TNP v. Unibot

Hileville

Hileville

TNPer
TNP Nation
Hileville
Discord
Dennrick#0489
The Court of the North Pacific is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Unibot as filed by the Attorney General here and here.

arms.png

Indictment​

In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Unibot, alleging the defendant fraudulently flew the coat of arms of The North Pacific in response to a ruling made by the court barring citizens from such activity.
Unibot’s charge
The defendant’s nation’s image was also included as evidence showing the Coat of Arms:
TNP.png
Click to expand...
Unibot is hereby charged with committing the following acts as defined by the Legal Code:
Legal Code:
First Count
10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
The Attorney General will argue that the defendant was not authorized to fly the Coat of Arms and that pursuant to a ruling by the Court only days earlier, intentionally flew the flag knowing that it would result in a charge of this nature. That the complainant and defendant are one in the same speaks to the defendant’s intent to commit the crime as the complainant filed so soon after the court’s ruling.

Second Count
The Attorney General’s office would also like to charge the defendant with a second count of fraud pending his plea to the first count of Fraud. The defendant brought forth the charge against himself. That alleges that the complainant felt that the defendant was guilty of flying the Coat of Arms illegally. Since both the defendant and the complainant are one in the same the only way this office believes that the defendant can not be guilty of a second count of fraud is by pleading guilty which would be consistent with the filed complaint.
If however, the defendant pleads not guilty, the defendant will then be saying either the complainant or the defendant fraudulently represented themselves when filing these charges and/or defending themselves against the same charges in order to damage or benefit the individual in question. The Attorney General’s office does not believe that the defendant can be innocent of these charges while the complainant also be innocent of intentionally deceiving the court into believing that the defendant committed the first count.
In other words, the defendant and complainant – both the same in this case – cannot have it both ways.

Third Count
The Attorney General’s office would also like to charge the defendant with conspiracy, regardless of his plea to the first count of fraud:
Legal Code:
Section 1.8. Conspiracy
20. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
Click to expand...
The Attorney General’s office believes that the complainant – Unibot – is guilty of conspiring with the defendant – Unibot – in committing the crime of fraud. This office cannot believe that the defendant committed this act without the aide and assistance of the complainant. This office shall argue that both the complainant and the defendant planned, attempted, and ultimately committed the fraudulent acts within this indictment together and should be punished accordingly.
Click to expand...
The Attorney General’s office strongly urges this case go to trial in order to avoid similar actions in the future by complainants and defendants who wish to file charges against themselves and then plead not guilty to those charges.

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

Sincerely,

Punk Daddy
Attorney General of The North Pacific
Click to expand...

Additional 4th Charge against the Defendant:
This office would like to add a fourth charge in the case against Unibot, that of sedition. Sedition is defined as:
Legal Code:
8. "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Unibot is charged with committing the act of sedition because subsequent to ruling that non-governmental nations could not fly the coat of arms, the defendant did indeed fly the coat of arms with the express knowledge that such an act was not sanctioned by the Constitution as the Courts had ruled earlier. In his action, the defendant was attempting to incite the nations of the North Pacific to revolt against the same Constitution because the defendant has a different interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than do the Court Justices on this matter. However, when it comes to interpreting the laws the only opinions that carry the weight of law, are the Court Justices, and the defendant clearly ignored their ruling and this office believes that the defendant encouraged other nations to also ignored the justices ruling by his actions.
Click to expand...
Representing the North Pacific will be Punk Daddy, Attorney General.
Representing the Defendant will be to be determined, Attorney for the Defendant.

Presiding over this case will be Gaspo, Justice and Trial Moderator, Belschaft, Justice, and Hileville, Justice.

The Defendant is charged with 2 counts of Fraud, Sedition, and Conspiracy. The Defendant has 48 hours to enter a plea, at that time if no pleas is entered a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant is requested to notify the court as to who will be serving as their Attorney. If they do not do so then they will be listed as representing themselves, though they may alter this at any time. After this period has elapsed we will move into pretrial motions and the evidence discovery phase.

Unibot, how do you plead?

Timetable and notes:
Timetable

To be released after a plea is entered.
Notes
Click to expand...
 
If I may speak,

Unibot is currently away on Vacation, with none/very limited internet access, until around January 8th.

Perhaps it would be best to postpone this case until he is present and able to participate?
 
Tim:
If I may speak,

Unibot is currently away on Vacation, with none/very limited internet access, until around January 8th.

Perhaps it would be best to postpone this case until he is present and able to participate?
Click to expand...
Thank you for notifying the Court of this. This Case will be postponed until after January 8th.

Also Gaspo has been assigned to this case.
 
A brief note to all parties, present and future, involved in this case. As it is early in my Judicial career and my personal preferences have yet to be established, I feel it appropriate to note that I do not tolerate shenanigans in my courtroom. I expect all participants in this, and any other, proceeding to behave with the utmost decorum and respect with regard to the judicial process and all involved individuals. This is a court of law; it needs no jesters. Thank you.

This trial will resume on January 9th at 12:00am (the day after the Defendant's apparent date of return). From that time, the Defendant has 48 hours to enter a plea; this period ends on January 11th at 12:00am. The Court awaits the Defendant's plea.
 
Your honor, I object to the reasking for the defendant's plea. Your predecessor asked the question and it went unanswered. Pursuant to the adopted rules of the court, I would like to propose that the defendant's plea be noted as 'not guilty'.
 
This court is interested in justice, not blind adherence to procedure. It is broadly known that the defendant is unavailable at this time for RL reasons; as such, a delay was granted to allow the defendant to enter a plea. It is my understanding that the defendant was already on his vacation at the time this thread was opened; as such, it cannot be assumed that the defendant has received adequate notice of the opening of the trial, pursuant to Court Rules Article 1.2. As such, my predecessor granted a delay until the 8th, which I have clarified with a specific timeline. The prosecutor's office made no move to object to this delay for 5 days; I consider this to be tacit approval of the delay dictated by my predecessor. Your objection is noted and overruled.
 
At the time the court made no mention of a plea. Regarding the plea, this office assumes the court will follow it's own procedures.

If that is not the case, the court should notify both defense and prosecution. Not just make up the rules as we go along.
 
My predecessor's precise words were "this case". The opening post of this thread notes that this thread is related to "the case of the case of The North Pacific v. Unibot". The term "case" has a plain meaning which refers to "a suit or action in law or equity" SOURCE, Def# 5a. Under the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation, the plain meaning of a statement in a statute or case must be the first place to look for meaning. In this case, it is reasonable to anticipate that Hileville's use of the word "case" encompassed all aspects of the case, including the entering of a plea. The delay of pleas until that time was reasonably inferred, and is logical given that the defendant is known not to be available until that time.

Furthermore, your attitude and flippancy toward this proceeding are noted. Please confine your statements to those of legal necessity, and refrain from grandstanding and posturing in my courtroom. It does not become your noble office.
 
Determining the rules under which this case shall proceed seems germane to this case, does it not?

I hope that the court affords the prosecution the same latitude as this case proceeds. Speaking of, I would like to ask the court to allow testimony within this thread in addition to testimony gathered via IRC.

Thank you.
 
I will consider that request. I am hesitant to allow a change in procedure which may establish precedent for future proceedings. I will confer with my fellow justices.
 
I am only guilty of not complying with Section 7.1.4. (which is outside the Criminal Code -- Section 1). Which is, I think, the only thing that the Attorney-General did not charge me with. I did what I did with the fullest respect for the law in civil disobedience -- I would not condone any sort of measure of treason, sedition or the like; I ask, as the Complainant, for the A.G to represent my case genuinely and approach the Court for a charge of breaching Section 7.1.4, for which I would indeed plea Guilty -- but that's what I did, I broke a protocol to express disobedience to an unjust law; I did not pretend to be the government, I did not lie, I did not organize a movement to overthrow the Government -- being accused of being a couper is in an insult. I love my region and I civilly disobeyed because I respected my region a great deal; I could not remain quiet when injustice, I thought, had been inked in our letters of law. I will accept any punishment given to me because I failed to comply to Section 7.1.4, but I would not coup, I would not pretend to be the government and I would not lie to the Court and therefore, I cannot withhold from defending myself from such an accusation.

I must plea not guilty on all counts, your honours. My apologies for the lateness of this plea.
 
Noting the defendant's plea of not guilty, I'd like to ask the court a question. The defendant did not reveal a defense counsel. Obviously, the prosecution is not telling the defendant how to defend himself, but would the court please ask the defendant if he will have representation?

As for the prosecution, I will be serving as primary on this case and shall inform the court of any intention to utilize the Assistant Attorney Generals should need arise.
 
If I may speak, the Defendant is in the process of finding Defence counsel. He has just returned from holiday, and was making his way home when I spoke to him yesterday. I would expect him to update the court as soon as possible.
 
The Delegate's information is correct, I'm just getting back from holidays and am seeking legal counsel at the moment.
 
Thank you.

In that case, I'd recommend you ask the court for a recess while you find counsel. The point of me posting was that if you did not request such a recess we would start and whomever you chose as counsel would be behind the eight-ball.

My office should want that, but I'm not an attorney who likes to win on technicalities. I like consistent rules and fairness. If you need some time to get a defense attorney I would suggest you offer a time to the court. The court might refuse, but I would make that suggestion nonetheless.
 
Given that nothing was due from the defendant until the 11th, I don't see why we're in such a hurry to debate this issue. If the defendant has failed to secure counsel by the 11th, I will act accordingly. Until the 11th comes (and it's oh so close), let's keep things reserved until that time.
 
My thought was that his clock stopped when he made his plea.

In other words, he had until the 11th to make the plea. He made it earlier. I did not think that meant that the time between when the plea was made and the 11th marked a timeframe wherein nothing else happened.

I'll refrain from jumping the gun in the future and will await notification as to what will be happening next after the 11th.

thank you, your honor.
 
The defendant's argument on the law is noted, and then disregarded, as this is not the appropriate time for such statements. The Defendant's plea of NOT GUILTY is recognized and recorded.

A period of 72 hours for pretrial motions commences at 12:00am EST on Saturday, January 12th, 2013. Following these motions, a full trial schedule will be published.

As has been the subject of discussion here, the defendant has not yet retained counsel. There is no requirement that he do so prior to the commencement of trial. However, continuing without counsel is ill-advised as a general rule, and this court will not look fondly on 11th-hour changes to counsel, nor the continuances that such changes would necessitate. I would encourage the defendant to secure counsel promptly, if he wishes to do so, or clearly submit to the court if he intends to proceed on his own behalf. Again, such a choice is neither permanent nor binding, but is customary.
 
Your honor - I am requesting some clarification because I do not want to go around in circles.

The defendant turned himself in and is the one who has provided some of the evidence I would like to use. However, since I cannot compel the defendant to testify himself I’m struggling with the ability to adequately timestamp the screenshot he provided in the 2nd post of his filing. I would like some direction from the court because I can probably argue to within a few days based upon other facts around the flag, but I have no confidence the complainant/defendant will be cooperative in providing an accurate date.

Thus, I would like to submit this as evidence but would like to know what the court would like me to prove before accepting the evidence given the constraints I will be under.
 
I would suggest that the prosecution examine all the mechanisms which Court Rules Article 6 provide for establishing the authenticity of evidence, as well as consider other sources of authentication - perhaps other individuals who witnessed the alleged offense at the time that this matter was more squarely in the public eye. In the absence of an investigative agency, the burden generally lies with the prosecuting party to investigate as necessary to make a sufficiently strong case.
 
Apologies for the delays - RL has been spanking this Justice. The period for pre-trial motions is over. Evidence discovery is now open, and will last until January 26th at 12:00 AM EST.
 
Discovery ends in three days, unless a reasonable request for extension is made. Does either party intend to participate in this proceeding?
 
Your honor,

I would like to request an extension until Feb. 2nd. I too have caught the RL bug and have not been able to give this proceeding the attention it deserves.
 
If I see no objection from the defendant within 12 hours (reasonable given his timezone) I will grant this extension.
 
Counsels, your failure to participate in this case does neither of you any credit. Particularly you, Mr. Attorney General. You are going to great lengths, elsewhere, to attempt to expand your current docket, yet have completely failed to participate in this case. You have less than 24 hours - I suggest you use them.
 
I was hoping you would post this.

I have not forgotten about this case but this is a frivolous case and it's a waste of my and the court's time, if I may be frank.

If your opinion is that you shall dismiss the charges in less than 24 hours if I do not present you with anything more than what was listed in the charges, it is duly noted.
 
I have no intention to disregard my duties. I believe the Plaintiff's case is frivolous and is wasting the court's time.

That is all.
 
punk d:
I have no intention to disregard my duties. I believe the Plaintiff's case is frivolous and is wasting the court's time.

That is all.
Click to expand...



Legal Code:
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
Click to expand...
Oath of Office:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear . . . I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office . . . within the restraints of my legally granted power. . . .
Click to expand...
Bill of Rights:
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
PunkD's Campaign Platform:
. . . [*] Prosecute all cases without discrimination . . .
Click to expand...

The discretion you seek to exercise does not rest with you; findings of fact in an active court case are the exclusive domain of this Court. Had this court believed the charges were facially without merit, the indictment would not have been accepted. This process of acceptance is pursuant to a system you quite clearly advocated throughout your campaign; your dismissal of it now, based solely on your personal opinion, is noted. No further discussion on this matter will take place in this trial thread.

Assuming no evidence is submitted, this case will be dismissed without prejudice, as jeopardy has not attached due to the absence of either sworn witnesses or the presentation of the prosecution's case to the court.
 
"Until Feb 2nd" means "lasting up until the commencement of Feb 2nd". That is the tradition of these courts, and has been the pattern followed in this case thus far. I see no reason to change this rule now, particularly as doing so would validate the Prosecution's attempt to forcibly attach jeopardy in order to prevent any future prosecution of this case. This evidence is REJECTED, as Discovery had closed 23 hours and 11 minutes prior to the posting of this evidence.

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Court is adjourned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top