Overhauling the Criminal Code/ the Justice System of TNP

Flem, I'll give you the same challenge I gave Roman:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
There is nothing in the BOR <snip> that restricts determinations of violation of BOR rights to just Government actions.
Click to expand...
Would you mind quoting me a single clause of the Bill of Rights that can be violated by a private citizen who is not in a position in the government?

EDIT: No explanation is necessary. Just quote one clause.

EDIT2: I double dog dare you.
Click to expand...
 
flemingovia:
the only people who could decide that would be the courts, on examination of all evidence. Since the AG has decided not to pursue the case the charges I laid remain untested by the court.
Click to expand...
I feel obligated to point out:
43. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
44. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
Click to expand...
 
And I feel obliged to point out that an Assistant Attorney General has pointed out that I might be liable for prosecution for fraud or Gross Misconduct for bringing the matter.

You will understand my reluctance to continue off my own bat.
 
If you feel McM has legitimently violated some right of yours and you can find something in the criminal code -- it is your right to bring charges yourself. If my office declines a case, I would never go after anybody for choosing to prosecute their own case as is guarenteed to them by TNP law.

You did state it was a "test" case. And one could argue it was meant as satire/joke, trolling -- you claimed "testing" was only one part of why you proposed the complaint... if I really wanted to be a hardassed AG. I am sure a case could be made. However at this time I have to say I have final authority and I havent made any plans to charge anyone with anything. Lets just call this test a test and move on. And if fruitful discussions about our BORs come up then I support that.

I think that what one of my assistance was trying to point out that if someone were to purposely have the intent to file a complaint they knew to be bogus. They could be technically charged with fraud and perhaps grosd misconduct depending on the types of offices they may or may not hold.

One concern I do have from this "test complaint" is it might encourage others to submit complaints they know is untrue just cause or for the lulz. -- If that happens I may have to strongly consider prosecuting for filing false reports. I wanna do my job and represent the laws of tnp. I wanna be an easy to get along with AG -- but also I dont want the AGs office to be subject to trolling and harrassment with constant "test complaints" cause it might be fun to mess with paulwall. I hope in the future and future complaints are based off of someone actually allegedly violating the criminal code. And a somewhat more serious complaint and not so toungue-in-cheek.
 
This is a political simulation game on the internet no less. I am pretty sure it is all 65% trolling. 30% role playing and actually drafting role play laws, prosecuting role play criminals, actually putting role play work in. And like 5% Socializing. (My Opinion on percentages. Could be more. Could be less.)
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
There is nothing in the BOR <snip> that restricts determinations of violation of BOR rights to just Government actions.
Click to expand...
Would you mind quoting me a single clause of the Bill of Rights that can be violated by a private citizen who is not in a position in the government?

EDIT: No explanation is necessary. Just quote one clause.

EDIT2: I double dog dare you.
Click to expand...


Please not the bottom quote by Flemingovia.

SillyString:
Romanoffia:
Believe me, anyone here, government or not, could violate your rights
Click to expand...
How? :huh:
Click to expand...

See Flemingovia's quote.

flemingovia:
I'm going to split my thoughts into a number of posts. there are a number of overlapping topics here, and I want to keep them separate:

Can a non-government official break the Bill of Rights?

The answer, I think is a resounding "yes, but..." The BOR is there to protect us all from abuse by others, and whether they are a government official or not is irrelevent.

BUT a non-government official will generally speaking lack the means to break the rights of another person on the forum. So those most often capable of being put on trial for BOR violations will be in the government.

HOWEVER, i can think of occasions when others, not in the government, could break the BOR.

For example, we give mod abilities to a number of people who are not government officials. For example, area like OOC, Roleplay and cartography are often moderated by non-government officials. Let's suppose one of them used their mod powers in a personal vendetta, to delete posts. Trust me, the Admins would deal with it by removing the errant mod, but I could see a scenario where the injured party might go to court as well.

I'll deal with admins in the next post.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Also, I have noticed something very interesting about the TNP BOR - there is no Right to "Privacy". This brings up an interesting question that, given the example I am about to give, may get me smacked repeatedly over the head with a rather large trout by Flemingovia (due to the RL references). This brings up an interesting questions that relate directly to this issue.

In TNP, so we have only the rights enumerated in the TNP BOR?

For instance, in the context of TNP, there is no explicit or implied Right to Privacy enumerated in the BOR. Do the citizens of TNP have a Right to Privacy? If someone somehow finds private communications not intended for public consumption and/or of a private nature (by whatever means, including means that are not 'illegal' by the Legal Code or by TOS of the forum), and those communications are 'published' on the forum by a third party, damage could be done. And it would not be covered by the BOR or Legal Code at all.

This brings up the additional question of whether or not the Citizens of TNP have 'Reserved Rights' in terms of the whole of individual rights not being specifically limited to Rights enumerated in the BOR.

If we have no 'Reserved Rights' and our 'Rights' are limited only those listed in TNP BOR, then we have a situation in which our rights emanate from the Government and not from the natural rights of individuals.
 
No. But it is an example of a situation where a person's right to free speech might be violated by someone who is not a government official.
 
In he example of a mod abusing his powers, the logical consequences of his actions would be to lose those powers. It's an offense that is bigger than the court's jurisdiction.
 
flemingovia:
No. But it is an example of a situation where a person's right to free speech might be violated by someone who is not a government official.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't answer the specific question that COE asked Roman, which was for a clause. :P

I'm with GBM on this. Rogue mods/admins aren't an IC, in-game, court affair.
 
flemingovia:
No. But it is an example of a situation where a person's right to free speech might be violated by someone who is not a government official.
Click to expand...
Ah, so I suppose you're referring to this part of the Bill of Rights?
Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech ... shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...
It is impossible for that right to be violated by a non-governmental official because we don't *have* the right to free speech where it concerns other private citizens.
 
flemingovia:
No. But it is an example of a situation where a person's right to free speech might be violated by someone who is not a government official.
Click to expand...
Ah, so I suppose you're referring to this part of the Bill of Rights?
Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech ... shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...
It is impossible for that right to be violated by a non-governmental official because we don't *have* the right to free speech where it concerns other private citizens.
 
So good you said it twice....

Well, if that is true that I do not have freedom of speech with regard to anoteher citizens then that is a revelation to me...

I always assumed that My free speech was an inalienable right, and just that government officials were specifically enjoined not to violate that right.

I did not think for a moment that they were the ONLY ones who could violate that right.
 
It may be that we have a natural and unalienable right to free speech, but if non-government officials are not, as you say, enjoined not to violate it, then such violation is not a crime. In other words, it's certainly possible that all nations are created with a right to free speech, but that right is not fully protected by the government of TNP. Situations where it's being violated by a non-government entity would need to be remedied by other non-government entities.
 
flemingovia:
So good you said it twice....

Well, if that is true that I do not have freedom of speech with regard to anoteher citizens then that is a revelation to me...

I always assumed that My free speech was an inalienable right, and just that government officials were specifically enjoined not to violate that right.

I did not think for a moment that they were the ONLY ones who could violate that right.
Click to expand...
Silence!

You could get drummed out of the ranks of the Oligarchy and sent into the ethers for such ideas! (Which would not be a violation of your Rights because the Oligarchy is not the Government, according to COE).

Mr. COE is obviously unaware of the term Heckler's Veto in which private individuals violate another private individual's Right of Free Speech, which is rather odd because he is a master of that practice.

A Heckler's Veto is defined as (for the purposes of TNP) a position taken by hecklers based on an alleged right to restrict freedom of speech where such expression may create disorder or provoke violence by heckling or harassing someone into silence concerning controversial issues.

But since, according to COE, no one but the government can violate an individual's rights, I would expect him to sit silently by while people take advantage of that determination and go merrily about violating other people's rights by numerous possible means. And then do so with impunity.

But, since COE needs to be educated on this exactly point, let me detail one easy way for a person to violate another person's Rights without the Government doing it:

Can you say Election Fraud?

Suppose someone accuses a candidate of wrong doing by stating falsehoods about the candidate, oh, perhaps such as referring to a certain candidate as being a 'terrorist' or having engaged in terrorism against another individual in the past. Or perhaps someone accused a candidate of criminal acts that never happened with the clear intent of preventing a candidate from getting elected.

That would be a genuine violation of the rights of the Candidate to partake in an election free from fraud. I don't think it necessary to quote the specific chapter and verse of the Legal Code to illustrate this particular point of violation of rights.

As a matter of record, I strongly agree with you, Flemingovia. Individuals can indeed violate the Rights of other individuals, and it happens all the time in TNP.

But you waste your time by using terms like inalienable rights when it comes to COE because he seems not to recognise the term entirely, and apparently thinks that inalienable rights are bunch of whoo-hah because everyone knows Rights are artificialities granted to the peasants by the Government (and therefore only Government can violate those Rights because Government is the sole arbiter of everything and anything). ;)
 
Romanoffia:
That would be a genuine violation of the rights of the Candidate to partake in an election free from fraud. I don't think it necessary to quote the specific chapter and verse of the Legal Code to illustrate this particular point of violation of rights.
Click to expand...
Could you please quote the specific part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to an election free from fraud?

Just because something is a crime - and election fraud is a crime - doesn't mean it's a violation of someone's rights.
 
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
That would be a genuine violation of the rights of the Candidate to partake in an election free from fraud. I don't think it necessary to quote the specific chapter and verse of the Legal Code to illustrate this particular point of violation of rights.
Click to expand...
Could you please quote the specific part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to an election free from fraud?

Just because something is a crime - and election fraud is a crime - doesn't mean it's a violation of someone's rights.
Click to expand...
Well, since you seem to be taking the position that Election Fraud is acceptable because it doesn't violate anyone's rights, let me enlighten you to this clause of the BOR:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. 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.
Click to expand...

The violation of Elections by Fraud would concern Due Process of Law.

The election process is a process of law, and therefore if that process is corrupted by Fraud or other unlawful means (such as violation of the due process of the elections), it becomes a violation of the Right to Due Process of one, some or all of the candidates, and as well as the rights of the voters who are voting in good faith and who expect an election to be free from fraud according to the law.

All crimes involve a violation of someone's Rights. Under the TNP system, all criminal offences involve crimes against the state, and the state consists of individuals. The Court then adjudicates these crimes under the authority of the People of TNP, not the Government. Without the People the Government does not exists because any Government cannot exist if the People refuse to delegate their authority to the Government. If People as individuals feel the Government is not suited to the needs of the People and Individuals, the People simply withdraw their delegated authority and the Government simply ceases to exist in reality.

If you were to run for office and I slandered you miserably, while slander is not a criminal offence under TNP Law, the purpose of the slander could knock you out of the election due to a falsehood being put before the voters. Under your logic, that would not be a violation of your rights and probably not even Fraud.

Let me cut to the chase and tell you exactly what the problem is with the Constitution and Legal of TNP:

1. The TNP Constitution and Legal Code doesn't even recognise the existence of the individual when you take a close look. The Government can violate the Rights of individuals and individuals can commit offences against the state. There are no provisions or even recognition that individuals can commit offences against other individuals. This reduces individuals to vassals and makes individuals, or the People, as it were, and therefore makes people as individuals a function of the state and not the other way around. The current Constitution and Legal Code is more reminiscent of Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto (Tyranny veiled in a chintzy cloak of 'Democracy') or potentially so in the wrong hands.

2. The whole Constitutional and Legal system we have does not recognise the fact that Governments derive their authority from individuals who hand together to create Government to protect and promote their rights as individuals. To steal a quote without attribution, government is like fire. It is a useful servant and a dreadful master.

3. The Constitution and Legal system, not recognising the fact that Rights exist prior to Government, that Government has no Rights, only delegate authority which originates with the People who exist prior to the existence of Government. The current system is clearly an example that this Government holds the position that Rights are a gift from the Government and that no one has any rights the Government hasn't bestowed upon the people like manna from Heaven.

Government can only give to the People that which the Government has already taken from them.

The purpose of Government is to protect the Rights of individuals from incursions upon those Rights by other individuals, and bound by contractual obligation to likewise restrict the Government from violating the rights of individuals or the People as a whole.

Flemingovia elsewhere on the forum brought up the concept of Inalienable Rights which would imply the concept that Rights exist prior to Government.

In this vein of logic and reasoning (remember the Age of Enlightenment and all it has accomplished in terms of individual liberties?), the Constitution of TNP needs to recognise that all rights reside with the People as individuals, that Government only exists by the authority delegated to it by the People, and that the Legal Code and Constitution need to be adjusted to reflect those ideals.
 
SillyString:
election fraud is a crime
Click to expand...
Romanoffia:
you seem to be taking the position that Election Fraud is acceptable
Click to expand...
I do??? :tb1: Did I accidentally say "good idea" instead of "crime"?

All crimes involve a violation of someone's Rights.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a citation for this? I can think of several crimes - both in TNP and IRL - which involve no violation of an individual's rights.

If you were to run for office and I slandered you miserably, while slander is not a criminal offence under TNP Law, the purpose of the slander could knock you out of the election due to a falsehood being put before the voters. Under your logic, that would not be a violation of your rights and probably not even Fraud.
Click to expand...
It would not be a violation of my rights. It could, however, be prosecuted as election fraud, as it counts as providing false information about a candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top