedly committed the acts that are in question, with the latest application promising that he would not CTE again. This implies that were it up to JAL, he would have been a continuous member of the Regional Assembly from May 5, 2012 until the present day if he had remembered to log into his TNP RA nations.

In its ruling, I believe that the court should narrowly define the terms and not make a broad ruling that could lead to abuse against future RA members and on the flipside open ourselves up to abuse by RA members "working the system". I do not envy the justices in their decision on this matter, but I do believe that JAL never voluntarily rescinded his oath of office and has demonstrated that he wishes to continue is RA membership. If this potential loophole is allowed to stand, it serves only to protect those who may wish to do the region harm.

 

[Flemingovia]

Pending what the court determines in this situation, I would like to ask the court to reconsider its stated position with respect to the pending case against JAL and the AG’s request that his voting rights be suspended pending the outcome of the trial.

It is my estimation that given the nature of the crime JAL is charged with, he should have his voting rights immediately suspended. Whether he is JAL, Durk, TNP Freedom Fighters, or the man on the moon, the player behind these aliases has ‘allegedly’ attempted to undermine the sitting delegate of the region and was cavalier enough to admit as much openly on an IRC channel.

If the law defends such action, I believe we’re going to need to make some changes to the law in order to avoid future abuse. That’s not necessarily and issue for the courts, but I am hopeful that our current laws will support the position the AG’s office is taking. I hope to supply a brief on the matter, but if not I hope the justices will conclude that crimes committed against TNP whether committed under an official capacity or not are subject to the penal code.

the word "allegedly" may have been put in inverted commas by the Attorney General, but it is actually the key word in this matter.

In TNP at the moment we have a presumption of innocence rather than a presumption of guilt. Until JAL is convicted (and I think this situation will continue until a conviction is secured, however long and however many trials it takes), JAL is innocent. To suspend his RA membership just because he has been accused is contrary to the principles of TNP law.

 

[Gaspo]

I would echo flem's excellent logic. I do not have time to prepare a complete brief on the issue, but I would urge the court to consider the negative ramifications of enforcing an oath even after an individual has taken some action, whether it be overt or by omission, to distance themself from the Regional Assembly. Keeping a nation alive, for a player of flagging interest in this game, is not necessarily all that easy. I've resurrected Gasponia at least a half-dozen times in the last four years. One or two CTEs is par for the course, particularly for an individual whose nation is not all that important to the way they play the game. JAL was not a delegate; he didn't do R/D stuff. Keeping a nation alive, for him or for anyone else who doesn't care about that part of this game, is an afterthought.

Looking to the AG's brief, one major issue arises: his argument establishing the basis for restricting JAL's voting rights (the intentional death of JAL's nation to free him from the oath) has no proven basis in fact. Courts rule on facts.

The attorney general wishes to establish a timeline of RA membership in order to assert that JAL's departures were intentional to allow him to conduct other actions within the game. That is an assumption for which the AG has presented no evidence, and the truth of that assumption has yet to be established by any binding proceeding. If the AG wishes to establish it through a proceeding, that is of course at his discretion as he builds his case. However, as that claim has never been examined by an impartial trier of fact in a formal trial, the court cannot take that unproven assertion as fact, for the purpose of restricting voting rights or for any other purpose.

The personal beliefs of the AG, or any of us, on the matter are irrelevant. What matters are facts as proven through objective legal proceedings. The AG's justification for raising this issue has no basis in objective fact - the AG presumes to know JAL's intent (assuming that there even was such intent) and assumes that that intent was malicious. I invite him to raise the issue in trial, but as it is unproven (and unfounded, in my opinion) it cannot be the basis for a pretrial ruling.

 

[punk d]

Begging the pardon of the justices, do you know approximately when you will rule on this matter?

 

[Hileville]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Eluvatar on Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Eluvatar.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Legal Code, Consitution, and Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. The Speaker will work with forum administration to process Regional Assembly applicants.
3. Assembly members must maintain a nation in the North Pacific.
4. Applicants must swear an oath, as follows:

[nation]TNP Nation[/nation]
[nation]WA Nation[/nation]

I, [forum user name], leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name), pledge loyalty to the region, to abide by its laws, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may immediately lose my voting privileges, permanently. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

5. New forum members may who register as citizens or join the Regional Assembly must be made aware of the Criminal Code they are pledging to respect..
6. The Speaker will accept applicants with valid applications who are verified by forum administration not to be using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.
7. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If the applicant is not rejected within 14 days, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
8. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
9. The Speaker's office will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
10. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any members whose removal is ordered by the Court, whose North Pacific nation leaves or ceases to exist, who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 days.

The Court opines the following:

The Court in reviewing the matter as brought forth by Eluvatar reviewed the Constitution, Legal Code, and the Bill of Rights.

The Court had determined that the matter is twofold. If the violation occurs after the time in which the nation is no longer a member of the Regional Assembly then they are not violating their oath as they are not bound to that oath at the current moment. Whereas if the violation occurs during the time in which the nation was a member of the Regional Assembly and was bound by that oath they may be tried for an Oath Violation.

The Court reviewed the particluar matter that prompted this Judicial Inquiry and has determined that Justice Belschaft did in fact by not accepting the removal of JAL's RA membership follow the ruling that is being made today. For the record JAL's RA membership periods from the Court removal in March to his re-acceptance in August are listed below. The periods show that JAL was not a member of the Regional Assembly during the time of the alleged telegram campaign and could not have violated a regional assembly membership oath.

Removed on 3/21/12 by the Court

Restrictions removed when acquitted on 5/3/12

Reapplied on 5/5/12 - Admitted on 5/8/12

Removed on 6/20/12

Reapplied on 8/11/12 - Admitted on 8/12/12

 

[Eluvatar]

May I ask why my reasoning does not hold?

Spoiler: Excerpt

Persons who acquired classified information while Regional Assembly members and distributed it after allowing for their removal from the Regional Assembly would not be violating their oath. A person who resigned from the Regional Assembly could seize the Delegacy and it wouldn't be a violation of their oath under this determination, and it would not block their rejoining the Regional Assembly until after a trial was completed. Indeed any sort of crime could be committed immediately after resigning, whereupon a person could reapply to join the Regional Assembly and the Speaker would be obliged to accept them until such time as the Court finds them guilty.