[CRIMINAL] Complaint Against King Durk the Awesome

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
Name of Complainant: Sanctaria and McMasterdonia, on behalf of the Government of the North Pacific

Name(s) of Accused: King Durk the Awesome (aka JAL; Durkadurkiranistan II; John Ashcroft Land)

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): The Month of July. Native control was restored at the end of the month.

Specific Offense(s): Treason, Conspiracy

Relevant Excerpts from Legal Code or other Laws:
Criminal Code:
Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Osiris and Equilism.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...

Criminal Code:
Section 1.7. Conspiracy
19. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
Click to expand...

Summary of Events (What happened, in your own words):

The nation known as Durkadurkiranistan II, AKA JAL, AKA King Durk the Awesome, recently was granted control to the nation of The Dourian Embassy, after said nation lost the election for the Delegacy of Osiris. King Durk the Awesome, as rogue Delegate of Osiris, continued to oppress the nations of our treatied ally and banned those that opposed him in order to hold onto the Delegacy. He also banned the legitimate and elected Pharaoh Cormac A Stark from the region for a period of time. As our ally, the North Pacific is sworn to defend and assist the legitimate government of Osiris at their request and for the duration of the coup we did all we could to assist in the return of native rule to the region.

King Durk the Awesome, returned power to the native government after an agreement was reached between himself and the legitimate Pharaoh Cormac A Stark. King Durk the Awesome sought to bend the region to the will of Gatesville and did all he could to cause damage and destruction to our allies in Osiris.

Evidentiary Submissions: This log of a conversation that took place on IRC, and then posted on the NS forum.

This screenshot showing Durk admitting The Dourian Embassy, the rogue Delegate, was his WA.

This screenshot showing that Durk was in the RA during the time the coup was ongoing.
 
Pushing-Truck-from-Mud-680x424.jpg


BW, Roman, r3n and Funk behind the wheels of justice.
 
Durk is sitting in the driver's seat, "come on boys, you can do it!" as he gently applies his foot to the break.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The Attorney General has been made aware of these allegations and is investigating.
Click to expand...
But seriously, folks, the Court cannot take any action until the AG or other properly authorized agent of the AG decides to actually prosecute.

Court Justices cannot initiate prosecution. Apparently the AG is aware yet apparently chooses not to act on the charges. Forcing the AG's office to act is not the duty of the court as far as I know. Well, actually, it can be if the proper procedure is initiated. :P
 
No, the court only likes to issue advisory opinions when I'm the AG. In any other instance of alleged dereliction the court will remain silent.

I fully expect this and whatever other case currently open to languish until there is a new AG elected.
 
Your insinuations are not appreciated, punk d. They are also baseless.

The Court has in the past issued a sua sponte advisory opinion, as part of its decision to dismiss TNP v. Unibot, and in order to justify that dismissal. The opinion was on actions taken within the court, in the duration of a trial. It was this particular set of circumstances that made the issuance of that opinion possible---though it should be noted that even then the argument for the permissibility of that action was tenuous.

None of those conditions hold true currently. There is a situation taking place outside of the Court, and the Court has not been requested to review or otherwise act upon it. The Constitution is absolutely clear that the Court may only exercise its powers at the request of an affected party, and in the absence of such a request it would be both illegal and inappropriate for the Justices to unilaterally take any sort of action.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Your insinuations are not appreciated, punk d. They are also baseless.

The Court has in the past issued a sua sponte advisory opinion, as part of its decision to dismiss TNP v. Unibot, and in order to justify that dismissal. The opinion was on actions taken within the court, in the duration of a trial. It was this particular set of circumstances that made the issuance of that opinion possible---though it should be noted that even then the argument for the permissibility of that action was tenuous.

None of those conditions hold true currently. There is a situation taking place outside of the Court, and the Court has not been requested to review or otherwise act upon it. The Constitution is absolutely clear that the Court may only exercise its powers at the request of an affected party, and in the absence of such a request it would be both illegal and inappropriate for the Justices to unilaterally take any sort of action.
Click to expand...
Appreciated or not, the fact is that this court has punished chided the action of a previous AG and did so upon its own volition, whereas the court has not chided the inaction of any AG who has simply decided that performing the duties of their office is worthwhile.

If you'd like to hide behind legalese to defend such positions, feel free. I'll continue to note my displeasure and you can continue to not appreciate it.

We need a competent AG and if the court has set a precedent of commenting on the workings of an AG, they should not fail to do so when an AG goes AWOL.
 
I am not hiding behind legalese, I am making a straightforward, valid, and perfectly reasonable distinction.

The Court can and should comment on the conduct of the parties in a trial. That is its job. The Court has absolutely no duty to comment on the performace of regional officials outside the courtroom, unless said performance is brought up as the subject of a case. Not only that, it would also be completely inappropriate for the Court to do so, as this would compromise its ability to make an impartial judgment should a case indeed take place.

The regional body that is responsible for scrutinizing the performance of regional officials is the Regional Assembly, which is why it has the power of recall. You are a member of the Regional Assembly. If you are so concerned about the competency of the Attorney General, why not put your membership to use and do something about it yourself? Instead, you choose to make snide remarks against the Court, in order to further your personal grudge against a former Justice.
 
Which former justice?

No - I remain consistent in that I'd prefer an AG that does something than one that does not. I remain consistent also that I believe the court has the responsibility to ensure that all workings of the body of this court do, indeed, work. You may not agree with me on this, but my feelings are not different as you can clearly see by my comments on Grosse, Gaspo, and now our current AG.

Action (Even poor action) > Inaction.

I am fully aware of my rights as an RA member.
 
The Attorney General is not part of the (body of the) court. Never has been. As such, the Court has no responsibility for the Attorney General's actions or lack thereof, unless of course those are while he is party to a case the Court is hearing.

I have no idea where you discovered this supposed responsibility. Furthermore, I will say yet again that not only is it not responsible, but also it would be entirely inappropriate for the Court to start chastising the Attorney General for his performance outside the courtroom.
 
Did I miss the reason Punk isn't calling for BW's recall? And that's an entirely serious question, in case anyone was wondering.
 
Iro - I'm usually ahead of the curve on recalls. I was with Grosse (I submitted a failed recall...and then he resigned) and Gaspo who was removed from his post because he abandoned it. Unseen by most of you was a thread I began a month prior to someone calling for his recall suggesting we justices send a message to Gaspo to do his job.

My fellow justices at the time did not respond until I made a comment about posterity and being right about Gaspo's abandonment. I have different take than r3n, and perhaps most others when it comes to the court. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Court to ensure that the court functions as properly as possible including the action/inaction of the AG. But I also felt, as Justice, we had a responsibility to explain our rulings even if people disagreed with those rulings and our logic. Accountability is something I hold in high regard, and again for effect, the 'grudge' factor has nothing to do with this. I like BW but have been disappointed with some of his actions of late. I believe Gaspo was a better AG than I was when he was active, but his inactivity was inexcusable.

My personal feelings about a particular AG have really nothing to do with their willingness to bring cases to the fore...or not.

So, Iro, in a month from now when we're finally removing BW from office, I'll sigh and say we should have done it a month ago but a recall vote would fail today. Thus, I see no reason to bring it forth until such time as people see that "punk holds grudges" does not compensate for the fact that our AG has abandoned us once again.

I still hold out hope that BW's pride will not allow comments such as mine to go unchallenged and he shows himself and takes on the cases on his docket.
 
PunkD,

I am not sure what your complaint is. In the last judicial election you voted for a candidate who could not even be arsed to post a campaign thread, and thus who made no commitments or promises.

Why are you complaining that your favoured candidate has not done anything?
 
flemingovia:
PunkD,

I am not sure what your complaint is. In the last judicial election you voted for a candidate who could not even be arsed to post a campaign thread, and thus who made no commitments or promises.

Why are you complaining that your favoured candidate has not done anything?
Click to expand...
Flem – that’s a good point. I voted FOR the current AG. r3n, just another example of a ‘grudge’ being a non-issue.

But back to Flem’s point, I seriously thought BW would not run for an office he didn’t intend to execute. He’s never really been one for campaign threads and that’s his style. I’m fine with that. But he has done basically nothing since he’s been elected and that’s not why I or the rest of his supporters expected from him.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.
 
You are mixing several different and unrelated things Punk, making your post not very coherent. I will try to dissect it.

Unseen by most of you was a thread I began a month prior to someone calling for his recall suggesting we justices send a message to Gaspo to do his job.

My fellow justices at the time did not respond until I made a comment about posterity and being right about Gaspo's abandonment.
Click to expand...
The fact that you were right about Gaspo's abandonment of the office does not mean that you were right about the Court's responsibility to take action on the issue. Perhaps that was why your fellow Justices chose not to respond.

I have different take than r3n, and perhaps most others when it comes to the court. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Court to ensure that the court functions as properly as possible including the action/inaction of the AG.
Click to expand...
I agree, the Court is responsible to ensure that it functions as efficiently as possible, and as Chief Justice I strive for that.

What the Court is not responsible for is the Attorney General's inaction outside of cases. Once again, the Attorney General is not part of the Court. It is an independent office, independently elected, operating independent of the Court Justices, and independently accountable to the RA.

You also continue to ignore the other point I made, that it would be inappropriate for the Court, or any Justice individually, to publicly criticize the Attorney General's performance outside the Court. It would be just as inappropriate as if the Court decided to take the initiative to publish a critique of the performance of the Delegate and the cabinet, the performance of the Vice Delegate and the Security Council, or the performance of the Speaker.

The Justices' main job is to make impartial judgments when they are asked to. Because of this, there is an expectation, unique to their office, that they exercise some restraint when expressing their opinions on the public affairs of the region. Otherwise they may find themselves in an undesirable position where their impartiality is questioned and they are no longer able to do their job. It is because of this expectation of restraint that Justices should refrain from commenting on other officials' performance outside of Court cases.

But I also felt, as Justice, we had a responsibility to explain our rulings even if people disagreed with those rulings and our logic.
Click to expand...
Not sure what this is relevant to. In any event, I believe I have demonstrated that I consider it important that all Court decisions be thoroughly argued.

Accountability is something I hold in high regard, and again for effect, the 'grudge' factor has nothing to do with this. I like BW but have been disappointed with some of his actions of late. I believe Gaspo was a better AG than I was when he was active, but his inactivity was inexcusable.

My personal feelings about a particular AG have really nothing to do with their willingness to bring cases to the fore...or not.

So, Iro, in a month from now when we're finally removing BW from office, I'll sigh and say we should have done it a month ago but a recall vote would fail today. Thus, I see no reason to bring it forth until such time as people see that "punk holds grudges" does not compensate for the fact that our AG has abandoned us once again.
Click to expand...
Here you are attaching my "grudge" comment to all sorts of unrelated issues.

The only thing I attributed to a grudge was your original scornful remark, that the Court supposedly will only take action to criticize you, as if the Court had some sort of personal vendetta against you. That is the only single thing it refers to, and the only context where it is relevant.

The "grudge" comment is not related to anything else in this thread. Do not abuse it to justify your inaction, or to try to claim some high ground.
Flem – that’s a good point. I voted FOR the current AG. r3n, just another example of a ‘grudge’ being a non-issue.
Click to expand...
See above. I have no idea how the "grudge" comment is relevant here.
 
r3n,

Not all justices agree with your concept of 'expectation of restraint'. I recall a number of instances where Justices actually openly discussed their disagreement with one another, much less the AG's actions, before, during, and after rulings.

If you are saying that is your personal modus operandi, I agree and also thought that such expectation was common to all, but to suggest that it is universal does not reflect how other justices in your position have acted. Simply put, not everyone follows this maxim.

Again - I believe it is the responsibility of justices to do as much as they can to ensure the wheels of justice turn in TNP and that does include giving a swift kick in the pants to an inactive AG or Justice. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
 
Romanoffia:
Did our glorious AG appoint a deputy/Assistant AG that can act in his behalf?
Click to expand...
*appoint*?

While we're on the topic, would someone tell me in legalese if I'm still supposed to be working? I asked if I should be unmasked and Punk essentially said no.

In any case I've learned that I can't really do shit without the AG telling me to, so no help here.
 
Iro, technically your job doesn't exist - it's not mentioned anywhere in the constibillocode, and the only legitimacy it has comes from two sources: 1) an AG one day thought "you know what? I should have deputies" and 2) a recent court decision says that deputy AGs are government officials.

So no one knows the answer to your question, and if they have an answer, they're literally just making it up :P When a new AG takes office, does he inherit the deputies that the previous AG appointed? Who knows?! There is literally no guidance anywhere on that subject.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Hmmm... if BW appointed Iro and Iro took the oath... Well then, common sense would indicate that he can do AG stuffs.
Click to expand...
Since when did common sense have anything to do with the constaytooshun?
 
Ash:
Iro:
How about we burn something? That usually helps court stuff.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest we burn, Iro?
Click to expand...
Grammar alert! Grammar Alert...

Should say, "What do you suggest we burn Iro?" or Iro, What do you suggest we burn?"

That is unless you are suggesting we ignite Iro. :P
 
Romanoffia:
Ash:
Iro:
How about we burn something? That usually helps court stuff.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest we burn, Iro?
Click to expand...
Grammar alert! Grammar Alert...

Should say, "What do you suggest we burn Iro?" or Iro, What do you suggest we burn?"

That is unless you are suggesting we ignite Iro. :P
Click to expand...
I would never intentionally suggest that we ignite Iro <_<
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top