Name of Complainant: Flemingovia
Names of accused: Delegate Tomb, Minister of Defence Eluvatar, Deputy Minister of Defence Gladio
Date of alleged offences: 8-11 May 2015
Specific Offences: Gross Misconduct.
Relevant excerpts from Legal Code and other laws:
Summary of Events (What happened, in your own words):
Mr Attorney general,
On 8 March 2015 I applied to join the NPAF (clicky), posting the designated oath in the official thread. Although it is nobody’s business but my own, I signed up for two reasons: firstly I have been thinking about getting back involved in the military side of the game for some time, and I thought the NPAF might appreciate my experience, and secondly I had been told by the Delegate that I could not help out the NPAF in administrative duties without actually being a member of the NPAF (clicky).
To be honest, I did not think my application would be a problem, especially given my years in the region, the open policy of the NPAF, because the Minister of Defence Eluvatar said openly that he was welcoming my application [clicky)and because Tomb said “If he (Flemingovia) joins the NPA and the Minister approves that his role is going to be that, then that's a different story. (clicky)
I was, however, already aware of personal bias against me. General Gladio, deputy minister for Defence, stated to me openly before I applied that “To be honest I personally do not trust you (clicky) He also, on learning of my applications warned me that I might face removal from the NPAF for inactivity. I do not know of any other applicant who has been so pre-emptively warned.
On 10th May I was whispered in IRC chat by Eluvatar concerning my application. He informed me that there had been debate concerning my application, and that before my application was approved. A log of that chat is attached. In the chat he informed me that “there are those who see (my application) negatively.” On questioning he indicated that Tomb was at least one of those. Elu emphasised that he personally supported my application, but that Tomb wished me, as a condition of acceptance, to stop making satirical posts about the NPAF.
I informed Eluvatar of my rights under the Bill of Rights, section 2:
Elu also said that I would not be admitted to the NPAF without an undertaking, and a change in my posting habits.
Mr Attorney general, the refusal of my application to join the NPAF on this basis has nothing to do with my military effectiveness, loyalty, or ability to keep NPAF secrets – unless Gladio’s mistrust of me lies behind this move.
It comes down to one thing only: my refusal to allow the delegate and the minister and deputy minister of defence to constrain my freedoms under the Bill of Rights.
I would like the Attorney General’s office to consider whether Delegate Tomb, Minister Eluvatar and Deputy Minister Gladio have a case to answer for breaking two of my basic rights under the Bill of Rights, namely:
And
Your honour, I know of no other NPAF application which has been handled in this way, where the applicant has been threatened with removal from the NPAF before they have even been accepted, where assurances and limitations are sought on their conduct BEFORE they are even admitted, and are made a condition of their acceptance, and where effectively, an applicant has been accused, debated and a verdict delivered in the privacy of an IRC chat without the applicant even knowing that there is a problem.
At the very least, all applications should be processed the same – equally and fairly. This did not happen in this case.
One final real life word, which you can strike if you think it is irrelevant. My father served in the British Navy in WW2 and beyond. He was sunk three times and wounded twice. He served in D Day, the landings at Salerno and the Arctic convoys - which were not for the faint hearted. He supported the American landings in Sicily. And the earliest songs he taught me were disrespectful satirical songs about the navy and its command which go way beyond anything I have ever written about the NPAF. I can still sing to you “Roll out the Rodney, the Nelson, Renown, cos this one-funneled bastard is getting me down.” and many others. The fact he satirised the navy did not affect his military loyalty or combat effectiveness. In fact, a certain amount of barracks humour was encouraged as being good for morale. I do not see how the poems I write are relevant to my effectiveness or loyalty as a soldier in the NPAF.
Evidentiary Submission:
Please note that this conversation between myself and Eluvatar has been redacted by Eluvatar as a condition of it being passed on to the court. None of the comments at all have been redacted by me. I am sorry it is incomplete but without a court order this is the best I could do. Sections marked with “…” indicate that several lines have been redacted. I do not have a log of the conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar which led to this; I have submitted a FOIA request for the release of the log.
Names of accused: Delegate Tomb, Minister of Defence Eluvatar, Deputy Minister of Defence Gladio
Date of alleged offences: 8-11 May 2015
Specific Offences: Gross Misconduct.
Relevant excerpts from Legal Code and other laws:
oath of office sworn by Tomb:
oath of office sworn by Gladio:
oath of office sworn by Eluvatar:
Bill of Rights:
Bill of Rights:
Summary of Events (What happened, in your own words):
Mr Attorney general,
On 8 March 2015 I applied to join the NPAF (clicky), posting the designated oath in the official thread. Although it is nobody’s business but my own, I signed up for two reasons: firstly I have been thinking about getting back involved in the military side of the game for some time, and I thought the NPAF might appreciate my experience, and secondly I had been told by the Delegate that I could not help out the NPAF in administrative duties without actually being a member of the NPAF (clicky).
To be honest, I did not think my application would be a problem, especially given my years in the region, the open policy of the NPAF, because the Minister of Defence Eluvatar said openly that he was welcoming my application [clicky)and because Tomb said “If he (Flemingovia) joins the NPA and the Minister approves that his role is going to be that, then that's a different story. (clicky)
I was, however, already aware of personal bias against me. General Gladio, deputy minister for Defence, stated to me openly before I applied that “To be honest I personally do not trust you (clicky) He also, on learning of my applications warned me that I might face removal from the NPAF for inactivity. I do not know of any other applicant who has been so pre-emptively warned.
On 10th May I was whispered in IRC chat by Eluvatar concerning my application. He informed me that there had been debate concerning my application, and that before my application was approved. A log of that chat is attached. In the chat he informed me that “there are those who see (my application) negatively.” On questioning he indicated that Tomb was at least one of those. Elu emphasised that he personally supported my application, but that Tomb wished me, as a condition of acceptance, to stop making satirical posts about the NPAF.
I informed Eluvatar of my rights under the Bill of Rights, section 2:
Elu also said that I would not be admitted to the NPAF without an undertaking, and a change in my posting habits.
Mr Attorney general, the refusal of my application to join the NPAF on this basis has nothing to do with my military effectiveness, loyalty, or ability to keep NPAF secrets – unless Gladio’s mistrust of me lies behind this move.
It comes down to one thing only: my refusal to allow the delegate and the minister and deputy minister of defence to constrain my freedoms under the Bill of Rights.
I would like the Attorney General’s office to consider whether Delegate Tomb, Minister Eluvatar and Deputy Minister Gladio have a case to answer for breaking two of my basic rights under the Bill of Rights, namely:
And
Your honour, I know of no other NPAF application which has been handled in this way, where the applicant has been threatened with removal from the NPAF before they have even been accepted, where assurances and limitations are sought on their conduct BEFORE they are even admitted, and are made a condition of their acceptance, and where effectively, an applicant has been accused, debated and a verdict delivered in the privacy of an IRC chat without the applicant even knowing that there is a problem.
At the very least, all applications should be processed the same – equally and fairly. This did not happen in this case.
One final real life word, which you can strike if you think it is irrelevant. My father served in the British Navy in WW2 and beyond. He was sunk three times and wounded twice. He served in D Day, the landings at Salerno and the Arctic convoys - which were not for the faint hearted. He supported the American landings in Sicily. And the earliest songs he taught me were disrespectful satirical songs about the navy and its command which go way beyond anything I have ever written about the NPAF. I can still sing to you “Roll out the Rodney, the Nelson, Renown, cos this one-funneled bastard is getting me down.” and many others. The fact he satirised the navy did not affect his military loyalty or combat effectiveness. In fact, a certain amount of barracks humour was encouraged as being good for morale. I do not see how the poems I write are relevant to my effectiveness or loyalty as a soldier in the NPAF.
Evidentiary Submission:
Please note that this conversation between myself and Eluvatar has been redacted by Eluvatar as a condition of it being passed on to the court. None of the comments at all have been redacted by me. I am sorry it is incomplete but without a court order this is the best I could do. Sections marked with “…” indicate that several lines have been redacted. I do not have a log of the conversation between Tomb and Eluvatar which led to this; I have submitted a FOIA request for the release of the log.
[00:35:57] <flemingovia> Is an interview normal for NPA applications? I did not realise.
[00:36:00] <flemingovia> Fire away.
...
[01:37:40] <Eluvatar> Basically, there's some confusion about how to understand your application.
[01:38:00] <Eluvatar> There are definitely those who see it negatively, and feel like you've been attacking the NPA for months and months, why do you want to join it
[01:38:07] <Eluvatar> A bit of a limited perspective perhaps
[01:40:08] <flemingovia> You say "There are those..." does this mean that there has been a debate taking place?
[01:40:47] <Eluvatar> Yes
[01:40:50] <flemingovia> "Those" implies more than Gladio.
[01:41:27] <Eluvatar> The Delegate, being my boss, has the final word
[01:41:53] <flemingovia> Does the delegate usually get involved in NPAF applications?
[01:41:55] <Eluvatar> I would very much like you to join, and there will be plenty to do that you won't mind doing, I think,
[01:42:09] <Eluvatar> but the Delegate wants your promise to stop making a laughingstock of the NPA
[01:42:12] <Eluvatar> basically
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[01:42:42] <Eluvatar> The Delegate has been involved on occasion i think, but not in a while.
[01:43:25] <flemingovia> I trust you quoted the Bill of Rights: "Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed,"
[01:44:42] <Eluvatar> not in so many words
[01:46:03] <flemingovia> "And shall be encouraged by the governmental authority of the region" would seem to be the key phrase here.
[01:47:43] <Eluvatar> I expressed, rather, that we seemed to have a difference in philosophyh
[01:47:46] <Eluvatar> *philosophy
[01:47:50] <Eluvatar> or perspective
[01:48:12] <flemingovia> So as it stands, unless I agree to a gagging order, my application to join the NPAF will be rejected?
[01:48:18] <Eluvatar> well
[01:48:22] <Eluvatar> We had an involved discussion
[01:49:45] <Eluvatar> [17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
...
[01:50:06] <flemingovia> Elu, the NPAF regularly accepts applicants who have made no more than two or three posts on the forum, whost trustworthiness is unknown and who disappear after a few weeks of inactivity. If I am rejected after Gladio has said publicly that I am not to be trusted, you realise how this will look?
...
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[01:51:26] <Eluvatar> I quote the above to mean that clearly Tomb doesn't envision complete gag order
[01:51:29] <Eluvatar> but nonetheless
[01:51:33] <flemingovia> I do not understand. Is Tomb putting free-speech conditions on my application or not?
[01:52:03] <Eluvatar> I am not to admit you without a promise to "respect the organization"
[01:52:10] <Eluvatar> meaning to not ridicule it, I guess
[01:52:32] <flemingovia> Well, that is your call.
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[01:53:09] <flemingovia> First off, it will APPEAR as if there is an issue of Trust - espcially since Gladio has brought that up.
[01:53:27] <flemingovia> Second, there are serious implications for the Bill of Rights.
[01:53:36] <Eluvatar> I can and will say that you have my full confidence.
[01:53:41] <Eluvatar> wherever and whenever you like
[01:53:52] <flemingovia> That;s what Tomb said too.
[01:54:17] <Eluvatar> >.<
[01:54:23] <Eluvatar> I mean, publicly.
[01:54:41] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure it'd be right for me to explicitly say "I disagree with the decision I'm implementing"
[01:55:00] <Eluvatar> but I can probably fairly phrase any action to reflect that it's not my personal opinion
[01:55:54] <flemingovia> Phrase as you will.
[01:56:08] <flemingovia> You realise there will be a legal challenge under the Bill of Rights?
[01:56:21] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[01:56:26] <Eluvatar> I have to write briefs... D:
[01:56:36] <flemingovia> The NPAF is, at the very least, putting conditions on my membership that they do not put on any other applicant.
[01:56:52] <flemingovia> Unless all other applicants have to agree to a gagging clause?
[01:57:42] <Eluvatar> Applicants agree to follow the NPA Code
[01:57:56] <flemingovia> I think I swore to that effect.
[01:58:02] * Eluvatar skims it over...
[01:58:58] <Eluvatar> > 1. All NPA personnel shall pledge and offer their obedience (in this order) to the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, this Code, all senior High Command Officers, and senior Commissioned Officers (in a particular mission), in all matters pertaining to the NPA. Disobedience may result in disciplinary action.
[01:59:02] <Eluvatar> I guess that's ^ ?
[01:59:24] <Eluvatar> :-/
[01:59:53] <Eluvatar> but in general the NPA Code is constructed liberally, much like the rest of TNP
[02:00:19] <flemingovia> Annd this trumps the Bill of Rights?
[02:00:19] <Eluvatar> "Common sense" arguments that NPA members /obviously/ mustn't speak ill of the NPA would not find support from me
[02:00:56] <flemingovia> I think "obedience" pertains to military and security matters.
[02:00:57] <Eluvatar> Generally speaking soldiers surrender some rights when joining a military
[02:01:01] <Eluvatar> I would too yes
[02:01:09] <Eluvatar> there's a separate section regarding secrecy
[02:05:30] <Eluvatar> I would definitely prefer an outcome where you join the NPA
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[02:08:43] <flemingovia> well, the NPA has my application on the table. All I seem to be getting in return is suspicion and hostility. I made clear the reasons for my applicaiton- i am happy to join in army missions, and am interested in helping with the administration of task within the army. Gladio has said I am not to be trusted, and Tomb has said he wants me to agree to
[02:09:05] <flemingovia> give up my Bill of Rights protection. So tell me, where should the movement come from?
[02:09:17] <Eluvatar> I have no suspicions
[02:09:32] <Eluvatar> I do not believe you would ever leak NPA secrets to anyone (and besides, you already have that ability
)
[02:10:05] <Eluvatar> I don't really see satire that you often aim all over the place in TNP as relevant
[02:10:10] <Eluvatar> (personally)
[02:10:11] <flemingovia> in Ten years or more i have never once broken a confidence or betrayed a trust. Which is why Gladio's comments made me so annoyed.
[02:10:25] <flemingovia> Especially when Tomb effectively backed them up.
[02:10:33] <Eluvatar> I'd have been annoyed myself.
[02:10:41] <Eluvatar> (in your place)
[02:11:24] <flemingovia> If I was in the NPAF I would not leak mission information. Or do anything to compromise NPAF security. Period.
[02:11:44] <flemingovia> And as I have said, the NPAF regualrly takes on applicants on far less assurance.
[02:13:37] <Eluvatar> I know.
[02:13:48] <Eluvatar> And yeah, it couldn't possibly work if it didn't accept newbies.
[02:15:50] <flemingovia> Either way, I would be grateful if you would either accept or reject my application; that would make things clearer.
[02:16:52] <Eluvatar> I'd rather get an opportunity to consult again with Tomb first.
[02:17:02] <Eluvatar> a three person conversation would probably be the ideal.
[02:17:08] <Eluvatar> Maybe thursday?
[02:19:15] <flemingovia> I would prefer if the application was not left that long. It would look odd since most applicants are dealt with in 24 hours.
[02:20:11] <flemingovia> As things stand you would have to leapfrog my application and deal with the newbie follwing me.
[02:20:36] <flemingovia> And that would scream "we have some reason to believe that Flem is a security risk"
[02:20:49] <flemingovia> Especially following Gladio's comments.
[02:22:22] <flemingovia> I would aslo protest that conditions are being put on my application that are not put on any other applicant.
[02:22:36] <flemingovia> I am being singled out here.
[02:24:12] <flemingovia> ffs, even Govindia was in the army for a long time. Did anyone put conditions on what he could and could not talk about?
[02:24:53] <Eluvatar> preaching to the choir
[02:26:43] <flemingovia> Tomb is making an assumption - that I will continue to post about the NPAF as I am now once I am in the NPAF. He is doing that on no evidence, and seeking to put pre-conditions on my application.
[02:27:14] <Eluvatar> To be fair, a promise to do what you were going to do anyway isn't much of a pre-condition
[02:27:26] <Eluvatar> My problem with it comes to the broadness of his words
[02:27:41] <flemingovia> Now any officer of the NPAF can be dismissed. But to reject someone before they have even joined on the basis of what they MIGHT do, is unjust.
[02:28:21] <Eluvatar> the final phrasing was [bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[02:28:28] <flemingovia> I am not going to be giving any undertakings beyond those given by every other applicant in posting their oath.
[02:34:46] <flemingovia> Tomb has said [bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[02:35:07] <Eluvatar> yes
[02:35:14] <flemingovia> Now I cannot work out from his words whether he is saying deny the application if Flem does not agree to a gagging order."
[02:36:48] <flemingovia> So I think he has left the ball in your court.
[02:38:11] <flemingovia> Can i remind you of this:
[02:38:13] <flemingovia> "No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. "
...
[02:38:49] <flemingovia> So if you are putting me under conditions that you do not put any other applicant under... that is also a breach of the BoR.
...
[02:39:05] <Eluvatar> I serve at the Delegate's pleasure
[00:36:00] <flemingovia> Fire away.
...
[01:37:40] <Eluvatar> Basically, there's some confusion about how to understand your application.
[01:38:00] <Eluvatar> There are definitely those who see it negatively, and feel like you've been attacking the NPA for months and months, why do you want to join it
[01:38:07] <Eluvatar> A bit of a limited perspective perhaps
[01:40:08] <flemingovia> You say "There are those..." does this mean that there has been a debate taking place?
[01:40:47] <Eluvatar> Yes
[01:40:50] <flemingovia> "Those" implies more than Gladio.
[01:41:27] <Eluvatar> The Delegate, being my boss, has the final word
[01:41:53] <flemingovia> Does the delegate usually get involved in NPAF applications?
[01:41:55] <Eluvatar> I would very much like you to join, and there will be plenty to do that you won't mind doing, I think,
[01:42:09] <Eluvatar> but the Delegate wants your promise to stop making a laughingstock of the NPA
[01:42:12] <Eluvatar> basically
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[01:42:42] <Eluvatar> The Delegate has been involved on occasion i think, but not in a while.
[01:43:25] <flemingovia> I trust you quoted the Bill of Rights: "Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed,"
[01:44:42] <Eluvatar> not in so many words
[01:46:03] <flemingovia> "And shall be encouraged by the governmental authority of the region" would seem to be the key phrase here.
[01:47:43] <Eluvatar> I expressed, rather, that we seemed to have a difference in philosophyh
[01:47:46] <Eluvatar> *philosophy
[01:47:50] <Eluvatar> or perspective
[01:48:12] <flemingovia> So as it stands, unless I agree to a gagging order, my application to join the NPAF will be rejected?
[01:48:18] <Eluvatar> well
[01:48:22] <Eluvatar> We had an involved discussion
[01:49:45] <Eluvatar> [17:50:18] <Eluvatar> to me, the only valid reason to deny someone membership in the NPA is if their membership would directly harm it
...
[01:50:06] <flemingovia> Elu, the NPAF regularly accepts applicants who have made no more than two or three posts on the forum, whost trustworthiness is unknown and who disappear after a few weeks of inactivity. If I am rejected after Gladio has said publicly that I am not to be trusted, you realise how this will look?
...
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[01:51:26] <Eluvatar> I quote the above to mean that clearly Tomb doesn't envision complete gag order
[01:51:29] <Eluvatar> but nonetheless
[01:51:33] <flemingovia> I do not understand. Is Tomb putting free-speech conditions on my application or not?
[01:52:03] <Eluvatar> I am not to admit you without a promise to "respect the organization"
[01:52:10] <Eluvatar> meaning to not ridicule it, I guess
[01:52:32] <flemingovia> Well, that is your call.
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[01:53:09] <flemingovia> First off, it will APPEAR as if there is an issue of Trust - espcially since Gladio has brought that up.
[01:53:27] <flemingovia> Second, there are serious implications for the Bill of Rights.
[01:53:36] <Eluvatar> I can and will say that you have my full confidence.
[01:53:41] <Eluvatar> wherever and whenever you like
[01:53:52] <flemingovia> That;s what Tomb said too.
[01:54:17] <Eluvatar> >.<
[01:54:23] <Eluvatar> I mean, publicly.
[01:54:41] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure it'd be right for me to explicitly say "I disagree with the decision I'm implementing"
[01:55:00] <Eluvatar> but I can probably fairly phrase any action to reflect that it's not my personal opinion
[01:55:54] <flemingovia> Phrase as you will.
[01:56:08] <flemingovia> You realise there will be a legal challenge under the Bill of Rights?
[01:56:21] <Eluvatar> ;_;
[01:56:26] <Eluvatar> I have to write briefs... D:
[01:56:36] <flemingovia> The NPAF is, at the very least, putting conditions on my membership that they do not put on any other applicant.
[01:56:52] <flemingovia> Unless all other applicants have to agree to a gagging clause?
[01:57:42] <Eluvatar> Applicants agree to follow the NPA Code
[01:57:56] <flemingovia> I think I swore to that effect.
[01:58:02] * Eluvatar skims it over...
[01:58:58] <Eluvatar> > 1. All NPA personnel shall pledge and offer their obedience (in this order) to the Delegate, the Minister of Defense, this Code, all senior High Command Officers, and senior Commissioned Officers (in a particular mission), in all matters pertaining to the NPA. Disobedience may result in disciplinary action.
[01:59:02] <Eluvatar> I guess that's ^ ?
[01:59:24] <Eluvatar> :-/
[01:59:53] <Eluvatar> but in general the NPA Code is constructed liberally, much like the rest of TNP
[02:00:19] <flemingovia> Annd this trumps the Bill of Rights?
[02:00:19] <Eluvatar> "Common sense" arguments that NPA members /obviously/ mustn't speak ill of the NPA would not find support from me
[02:00:56] <flemingovia> I think "obedience" pertains to military and security matters.
[02:00:57] <Eluvatar> Generally speaking soldiers surrender some rights when joining a military
[02:01:01] <Eluvatar> I would too yes
[02:01:09] <Eluvatar> there's a separate section regarding secrecy
[02:05:30] <Eluvatar> I would definitely prefer an outcome where you join the NPA
[bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[02:08:43] <flemingovia> well, the NPA has my application on the table. All I seem to be getting in return is suspicion and hostility. I made clear the reasons for my applicaiton- i am happy to join in army missions, and am interested in helping with the administration of task within the army. Gladio has said I am not to be trusted, and Tomb has said he wants me to agree to
[02:09:05] <flemingovia> give up my Bill of Rights protection. So tell me, where should the movement come from?
[02:09:17] <Eluvatar> I have no suspicions
[02:09:32] <Eluvatar> I do not believe you would ever leak NPA secrets to anyone (and besides, you already have that ability
)[02:10:05] <Eluvatar> I don't really see satire that you often aim all over the place in TNP as relevant
[02:10:10] <Eluvatar> (personally)
[02:10:11] <flemingovia> in Ten years or more i have never once broken a confidence or betrayed a trust. Which is why Gladio's comments made me so annoyed.
[02:10:25] <flemingovia> Especially when Tomb effectively backed them up.
[02:10:33] <Eluvatar> I'd have been annoyed myself.
[02:10:41] <Eluvatar> (in your place)
[02:11:24] <flemingovia> If I was in the NPAF I would not leak mission information. Or do anything to compromise NPAF security. Period.
[02:11:44] <flemingovia> And as I have said, the NPAF regualrly takes on applicants on far less assurance.
[02:13:37] <Eluvatar> I know.
[02:13:48] <Eluvatar> And yeah, it couldn't possibly work if it didn't accept newbies.
[02:15:50] <flemingovia> Either way, I would be grateful if you would either accept or reject my application; that would make things clearer.
[02:16:52] <Eluvatar> I'd rather get an opportunity to consult again with Tomb first.
[02:17:02] <Eluvatar> a three person conversation would probably be the ideal.
[02:17:08] <Eluvatar> Maybe thursday?
[02:19:15] <flemingovia> I would prefer if the application was not left that long. It would look odd since most applicants are dealt with in 24 hours.
[02:20:11] <flemingovia> As things stand you would have to leapfrog my application and deal with the newbie follwing me.
[02:20:36] <flemingovia> And that would scream "we have some reason to believe that Flem is a security risk"
[02:20:49] <flemingovia> Especially following Gladio's comments.
[02:22:22] <flemingovia> I would aslo protest that conditions are being put on my application that are not put on any other applicant.
[02:22:36] <flemingovia> I am being singled out here.
[02:24:12] <flemingovia> ffs, even Govindia was in the army for a long time. Did anyone put conditions on what he could and could not talk about?
[02:24:53] <Eluvatar> preaching to the choir
[02:26:43] <flemingovia> Tomb is making an assumption - that I will continue to post about the NPAF as I am now once I am in the NPAF. He is doing that on no evidence, and seeking to put pre-conditions on my application.
[02:27:14] <Eluvatar> To be fair, a promise to do what you were going to do anyway isn't much of a pre-condition
[02:27:26] <Eluvatar> My problem with it comes to the broadness of his words
[02:27:41] <flemingovia> Now any officer of the NPAF can be dismissed. But to reject someone before they have even joined on the basis of what they MIGHT do, is unjust.
[02:28:21] <Eluvatar> the final phrasing was [bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[02:28:28] <flemingovia> I am not going to be giving any undertakings beyond those given by every other applicant in posting their oath.
[02:34:46] <flemingovia> Tomb has said [bgcolor=black][redacted][/bgcolor]
[02:35:07] <Eluvatar> yes
[02:35:14] <flemingovia> Now I cannot work out from his words whether he is saying deny the application if Flem does not agree to a gagging order."
[02:36:48] <flemingovia> So I think he has left the ball in your court.
[02:38:11] <flemingovia> Can i remind you of this:
[02:38:13] <flemingovia> "No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. "
...
[02:38:49] <flemingovia> So if you are putting me under conditions that you do not put any other applicant under... that is also a breach of the BoR.
...
[02:39:05] <Eluvatar> I serve at the Delegate's pleasure
