The North Pacific v. Eluvatar

[Sanctaria]

This Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Eluvatar, as filed by the Attorney General here.

Indictment​

In the name of the nations of The North Pacific, an indictment under The North Pacific Legal Code is filed against Eluvatar, alleging the following as outlined by Justice Blue Wolf on July 22, 2012:

A recent court ruling regarding a FOI request related to this supposedly official release of information ruled that the information was not, in fact, released by the government at all, but by an unnamed association of TNP members whom are outside the government entirely.

It is therefore obvious that Delegate Eluvatar was not acting in an official government capacity when that information was released, thus violating several laws:

Section 2: Espionage
A - "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
B - The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or has not attained Regional Assembly status would be unable to access it without circumventing real-life legal means.
C - Exceptions may be given to members of the military and intelligence services of The North Pacific, with the consent of the Delegate and the appointee of the Delegate who commands the military or intelligence services of The North Pacific. This exception is only valid when on officially sanctioned missions for the purposes of perserving Regional security and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By the Court's most recent ruling, Eluvatar used his position of Security Council member and Delegate to obtain information that he otherwise would not have been able to obtain. He did so, according to the court, to fulfill the goals of a group outside the government entirely if this was not true, the FOI request would have been granted. In fact, by Eluvatar's own claim the information obtained was given to a group outside government control, as a matter of fact he used it as a justification for not fulfilling a FOI request and this claim was later verified by the Court itself.

It is quite clear that evidence exists to suggest that Delegate Eluvatar used his official position to obtain information that otherwise would not be accessible, as shown in a logged conversation between myself and Justice Hileville, whom allowed me to re-post this with permission.

<Hileville>: Elu got the log more or less because of being in TSP's cabinet and his position in TNP at the time.
<Blue_Wolf>: What was his position in the TNP at the time?
<Hileville>: SC.

The original posting may be found here.

The Court's most recent ruling suggest that this information was gathered on the behalf not of TNP government but for some as of yet unnamed group within TNP, acting outside government constraints and sanction. This leads to the next charge to be filed

Section 4: Election Fraud
A - "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of voters or residents of The North Pacific with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently assumes or acts the character of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government.

If the any of the above is true, Eluvatar is also guilty of Impersonation, specifically when he pretended to represent TNP's government in order to obtain information for a non-official, non-governmental group existing within TNP.

Eluvatar is hereby charged with committing the following act as defined by the Legal Code:

Section 2: Espionage
A - "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
B - The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or has not attained Regional Assembly status would be unable to access it without circumventing real-life legal means.

Section 4: Election Fraud
A - "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of voters or residents of The North Pacific with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
B - "Impersonation" is defined as behavior that fraudulently assumes or acts the character of an extant or former nation or otherwise fraudulently pretends to represent any part or whole of The North Pacific and its government.

Section 1: Treason
A - "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 allied groups and regions as governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The latter two charges of Treason and Sedition have been added because the Prosecution shall demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate at the time which is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific. The defendant also took intentional steps on the official forums to incite the group of nations privy to his claims against Blue Wolf to prepare for a revolt that was not in a manner sanctioned by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There are claims that this group was seeking to stop Blue Wolf from attempting a coup against the region while delegate, but Blue Wolf did not attempt a coup d'etat nor was he ever convicted. It appears that Eluvatar's actions were essentially a way for him and his group to implement regime change by circumventing the legal process at the time.

The Attorney General's office would like to request the recusal of Justice Blue Wolf and Chief Justice Hileville. The court would also like to request that Chief Justice Belschaft state that he has no conflict of interest in this case or recuse himself accordingly.

The office would like to add that if Justice Belschaft has a conflict that the Justice appoint a hearing officer prior to recusing himself.

The office would also like to request clarification of the administration of this proceeding. Shall the current Adopted rules preside or previous Adopted rules under the prior Legal Code?

Pursuant to TNP Law 31, Section 2, Subsection 1, as Attorney General I hereby charge Eluvatar with the crimes listed above and bring this case before the court.

Sincerely,

Punk Daddy
Attorney General of The North Pacific

Representing The North Pacific will be Punk D, Attorney General.
Representing the Defendant will be Gaspo, Eluvatar, r3naissanc3r, Attorneys for the Defendant.

Presiding over this case will be Sanctaria, Justice and Trial Moderator, Abbey Anumia, Temporary Hearing Officer, and Jamie, Temporary Hearing Officer.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Espionage and one count of Treason¹. 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.

Eluvatar, how do you plead?

¹ This has been edited following the rulings on motions to dismiss.

Estimated Timetable (Subject to Change)

March 4th - March 5th: Plea
March 5th - March 8th: Pre-Trial
March 16th - March 30th: Discovery
March 30th - April 4th: Arguments
April 4th - April 7th: Recess for Judgement

 

[Sanctaria]

Pursuant to this ruling, this trial has reverted back to plea stage. Previous discussion can be found here. Since this trial started under the old Court Rules, it will continue under them.

Eluvatar, how do you plead to the charges against you? You have 48 hours to respond, should you not respond, a plea of Not Guilty on all charges will be laid for you.

 

[punk d]

Point of Order, your honor - will the Adopted Court Rules that were in place at the time of the commencement of the original trial thread be used or the new Adopted Court Rules be used?

However, your response, I request that this court define and stipulate which court rules and only those rules be used in this case going forward.

 

[Gaspo]

Pursuant to this ruling, this trial has reverted back to plea stage. Previous discussion can be found here. Since this trial started under the old Court Rules, it will continue under them.

Emphasis mine.

I have advised my client of this update.

 

[Sanctaria]

Since this trial started under the old Court Rules, it will continue under them..

 

[punk d]

My apologies. I missed it.

 

[Sanctaria]

My apologies. I missed it.

Quite alright, Counsellor, it happens.

 

[punk d]

I'd like to request a recess beginning after the defendant's plea until the court addresses my review requesting that the court define the powers granted to THOs to appoint other THOs.

 

[Sanctaria]

I'd like to request a recess beginning after the defendant's plea until the court addresses my review requesting that the court define the powers granted to THOs to appoint other THOs.

Since that review has nothing to do with this case, by virtue of my being a Justice and not a Temporary Hearing Officer, I hope you understand why I'm inclined to decline that request.

 

[punk d]

No problem.

I will ask that I believe Todd was appointed via the delegate. Can you point me to the legal basis used to remove him or where he resigned from this post?

 

[Gaspo]

The Defense is vehemently opposed to such an unnecessary delay in this proceeding.

 

[Sanctaria]

As am I.

Todd was removed for inactivity. He hasn't been online since February 12th, despite attempts at contacting him by Abbey at my request.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.

Previously there was no available Justice, so 3.2.9 kicked in. With my election, 3.2.8 kicked in, and as I am a Justice, I can appoint hearing officers to assist me. Todd was inactive, so I replaced him.

I'm pretty sure this an example of unnecessary theatrics in my courtroom that I so intensely dislike, Counsellor.

 

[punk d]

A THO, in my opinion, should not be able to appoint a THO. That is my point. I thought you had been appointed as a THO but then now recall that you were subsequently elected as a justice.

That is not theatrics. That's a legit issue.

Another legit issue is removing Todd from this body. I'm still not seeing where he resigned from this of his own volition or what authority you derive to call him 'vacant'? Are you seeing this issue that I'm raising?

There is no clause in the Legal Code - to my understanding - that allows for the removal of a temp hearing officer directly. That's the question I'm addressing to the court.

 

[Sanctaria]

A THO, in my opinion, should not be able to appoint a THO. That is my point. I thought you had been appointed as a THO but then now recall that you were subsequently elected as a justice.

That is not theatrics. That's a legit issue.

Another legit issue is removing Todd from this body. I'm still not seeing where he resigned from this of his own volition or what authority you derive to call him 'vacant'? Are you seeing this issue that I'm raising?

There is no clause in the Legal Code - to my understanding - that allows for the removal of a temp hearing officer directly. That's the question I'm addressing to the court.

This is theatrics because you're raising it in a trial thread, Counsellor, which is not appropriate. Something I would have assumed four months as Attorney General would have taught you.

But I'm going to take time out and actually address this so the trial can move on. The "authority" that allowed me to remove Todd was Section 4.2.8 of the Legal Code, specifically "[a]n office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice". Todd has not been online since February 12th and without prior notice, as far as I could tell.

A THO is an appointed position, so, if you read on in that passage: "[v]acancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures." The correct procedures is detailed in 3.2.8 of the Legal Code, wherein the Justice appoints someone to the position.

Further, Counsellor, I don't like the implication that I'm using my office for nefarious means. However, I'll let that slide.

Now, we're going to await the plea from Eluvatar, with no recess. I trust neither counsellors have a problem with this.

 

[punk d]

Thank you for the legal reference, your honor. That's what I was looking for.

 

[Sanctaria]

I'm glad I could assist, Counsellor, but I would suggest investing in a legal clerk, and not utilising the services of a cranky judge.

Now if we could please wait for the defendant?

 

[Eluvatar]

Under aforementioned protest, I plead not guilty to the charges of Election Fraud, Treason, and Impersonation.

I again plead not guilty to the charge of Espionage.

For the sake of clarity: I will still be represented by Gaspo, r3naissanc3r, and myself.

 

[Sanctaria]

Thank you, those pleas of Not Guilty have been accepted.

We now move on to pre-trial period which shall last at least three days and end at 12 noon EST on the 8th, which is Friday I believe, unless more time is requested and granted.

 

[punk d]

Formatting might be problematic, sorry but I want to get this posted swiftly for the court. I would also like this court to place a gag order on all parties involved defined:
„X

• 
  „X
• No attorney shall make comments regarding this case in any place except this courtroom. 'Place' shall be defined by any conversations at any location with anyone not associated with this case. This includes comments made on IRC channels, on this forum, or private instant messaging services, as examples. This list is not exhaustive. Witnesses recognized by this court for either the prosecution or defense are an exception to this rule.
  „X
• No member of this court shall engage in any conversation with either the defense or prosecution except when in the presence of both parties. The court shall disclose any prior conversations that have taken place with either prosecution or defense since this case has begun. If the court does not disclose any prior conversations that have taken place in the presence of just one party in this case, the court will provide reasoning for such non-disclosure.
  „X
• This gag order shall be in effect until such time as this case ends and should any member of either party be removed or willingly leave the proceedings in their current capacity, this gag order shall remain in effect until such time as this case reaches a conclusion.
  „X
• If any party in this case does not adhere to this gag order, it will be grounds for a mistrial.

Disallow editing posts related to this case
Your honor, I would like you to motion that any witness accepted by this court and the defendant himself refrain from editing any comment related to this case during this trial.
There are pertinent pieces of evidence we shall be submitting and obviously, editing an item, makes it difficult to count on the reliability of a piece of evidence.

Motion to allow forum testimony
I am requesting the use of this forum thread to conduct testimony of the witnesses. Not all parties in this case have a ton of time for IRC and I do believe the witnesses below shall be useful in supporting the prosecution¡¦s case.

Motion to accept prior court¡¦s ruling
I am making a motion that the court define ¡§the group¡¨ that Eluvatar created as a ¡¥non-governmental¡¦
See here:[ http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8057264&t=6933681]
entity as defined by the prior court¡¦s ruling. One of the main questions before this court is the authority with which this group was created. A prior court ruled that it was a ¡¥non-governmental¡¦ entity and therefore any relevant information contained thereof was not subject to a freedom of information. I am asking the court to affirm this ruling. If the court is unable to affirm this ruling, my office shall make FOI requests to the current delegate seeking the information. If those requests are denied, we shall appeal to the court to open up the information. Either way, we seek this court¡¦s ruling on the matter so that we know how to proceed. If the court rules counter to the previous court we will request an extension of pre-trial motions in order to react to this new ruling.
I¡¦d like to direct the court¡¦s attention to Flem¡¦s post subsequent his ruling:
[http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8058341&t=6933681]
In this Flem observed Elu post in which he stated that he (Eluvatar) was unaware that his group was ¡¥extra-governmental¡¦. We wish for this court to define the matter for both parties so that there is there is no confusion on this issue and we can respond accordingly.

Witness List
Blue Wolf ¡V Blue Wolf will provide material testimony that supports the prosecution's case with respect to the charges, all charges, facing the defendant. Since exhibits are not required at this stage per the Adopted Court Rules, I shall offer those exhibits at the appropriate court appointed time.
Hileville ¡V he can corroborate the prosecution¡¦s case having directly witnessed the crime(s) committed.

Flemingovia ¡V he is an admin of the board and shall be needed to access evidence we shall submit and substantiate its content. Also ¡V he was a ¡¥member¡¦ of the group formed by Eluvatar. That he was a member is confirmed here [http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8056636&t=6933681]. It shall be entered into evidence but I¡¦d not like to waste the court¡¦s time with a frivolous defense objection.

Unibot ¡V Eluvatar cited that BW was attempting to coup the region. A person related to the UDL mentioned this as well. We are looking for Unibot to provide us information, as an expert in intelligence, that shows he was or was not able to find information that showed Blue Wolf was going to coup the region.

Grosse ¡V He can confirm that Elu¡¦s group did not discuss the issues raised by Elu prior to their disclosure as he was a member of the Security Council at the time of the alleged actions. This link also will be entered into evidence during discovery [http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8056856&t=6933681]

Motion to Extend discovery
Given the number of witnesses and the seriousness of this case, I wish to make a motion to extend the discovery period to 2 weeks. I'd like to note that Grosse is semi-active and we may have little access to him. Yet, I believe he is critical to the case.

Request Admins to provide Attorney General Access to thread of the Group in question
I am making a final motion seeking that the court compel the admin team to allow the Prosecution access to the alleged group area created by Eluvatar. Eluvatar, obviously has access to this area, but the prosecution is requesting access from this court to that area. If the court rules that indeed this was a non-governmental area, then I must make this request to the admins. However, if this court rules that this was a governmental-area, I must request the court grant my office access to it. If the court affirms Flem¡¦s prior ruling, I withdraw this request and shall seek access to this area via the forum admins.

 

[Gaspo]

The Defense will answer the prosecution's...creative motions shortly. The following are duly submitted.

Motion to Dismiss Charge of Impersonation

The Impersonation statute was enacted April 18th, and the events in which Eluvatar stands accused of impersonating The North Pacific took place in March. While Eluvatar did not impersonate the government in any manner, he is also not interested in addressing charges whose very filing violates the Bill of Rights, Article 9.

No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Impersonation statute was adopted in this vote which began at (time=1334120640) and concluded at (time=1334725980).

The concept of plausible pleading, as implied by the Court Rules Article 1.3, requires that an indictment allege sufficient facts that, if those facts were proven to be true, a reasonable finder of fact could find the accused party guilty. The burden rests with the Attorney General to allege such facts; for this charge, Punk D has failed to address this burden.

Plausible pleading is chosen by this court because it allows the Defendant to prepare an adequate defense, as he will have some notice of what basic theory of the case the Prosecution intends to use, and to dissuade prosecutors from filing malicious or baseless charges simply to overburden a defendant and compromise their defense. These issues appear to have risen in this case, despite these rules, however. As previously stated, Punk D has failed to allege any facts at all in support of this charge, let alone sufficient facts to support a finding of guilt, should said facts be proven true.

Accordingly, the Defense requests that this charge be dismissed with prejudice. The Defense notes that, as Discovery has not begun, it would not be proper for the Attorney General to submit evidence to support this charge; if he had any, he was obligated to include it in the Indictment. He failed to meet this burden, and now is not a permissible time for him to attempt to correct his mistakes.



Motion to Dismiss Charge of Election Fraud
No allegations have been made of acts which constitute Election Fraud in this indictment. While it is difficult to prove a negative, the Attorney General has failed to offer even a shred of evidence sufficient to support a cause of action for Election Fraud. For reference, the Election Fraud statute is copied below:

8. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.

The Attorney General has submitted no evidence of deception, of willfulness, or of any communications or actions by Eluvatar which would meet any of the elemental requirements for this charge.

As such, the Defense requests that it be dismissed on foundational grounds, and that this dismissal be with prejudice.



Motion to Dismiss Charge of Treason

The prosecution declares that it "shall demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate at the time which is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific." However, this speaks of a terrible miscomprehension of the statute. The first clause of the Treason statute defines two distinct notions as treason:

1. Taking up Arms.
2. Providing material support to a group or region.

Both notions are limited in that either the taking up of arms or the material support of a group must be 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 and the Bill of Rights.

The prosecution declares that it will demonstrate that Eluvatar provided material support to a group, falling under the second notion, and that it will show this support was "for the expressed purpose of undermining the sitting delegate" and declares that this “is tantamount to undermining the lawful government of The North Pacific.” While the prosecution has not explained what acts they will allege which would match their declaration, even were they to demonstrate acts which fit the broad contours they have drawn, they would not be demonstrating Eluvatar to be a traitor against The North Pacific. They do not declare that they will show Eluvatar to have an expressed purpose of undermining the constitutional governance of The North Pacific, presumably because they lack the ability to meet this factual burden. Instead, they declare they will show acts to undermine the sitting delegate, whose authority they claim to be tantamount.

It is quite clear that it is not. The North Pacific is not a kingdom. Opposition to a particular Delegate is not tantamount to seeking to undermine the constitutional government of TNP. Our Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech, grants rights to assemble, and grants rights to petition the government for redress. It explicitly protects the right of all TNP nations to ask for the removal of any official, including the Delegate. It even guarantees the organization and operation of the government on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.

This Court has recently noted that the Sedition law was unconstitutional; the Treason law requires overt acts with an expressed purpose. The Attorney General has, yet again, completely failed in his duty to provide evidence to support his allegations. As such, the Prosecution requests that the court dismiss this baseless allegation with prejudice, along with the others for which the Attorney General has failed to provide even a shred of substantiation.

 

[Gaspo]

Regarding PunkD's motions...

Gag order
The Defense vehemently objects to this stifling of free speech. Gag orders are used to prevent contamination of a jury pool, or disclosure of secret materials. The former is not an issue here, and the latter is irrelevant as there are laws in place which already obligate this. The Prosecutions' concerns regarding ex parte discussions are insulting, as the avoidance of ex parte proceedings is a standard part of legal practice and would not be undertaken by any party, at any time. I again, however, refer the Court to the Bill of Rights, which permits no infringements on free speech.

Editing
Again, this is a motino to counter something which the Prosecution has no reason to believe will happen. My client has a lengthy history of actively avoiding entire forums merely by request, and there is no indication that he has ever abused his discretion or access. To suggest that such would be a concern here is, frankly, a grievous insult to my client (whom I would note is to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise).

Forum Testimony
In-thread testimony will take ages, needlessly dragging out yet another trial for far longer than is necessary to address these ludicrous charges. Furthermore, the Court rules applicable here make no allowance for in-thread testimony. There are easy avenues for conducting depositions available, and if the Attorney General is unable to meet his obligations in that area, perhaps another prosecutor might be better to replace him. The Defense would be willing to negotiate the creation of interrogatories which could be submitted to the witnesses in one go, but is not at all interested in watching one question per day get answered in this thread, at best.

Prior Court's Ruling
All rulings are persuasive, not binding. This is fact. I see no point in this motion, and oppose it on principle as it attempts to bind this Court to one particular interpretation of the law - this is unacceptable. The decisions in this case are for this Court to make, not any previous Court. Frankly, given that the group as created apparently grew out of the Security Council, I struggle to see it as extra-governmental, but would like to conduct proper evidence discovery on the issue before we ask the court to make a binding decision on the nature of this organization for purposes of this trial. Facts would be useful, instead of "This guy said it before, so let's assume he was right." While I have respect for precedent, this Court must come to its own decisions on matters such as these, or at least consider actual evidence in doing so.

Extended Discovery
No objection.

Witness List
No objections at this time, but given that I can object to witnesses at any point, I of course preserve my right to object to the Witnesses once I've had time to continue developing this case.

Access to Forum Area
Anything the Prosecution gets to see, we get to see too. Impossible to abide by the Bill of Rights' fair trial requirements in any other way - simple as that. If we can't see it (and I'm not suggesting it be made public - merely available to the Defense) then they shouldn't be able to either.

 

[punk d]

Formatting might be an issue again.

Regarding the motion to dismiss the charge of impersonation
I reject defense counsel’s use of the concept “plausible pleading”. This is not a concept contained within the Legal Code, Constitution, nor the court’s adopted rules. Instead, this concept has come to the fore in recent real-life United States cases, notably Ashcroft vs. Iqbal. Thus, I ask the court to reject defense’s contention that the concept of plausible pleading as defined by the defense is a rule that this court is subject to. If the court finds that the concept of plausible pleading is a concept to which this court shall hold itself in this case and others, I ask the court to provide the prosecution with reference to such a concept within the constitution, legal code, or Court Rules. In short, this court has not required the concept of plausible pleading to my office and I would argue that the acceptance of this case is sufficient plausibility to allow my office to present our case against the defendant.

Defense has linked this concept to Court Adopted Rules Article 1.3 which states:

An Indictment may be declined by the Court if said indictment lacks substantial evidence to merit a trial.

Indeed, the court has the purview to decline an indictment as is it’s pregogative. The court did not decline this indictment and instead has accepted it. We are here because the court accepted the indictment against the defendant. Defense should not be able to say ex post facto that the court can again analyze the case referencing Article 1.3 since the article speaks specifically to an ‘indictment’; an indictment my office submitted and was accepted by this court.
In honesty, I have resigned my position as attorney general in part because rules of this court are defined as we go along – often changing as the wind. I hope that the court rejects defense’s concept of plausible pleading as it is not a concept referenced or implied within any law or rule of The North Pacific. Further, his use in this instance is misplaced since Court Rules speak to declining an indictment. The court accepted the indictment and therefore dismissal of impersonation charges buttressed by this is invalid.

Regarding motion to dismiss charge of Election Fraud
Again, the court has accepted the indictment and defense’s motion to dismiss seems premature since the defendant just entered his plea. The prosecution shall contend that the defendant utilized his position as a member of the Security Council to pull together a group for the express purpose of ousting or planning to oust the legally elected sitting delegate under the guise of a ‘governmental entity’. This guise was such and the prosecution would like the opportunity to argue this point before the court. In the coming days we shall submit evidence to this court to support our claim.

Regarding the motion to dismiss the charge of treason
Your honor – this is probably the key issue before the court. The prosecution will argue that Eluvatar formed and led a group of individuals with the expressed intent to remove the sitting delegate. The prosecution shall supply this court with factual evidence supporting this claim and again believes that defense is acting prematurely. We kindly ask the court to allow the prosecution to present our evidence and reject this motion.
I’d also like to respond to defense’s postulation here:

While the prosecution has not explained what acts they will allege which would match their declaration, even were they to demonstrate acts which fit the broad contours they have drawn, they would not be demonstrating Eluvatar to be a traitor against The North Pacific. They do not declare that they will show Eluvatar to have an expressed purpose of undermining the constitutional governance of The North Pacific, presumably because they lack the ability to meet this factual burden. Instead, they declare they will show acts to undermine the sitting delegate, whose authority they claim to be tantamount.

I would like to say that unless defense counsel is able to enter the mind of the prosecution, his statements are hearsay at best and wild speculation at worst. I humbly ask the court to allow the prosecution the opportunity to present it’s case. During pre-trial motions, the prosecution’s and defense only requirement is to submit a witness list. We shall. During the discovery phase, as defined by the Court Rules (Article 2.3), both parties submit evidence. We shall.
This motion to dismiss should be rejected and instead the judicial process should be allowed to continue.

 

[Sanctaria]

Motions to Dismiss must, according to the the Court Rules, be decided by the bench. However, since we've already discussed them in the last incarnation, does either counsellor have a problem with continuing without my having to go back to the full Court? It would save time for what would be a fruitless endeavour.

 

[Gaspo]

I have no issue with that.

 

[punk d]

Per the Court Rules, I'd like a ruling made by the full court, Your honor.

I see no reason to deviate from this.

 

[Sanctaria]

My point was that the decision was already made before the Court was instructed back to plea stage, but very well, if the Counsellor objects.

The Court will be adjourned for 48 hours from the ending of pre-trial stage, which is 12 noon EST today.

 

[Sanctaria]

I'm breaking recess here for a bit due to something coming to light in real life.

I've been told by my boss I'm needed for 12 hour shifts all this week (Mon-Fri) due to some ... camp thing, they're running. Obviously, I won't be able to devote my full attention to this case for the next 6 days.

However, I don't think a long recess is necessary just because the Moderating Justice has had something come up. In that vain, would either Counsellor have an objection if I asked one of the Temporary Hearing Officers to take over as Moderator until I return full-time on, probably, Saturday the 16th?

I'll be able to pop online to participate in any full-bench discussions, if needed, but I simply don't have the time this week to pay full attention.

So yes, the court can either adjourn for the week, or I can ask a THO to step in and Moderate for a few days. Counsellors?

 

[Gaspo]

I would prefer an adjournment.

 

[punk d]

I have no issue with any of the other moderating justices taking over.

 

[punk d]

I should say - I have not problem with any of the other justices taking over moderation in your semi-absence.

 

[Sanctaria]

Since the Defence object to another serving as Moderating Justice for the week, I am left with no option but to adjourn until Saturday, March 16th, at 18:00 GMT.

I'm hopeful this will be the last such unnecessary delay to proceedings, but alas, this fault is my own and unexpected. You can blame RL and needing money.

 

[punk d]

I've got a couple RL absences coming up this month too.

Mar 21-22 I will not be around. It's US March madness and I'm taking 2 days off to watch basketball from 12PM to Midnight. I will not be around except perhaps in the AM both days.

Mar 26-28 I will be travelling for work and don't think I'll have much access to the internet.

Not having deadlines around those days would be appreciated.

 

[Sanctaria]

Noted, thanks for the advance warning.

 

[Sanctaria]

This Court is back in session, and pre-trial period is closed. I will now address motions made in the pre-trial phase before moving on the Discovery.

***

Request for a gag order is denied. The Constitution demands that no infringement be made on free speech, something that was recently reaffirmed in a court review. As such, I find it both unconstitutional and improper to institute the gag order as requested.

Request to disallow editing is accepted. While I don't think the defendant or witness would edit their own or other posts for nefarious means, I would prefer no post is edited so that I, and the other judges, as well as both prosecution and defence get the full picture of the trial, and not be left wondering what was removed, or added, to a certain testimony. This is not a reflection on the defendant, or on the witnesses, but I think it's necessary for a fuller understanding of the trial for all participants.

I am denying the request to allow in-forum testimony. I am in agreement with the Defence that this may unnecessarily prolong this trial. The current methods of testimony collection, while flawed, will have to do, Counsellor.

Also denied is the request to accept a prior ruling of the court. This denial is nothing to do with precedent, but because I'm not seeing the relevance to this case. The Counsellor will make his arguments and the Court will judge them accordingly.

The witness list for the prosecution is accepted and noted.

I have no problem extending Discovery, seeing no objections from the Defence.

Finally, with regards to the forum access, I am in agreement with the Defence that anything the prosecution gets to see, so too should the Defence. So if an Admin approves your request, I will request them to also extend that approval to the Defence team.

***

The Court is dismissing the charge of Impersonation with prejudice. The Court believes that because the alleged action was committed before it was made a crime, it would be irresponsible and illegal for us to charge the Defendant with it.

I am of the opinion that the charge of Election Fraud is actually a clerical error on my behalf in that it was actually Impersonation (a subsection of Election Fraud) that the Defendant is charged with. Since I have dismissed the charge of Impersonation, there is no charge of Election Fraud.

The motion to dismiss the charge of Treason is denied. This Court is in agreement that because the indictment was accepted, the prosecution should be allowed to make its case.

***

We have now entered Discovery and, as I have accepted the request for extension, it will run for two weeks, ending at 18.30 GMT on Saturday March 30th.

 

[punk d]

Thank you for your rulings your honor. I have a question regarding this:

Also denied is the request to accept a prior ruling of the court. This denial is nothing to do with precedent, but because I'm not seeing the relevance to this case. The Counsellor will make his arguments and the Court will judge them accordingly.

Does this also pertain to any other prior court ruling not made within this courtroom? I hope you take this question in the spirit that it is intended in that I am trying to understand the what prior rulings of previous courts this court will accept. For example, if during an argument I reference a particular case - with your ruling on this particular matter I do not know if such prior rulings would be accepted.

In this particular case, the ruling I asked the court to accept that the court currently does not see the relevance is one of the most relevant rulings made by a previous court related to this matter, specifically as to whether the defendant's group was or was not a governmental entity. I plan to argue based on that court's ruling since no subsequent court has overturned this ruling. I'll also be looking into one of the recent court rulings on binding of court rulings.

I thank the court for its time and hope that the court does not see my questioning as 'theatrics' but as a true desire to understand the terms under which we shall try this case.

 

[Sanctaria]

The Court recently released a review on precedent and whether or not it was binding or not. I'd direct your attention to that ruling.

As for the ruling you requested us to accept, argue your case based on that ruling, Counsellor, and the Court will judge accordingly.

EDIT: It was incorrect of me to say I denied it because I didn't see the relevance. What I intended to say was it was denied because it would be improper for the court to accept it unconditionally without seeing arguments etc. Make your case, referencing that ruling if you so wish, and then the Court will judge accordingly. Apologies, it's been a long week.

 

[punk d]

The Court recently released a review on precedent and whether or not it was binding or not. I'd direct your attention to that ruling.

As for the ruling you requested us to accept, argue your case based on that ruling, Counsellor, and the Court will judge accordingly.

This is exactly my point your honor. You are directing me to a recent court ruling (one I noted i needed to review in my prior response) and yet also not accepting the ruling of a prior court in today's ruling.

Is my confusion apparent? If one ruling is accepted, shouldn't all prior and not previously overturned rulings also be accepted? However you answer this question, I won't continue to ask. I am just looking for clarity in order to direct my arguments.

I do not wish to argue: "As noted in the prior ruling [here], the court stated" and this court select which rulings to accept and others to reject. But, if that shall be the process in this proceeding, I will adjust my arguments.

Again - I have no intention for theatrics and however you respond I shall not be asking further clarification on this matter. I appreciate the time, effort, and care the court is taking with this case. I apologize for the need to clarify particular points.

 

[Sanctaria]

You're asking the Court to accept a prior ruling as binding when a review I'm directing you to states that the Court can not, and should not, definitively accept precedent as binding.

Can we continue now please?

 

[punk d]

After reviewing the ruling in question, here's the relevant part about precedent:

The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (unilaterally, at the Court's discretion, without an action being brought), nor do we believe that precedent may be disregarded unless it is conclusively overturned. We furthermore believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors. Should it come to pass that precedent must be overturned, this Court believes that that decision must only be made after all legal alternatives have been examined, and must be done in as transparent and explanatory a fashion as possible.

In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This court is not accepting the prior ruling of the previous court nor offering reasoning as to why this ruling was not accepted. The court stated that the court could not see the relevance of that ruling with reference to this case. In the motion I made, I clearly stated the relevance to this case.

-----midstream before posting edit ----- Your honor just edited his post. I am glad you do see the relevance. -----end midstream edit-----

I am now requesting this court - per the ruling on precedence be "as transparent and explanatory" in their reasoning for not accepting [in essence rejecting] the prior court's ruling. Neither the defense nor the prosecution has brought an action against this ruling and per the ruling on precedent I do not see a reason for this court to deny the prior ruling on the FOI request.

 

[Gaspo]

No objections to the extension of discovery. The rest is noted respectfully; I hope that in the future, the Court will abide by the requirement of the presence some shred of factual allegation prior to accepting indictments. And thank you for all of this hard work, your honor.