[Private] H&H indictment

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
See: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7161042/1/#new

Offers an interesting conundrum - the individual in the indictment has already been ejected due to exceeding the Vice Delegate's endorsement count and refusing to comply with the law and warnings from the SC. Is the indictment moot at this point or should it go through a trial in absentia if the defendant is nowhere to be found or doesn't answer the charges?
 
To respond to the content of this, I don't think there's any way the indictment can possibly be moot. He was ejected under urgency grounds, but he still has rights under the law. I believe we are obligated to proceed.

If the defendant does not show up, we can look at the recent court ruling as to how to proceed - I would suggest appointing an attorney for the absent defendant.

As the indictment has been presented and accepted by the (previous) court, I would suggest picking a moderating justice so that a trial thread can be opened.

Unfortunately, we have not yet revamped the court rules. :(
 
Fortunately, as precedent would have it, the CJ can create rules to cover subjects that are not covered by the rules. And we do need to revamp the court rules so we don't end up with a back-log of cases, etc.

Since the indictment/case was accepted by the previous session of the Court, all that technically needs to be done is to enter it formally into Court Filings (which the AG was instructed to do) so that we can technically accept it (oh, damn these convoluted rules that get in the way and often conflict with other damned rules :P ) and assign a moderating Justice.

The case is fairly simple and straight forward, the verdict may not be but that is besides the point.

So, I think it would be a good case for Ator to cut his teeth on for this session of the court. What do you think?
 
Excellent. This should be a fun session for the court - all the cobwebs and lingering issues may actually get cleared up this go-around. :lol:
 
I've received this message from Haafingar and Hjaalmarch via telegram in response to my notification of his trial thread:

X0gFJ9T.png


Do we take this as a guilty plea? Do we appoint a defense attorney and continue with the trial anyway?
 
Well... he seems to clearly be waiving his right to a trial, but it's not so clear if he's leading guilty or requesting a perfunctory hearing (wherein we will, presumably, find him guilty). We don't really have many guidelines as to how to proceed here. :unsure:
 
I've been thinking about this. Barring an explicit statement from H&H stating that he does not wish to either defend himself or be represented, I think it would best serve both TNP and the principle of justice for him to be assigned a public defender. TNP has never sought convictions for their own sake - we care about the truth of the accusation.
 
I've posted the correspondence in the thread and stated that the Court will take a brief recess to determine how to proceed. Should I ask for a clarifying statement from the Defendant? Should we simply appoint a defense attorney and proceed that way? Or should we take this as a guilty verdict and proceed to sentencing?

SillyString, I tend to agree that I don't want to take this as a guilty verdict and I'd be happy to simply appoint a defense attorney and go from here. Roman, any thoughts?
 
I believe Mall has expressed an interest in serving as H&H's defense counsel, if we decide to proceed down that route.
 
SillyString:
I've been thinking about this. Barring an explicit statement from H&H stating that he does not wish to either defend himself or be represented, I think it would best serve both TNP and the principle of justice for him to be assigned a public defender. TNP has never sought convictions for their own sake - we care about the truth of the accusation.
Click to expand...


This sounds like a good way to proceed. We hold the trial with a Public Defender.
 
Following my call for any interested attorneys to contact the Court, Mall has volunteered via PM to be the defense attorney for H&H. Unless there's an objection I'm planning on announcing him as the defense attorney and proceeding with the trial.
 
I believe that a recent court ruling makes dismissal with prejudice impossible.

Jeopardy can only apply to matters where there has been a trial and a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty [...] Jeopardy only attaches to a case when an official and binding verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty has been delivered.
Click to expand...

That does not rule out the possibility of dismissal and the rejection of a re-bringing of the same charges, but without a trial running its course they can always be re-brought before this or another court.

As to the merit of dismissal itself, let me think on it.
 
SillyString:
I believe that a recent court ruling makes dismissal with prejudice impossible.

Jeopardy can only apply to matters where there has been a trial and a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty [...] Jeopardy only attaches to a case when an official and binding verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty has been delivered.
Click to expand...

That does not rule out the possibility of dismissal and the rejection of a re-bringing of the same charges, but without a trial running its course they can always be re-brought before this or another court.

As to the merit of dismissal itself, let me think on it.
Click to expand...
Agreed with regards to prejudice.

It does seem like the charge itself, regardless of evidence that may or may not be presented at trial, is one of conspiracy, not treason. I'd be willing to consider dismissing the treason charge, and moving on with conspiracy and gross misconduct.
 
I agree on the issue of prejudice, but I also think that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that H&H was intending to overthrow the government and that intent is compounded by the actual action of exceeding the Vice Delegate's endorsement count despite numerous warnings about the same.

If H&H had not exceeded the endorsement count of the Vice Delegate, simple talk of committing and act of treason would be insufficient for charges; however, since the defendant actually talked about couping the region, clearly made plans and attempted to recruit and solicit support for such an action and then proceeded, against all warnings, to actually go ahead and exceed the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, I would say that in pure factual terms, there was clear intent and an actual action by the defendant to coup the Delegate.

In simple terms, to talk about couping is one thing - to talk about it and act upon it after being given clear warning about endorsement counts, fairly indicates the defendant's intent in a sufficient manner as to warrant a trial for those actions.
 
Romanoffia:
I agree on the issue of prejudice, but I also think that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that H&H was intending to overthrow the government and that intent is compounded by the actual action of exceeding the Vice Delegate's endorsement count despite numerous warnings about the same.

If H&H had not exceeded the endorsement count of the Vice Delegate, simple talk of committing and act of treason would be insufficient for charges; however, since the defendant actually talked about couping the region, clearly made plans and attempted to recruit and solicit support for such an action and then proceeded, against all warnings, to actually go ahead and exceed the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, I would say that in pure factual terms, there was clear intent and an actual action by the defendant to coup the Delegate.

In simple terms, to talk about couping is one thing - to talk about it and act upon it after being given clear warning about endorsement counts, fairly indicates the defendant's intent in a sufficient manner as to warrant a trial for those actions.
Click to expand...
I guess the charge of soliciting support could be considered "taking arms".

I'm prepared to dismiss the motion, then.
 
I would tend to agree. Actually planning and then acting upon it, even as an individual would be considered taking up of arms.
 
Romanoffia:
I would tend to agree. Actually planning and then acting upon it, even as an individual would be considered taking up of arms.
Click to expand...
I was prepared to deny the motion, but in writing my reasoning I realized I'm still leaning towards dismissing the treason claim. There may very well be evidence that the defendant acted upon his plans, but the AG's charges were:

Indictment:
Criminal Acts: The Defendant solicited Venico Brightaxe's assistance in overthrowing the legitimate and constitutional government of The North Pacific in violation of his oath as a member of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

The only charge here is solicitation for assistance in overthrowing the government. Is solicitation for assistance considered taking arms? It doesn't seem like it is, especially if you consider HC's interpretation from the BW case as raised by the Defense (http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=232443&t=635359). The Defendent could have taken other actions, not just soliciting support, but that's not what the AG wrote in his charges.

I'm willing to consider that it could be "providing material support" to a third party, but that is certainly not the intent of the AG's charges, and it's a bit of a stretch since Venico isn't a group that was attempting to overthrow/undermine the government.

Relevant Laws:
Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

Section 1.7: Conspiracy
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Section 1.8: Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...

I'd like to make a decision by tomorrow, but I'm again leaning towards dismissing treason and continuing the trial on only the charges of conspiracy and gross misconduct.
 
That's what I'll do then. Dismiss the treason charge without prejudice and continue the trial for conspiracy and gross misconduct.
 
I would just like to note two things

1) This trial is hilarious and entertaining to watch. I think Mall and Douria are both doing phenomenal jobs for their respective sides, and there have been no shenanigans of disappearance or requested extensions to ruin the process. This is kind of the ideal trial.

2) Ator, I think you're also doing an excellent job as moderating justice, and I don't envy you the position. :P Good luck with those two!
 
SillyString:
I would just like to note two things

1) This trial is hilarious and entertaining to watch. I think Mall and Douria are both doing phenomenal jobs for their respective sides, and there have been no shenanigans of disappearance or requested extensions to ruin the process. This is kind of the ideal trial.

2) Ator, I think you're also doing an excellent job as moderating justice, and I don't envy you the position. :P Good luck with those two!
Click to expand...
On item 1: I've got a big bowl of popcorn for this trial. I love it!

On item 2: I agree!
 
Arguments have concluded and unless there are any further motions we will be beginning deliberations tomorrow. I'd ask my fellow Justices to re-familiarize themselves with the case, the evidence, and the arguments, and so be prepared to begin deliberations tomorrow, April 28th. We'll have 4 days to come to a verdict.
 
Two initial thoughts:

1) Mall has a point. There's no hard evidence proving that the defendant is the conspirator.

2) Douria has a point. The TG in response from H&H seems to acknowledge that he's the one who did it.
 
The standard by which one can be found guilty of a criminal act is "reasonably certain evidence" as per the Bill of Rights. For this case, these are the questions I think we need to address:

First, was it proven by reasonably certain evidence that H&H was the one who contacted Venico about overthrowing the government?

If no, we have our acquittal. If yes, we must continue:

Second, was the defendant's guilt of conspiracy (planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under the criminal code) to commit treason (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) proven by reasonably certain evidence?

And finally, was the defendant's guilt of gross misconduct (the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence) proven by reasonably certain evidence?

Do these questions make sense, what are your thoughts on each of them?
 
The only thing that seems to be proved is Gross Misconduct. I would say that H&H is certainly guilty of that in terms of his own actions.

We also have the bit of evidence concerning H&H admitting guilt as per the TG screenshot.

Conspiracy requires two or more parties to an action. H&H was acting alone and apparently convinced no one else to go along with him. No conspiracy in technical or legal terms.

Treason *could* have been proven insofar as H&H actually conducted with malice of forethought an endotarting spree with the clear intent of overthrowing the Delegate and Government. This technically could be construed as 'taking up arms' against the region (if a nation moves into the region, then becomes an RA member, swears an oath and then violates that oath by attempting to usurp the Delegacy, it would be clearly treason by the act and actual attempt.
 
Romanoffia:
The only thing that seems to be proved is Gross Misconduct. I would say that H&H is certainly guilty of that in terms of his own actions.

We also have the bit of evidence concerning H&H admitting guilt as per the TG screenshot.

Conspiracy requires two or more parties to an action. H&H was acting alone and apparently convinced no one else to go along with him. No conspiracy in technical or legal terms.

Treason *could* have been proven insofar as H&H actually conducted with malice of forethought an endotarting spree with the clear intent of overthrowing the Delegate and Government. This technically could be construed as 'taking up arms' against the region (if a nation moves into the region, then becomes an RA member, swears an oath and then violates that oath by attempting to usurp the Delegacy, it would be clearly treason by the act and actual attempt.
Click to expand...
I would have considered Treason if the Prosecution's indictment was anywhere close to a charge of endotarting with malicious intent. The Prosecution is welcome to try again on that one.

Conspiracy is tricky. By definition, conspiracy requires more than one person. However, under our legal code no mention of that is present in the explicit definition (planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime).

Anyhow, that's a secondary matter to the question of whether it's been proven with reasonable certainty that the Defendent was indeed the nation that contacted Venico. Roman, it sounds like you think that identity has been proven, is this correct?

SillyString, you sounded less certain.
 
I am fairly convinced that H&H did contact Venico and that it wasn't a spoof of any kind. The screenshot of the PM in which H&H just tells the court to find him guilty (in yo so many words) is legit so, it is certain that H&H did indeed contact Venico. Had H&H posted the same thing on the forum, it would have been tantamount to a confession.
 
I'm not sure the evidence is there. The prosecution originally attempted to present the telegram as an admission of guilt, but the defense objected and Ator upheld that objection - so it is not entered as a confession of guilt. The argumentation on it is rather weak, from my reading.

Mall asserts it is the dejected surrender of an innocent party who doesn't feel able to battle the powers that be, and Douria... well, from what I can tell doesn't really respond to that claim. It's certainly not an impossible proposition that somebody impersonated the defendant, either in order to discredit him or to try to discredit Venico.

I think the telegram is strong circumstantial evidence, but without a hard connection - a TG from H&H's main nation admitting he owns the puppet, or an IP address match, for example - I'm not sure it's sufficient to determine that it couldn't have been anyone else.
 
SillyString:
I'm not sure the evidence is there. The prosecution originally attempted to present the telegram as an admission of guilt, but the defense objected and Ator upheld that objection - so it is not entered as a confession of guilt. The argumentation on it is rather weak, from my reading.

Mall asserts it is the dejected surrender of an innocent party who doesn't feel able to battle the powers that be, and Douria... well, from what I can tell doesn't really respond to that claim. It's certainly not an impossible proposition that somebody impersonated the defendant, either in order to discredit him or to try to discredit Venico.

I think the telegram is strong circumstantial evidence, but without a hard connection - a TG from H&H's main nation admitting he owns the puppet, or an IP address match, for example - I'm not sure it's sufficient to determine that it couldn't have been anyone else.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it as an admission of guilt because if I saw it that way I would have accepted it as a guilty plea in the first place. I tried to find some interpretation that was an admission of guilt, but to no avail.

However, I do think it's fair to use the telegram in argument, and the Prosecution did argue that it clearly established identity. I'm not sure I was convinced, however, and I think there's certainly more they could have done to try and prove identity. I tend to agree with you, SillyString, that there's not enough there to go on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top