The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
The Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Tomb as filed by Gracius Maximus, Attorney General of The North Pacific.

Indictment:
Criminal Complaint

Defendant: Former Delegate Tomb
Plaintiff: The North Pacific

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit a criminal act:

Criminal Acts: The Defendant committed the crime of Gross Misconduct in regards to their duty as Delegate of The North Pacific in seeking to suppress the rights and liberties of another nation.

Relevant Laws:

TNP Legal 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...
TNP Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
TNP Bill of Rights:
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...
Specific Offense(s): Gross Misconduct

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): 8-11 May 2015

Summary of Events:

On 8 May 2015, Flemingovia applied to join the North Pacific Armed Forces (NPAF) by posting the designated oath in the official thread. On 10 May 2015, Flemingovia was contacted via whisper on IRC by then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, with concerns over his application.

Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that there was debate regarding his application to join the NPAF because of perceived negative comments regarding TNP military actions made by him (Flemingovia) on the general TNP forums.

Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that the then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, informed him that the Delegate wished for him (Flemingovia) to cease negative commentary on the actions of the NPAF and stipulated that his acceptance into the NPAF was based on his acceptance of this condition.

Flemingovia states, and is supported by the attached IRC logs, that he informed the then Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, of his rights to freedom of speech and expression under Section 2 of TNP's Bill of Rights.

Further to the statements of Flemingovia, the former Minister of Defense, Eluvatar, has provided the Court with two IRC logs, one unredacted transcript (attached) between himself and the former Delegate, Tomb, and another redacted transcript (attached) between himself and Flemingovia.

In these discussions, it is clear that on 8 May 2015 a conversation between then Minister of Defense Eluvatar and former Delegate Tomb took place in which Flemingovia’s application to join the NPAF was discussed. Tomb very clearly indicated that he did not want to admit Flemingovia unless concessions to his (Flemingovia's) posting style, which would be more favorable to the NPAF operations, were made. He instructed the Minister of Defense Eluvatar to speak with Flemingovia regarding this proposal. It is clear in the discussion that Eluvatar was not wholly comfortable with the decision but felt compelled to do his duty as an appointment member of the Delegate’s cabinet.

On 10 May 2015, following the discussion between Flemingovia and Eluvatar on the same date, the former Delegate, Tomb, and Eluvatar discussed Flemingovia's rejection of the truncation of his personal rights to free speech and expression in exchange for NPAF membership. Eluvatar quoted the relevant section of the Bill of Rights to then Delegate Tomb and outlined specifically that the governmental authorities are meant to encourage freedom of speech. Then Delegate Tomb then chose to ignore this, and the Bill of Rights, and instructed Eluvatar to reject the application.

Supporting Evidence:

Oath of Office sworn by Tomb:
I, The Democratic Republic of Tomb, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as WA Delegate, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of WA Delegate, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
[16:55:31] <Tomb> Hi Eluvatar :)
[16:56:03] <Tomb> Eluvatar, I wanted to get in touch with you regarding a recent NPA application, that of Flemingovia's.
[16:56:36] <Tomb> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8216864&t=7279690
[16:56:48] <Tomb> ^ Is the application.
[17:01:00] <Tomb> I wanted to discuss with you whether it'd be wise to admit Flemingovia or not. Flemingovia has insulted the NPA on many multiple occasions, actually, every time they have a chance to do so.
[17:04:28] <Tomb> Also the timing of Flemingovia's NPA application is concerning me. Right when we're about to pass an amendment that'd require someone to report operations, he applies to join.
[17:17:49] <Eluvatar> He's quite transparent about that
[17:21:00] <Tomb> I don't get why a person as opposed to the NPA and its operations as Flemingovia would request to join it. I mean, if we want to admit Flemingovia, we should at least get in touch with him about his criticism of the organization.
[17:21:27] <Eluvatar> I would be perfectly happy to have a chat with flemingovia
[17:21:35] <Eluvatar> he's stated he'd be interested in defensive operations
[17:21:52] <Eluvatar> perhaps he liked working with the broader Lazarene liberation effort
[17:23:12] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns
[17:23:23] <Tomb> I'm glad that he has an interest in it. And I'd appreciate it you talk to him. That'd be great.
[17:23:41] <Eluvatar> I suppose it's the subtleties of distinctions between TNP as a whole and NPA
[17:24:41] <Tomb> <Eluvatar>: I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns ---> My concerns of admitting Flem, or my concerns regarding the on-going amendment in discussion?
[17:25:06] <Eluvatar> the former
[17:30:59] <Tomb> Eluvatar, does it make sense for an army general or officer to criticize his own army and call some of their operations "panty raids" in front of the whole region? As he gets up the ranks of the NPA, I don't think it'd be to the best of our army's interest to have someone like that if his behavior continues.
[17:31:18] <Tomb> He’d drive away potential recruits, to begin with. Now, I certainly, don’t mind hearing his complaints. I’m always opened to criticism as long as its constructive, but Flem’s behavior towards the NPA has been far from constructive.
[17:31:38] <Tomb> As of late at least.
[17:31:46] <Eluvatar> I didn't find it offensive :/
[17:31:50] <Eluvatar> But maybe I have a different perspective
[17:40:28] <Tomb> Maybe. Of course, I have the highest respect for Flem, and I really appreciate the contributions they've give to the region. I'd love for Flem to join the NPA and participate, but I also want to make sure that he's going to be acting in the best interest of the NPA once in.
[17:49:47] <Eluvatar> I see it differently
[17:50:07] * Tomb nods.
[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
[17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[17:57:30] <Eluvatar> Yeah that's even more misinterpretable
[17:58:07] <Eluvatar> how are we going to distinguish constructive from unconstructive?
[17:58:17] <Tomb> Constructive:
[17:58:20] <Eluvatar> why is satire that entertains unconstructive, he'll ask, etc
[18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he’s welcome aboard. I’m not asking for much anyways. If not, there’s always a next time, as they say.
[18:25:15] <Eluvatar> I see.
[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
[redacted]
[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?
...
[redacted]
[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.
[redacted]
[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
[redacted]
[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 :P)
[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 [redacted]
[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 [redacted]
[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
[00:35:57] <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
[01:42:25] <Eluvatar> [18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[01:42:25] <Eluvatar> [18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he’s welcome aboard. I’m not asking for much anyways. If not, there’s always a next time, as they say.
[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?
...
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[01:50:12] <Eluvatar> [17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[01:50:14] <Eluvatar> [17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[01:50:16] <Eluvatar> [17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[01:50:21] <Eluvatar> [17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[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.
[redacted]
[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
[redacted]
[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 :P)
[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 "agree to work constructively"
[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 "i am not saying deny the application"
[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
[16:15:25] <Eluvatar> so I spoke to flemingovia
[16:18:36] <Tomb> Yeah
[16:20:05] <Eluvatar> He does not wish to make any assurances that are not demanded of other applicants, and views this as an attack on the freedom of speech
[16:20:26] <Eluvatar> noting that our bill of rights goes above and beyond requiring protection of freedom of speach in saying that it must be _encouraged_ by the government
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> >
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> 2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region
[16:20:48] <Eluvatar> +.
[16:21:18] <Tomb> I expected as much.
[16:21:20] <Eluvatar> Am I instructed to deny his application?
[16:21:28] <Tomb> Yes, please.
[16:43:30] <Eluvatar> done
Conclusion and Recommendation:

The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.

The former Delegate was expressly informed of the potential of his actions to be a violation of TNP's Bill of Rights and he chose to ignore that warning and proceed. This action violates the guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression for the nation Flemingovia.

Further, The North Pacific acknowledges that the harshest punishment associated with a finding of guilt for Gross Misconduct of a government official is removal from office, and that the Defendant has vacated the office voluntarily, thus mooting this process. However, the law further dictates that the Court has recourse to limit said nation's rights to vote for a determinable period of time (TNP Legal Code, Chapter 2, Section 8).
Click to expand...

Representing The North Pacific will be Gracius Maximus.

Presiding of over this case as Moderating Justice will be plembobria.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Gross Misconduct.

Additionally, the Defendant is requested to notify the Court as to who will be serving as their Attorney. If they do not do so then the Defendant will be listed as representing themselves until further notice.
 
To clarify for the Court, there will be no co-prosecution on this case unless specifically directed by myself. I am not 100% certain from where this decision derived.

Also, to further clarify, Amerion is not Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific. Falapatorius is the Deputy AG, Amerion is his designated Assistant AG.
 
I wish to make it known to the Court that The Democratic Republic of Tomb is currently on a leave of absence until 25 May.

Thank you,
embed.php
 
RPI:
I wish to make it known to the Court that The Democratic Republic of Tomb is currently on a leave of absence until 25 May.

Thank you,
embed.php
Click to expand...
Yes, I will be back on the 25th or 26th of this month. I respectfully request that the court please hold starting the case until then.

Thank you.


~ Tomb
 
Also, I hereby name: Mall, Belscaht, and Romanoffia as my defense counsel.

Please allow Mall to be able to view this area of the court. Thank you.

~ Tomb
 
If it pleases the Court, I would like to clarify the last statement in the opening of this trial:

Justice Plembobria:
The Democratic Republic of Tomb, how do you plead?
Click to expand...

The AG's Office is aware that the 48 hours stipulation which was originally included has been edited, but we would like to direct the Justice the current Court Rules, specifically Section 2.

TNP Court Rules:
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure
1. The Moderating Justice will open a trial thread promptly once an indictment has been accepted.
2. When a trial thread is opened, the Moderating Justice will notify the Defendant via a Private Message to their forum account and a Telegram to their nation. Alternate methods of notification may also be used so long as the Moderating Justice has a reasonable expectation that these methods will be more effective than the above options.
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
a. Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
Click to expand...

It seems clear that the request for a plea from the Defendant can not reasonably be expected, or perhaps even requested, prior to the establishment of an agreeable timetable for the trial.
 
The Court thanks the Speaker and the Defendant for stating when the latter will be available. The trial will delayed until then. As such (and in accordance with the point of order raised by the AG) the plea request will be redacted from the OP.
 
To the esteemed justices of The North Pacific,

I wish to make it known first of all that I have composed a defense counsel that will be representing me as my Attorneys. In addition to that, I do want to make it apparent that I have cancelled my Leave of Absence due to inclement weather in the Honduras that could probably hinder my missionary group's activities. So therefore, the court may start the case procedures at their pleasure.

With that in mind, I plead Not Guilty.

~ Tomb
 
Since the defendant has chosen his defense and submitted his plea, the evidence submission period has technically begun However, before this period begins, the Court asks the Prosecution and the Defense to opine the above timetable.
 
Your honor, my defence counsel requests that you delay the beginning date of the trial (Evidence Submission) to start on Tuesday since this is technically a holiday (Memorial Day) weekend in the U.S.

However, other than that, the defence is comfortable with the rest.

~ Tomb
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Your honor, my defence counsel requests that you delay the beginning date of the trial (Evidence Submission) to start on Tuesday since this is technically a holiday (Memorial Day) weekend in the U.S.

However, other than that, the defence is comfortable with the rest.

~ Tomb
Click to expand...
Your honor, I do want to also point out that you have not included any time period for pre-trial motions, and I do appreciate if you can also put that into account.

Thank you,

~ Tomb
 
The current Court Rules do not allow for pre-trial motions during criminal trial proceedings.

For reference:

Adopted Court Rules:
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure

1. The Moderating Justice will open a trial thread promptly once an indictment has been accepted.

2. When a trial thread is opened, the Moderating Justice will notify the Defendant via a Private Message to their forum account and a Telegram to their nation. Alternate methods of notification may also be used so long as the Moderating Justice has a reasonable expectation that these methods will be more effective than the above options.

3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
a. Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
b. Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
c. Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
d. Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
e. Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.

4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.

5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.

6. The Moderating Justice may, at any time, ask questions of the prosecution or the defense in order to get clarification on relevant issues.
Click to expand...
 
Your honor,

The Attorney General's Office would like to request specification as to the current Moderating Justice's position on the authentication of IRC logs. Do the IRC logs submitted as evidence need to be authenticated via affidavit and/or deposition.

For reference (bolding mine):
Adopted Court Rules:
Section 3: Evidence

4. Documentary evidence, which includes forum posts or threads, IRC logs, screenshots and other evidence of a similar nature, must be authenticated through witness testimony unless an exception is granted by the Moderating Justice.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Since there is no specific step for pre-trial motions, is the Defence correct in assuming that pertinent motions may be made at any time in the proceeding?
 
Point of order, since there are no stipulations for 'pre-trial' motions, all motions that may be intended to predate argumentation are to be presented during 3.b. Evidence Submission according to the Court Rules.
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Your honor, my defence counsel requests that you delay the beginning date of the trial (Evidence Submission) to start on Tuesday since this is technically a holiday (Memorial Day) weekend in the U.S.

However, other than that, the defence is comfortable with the rest.

~ Tomb
Click to expand...
Can the Court clarify if this request was accepted and whether or not the timetable should be updated to have begun at 26 May 2015?

Thank you.
 
Considering that it is now 28 May 2015, it is a matter of some urgency that the Court address the request by the Defendant to have the Evidence Submission phase of the trial to have begun on 26 May 2015.
 
Since the Court has not ruled on the request from the Defense regarding a later start date to the Evidence Submission phase of the trial, the Prosecution hereby submits the following evidence into the record within the designated time period. Further, if the Moderating Justice does not rule on the request prior to 29 May 2015, the Prosecution will assume the trial to have moved into the Argument phase per TNP's Adopted Court Rules and will object to any and all pre-argumentation defense motions on procedural grounds.

People's Exhibit A

The Democratic Republic of Tomb's posted Oath of Office from 5 March 2015:

I, The Democratic Republic of Tomb, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as WA Delegate, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of WA Delegate, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

As verified in deposition here by Tomb on 27 May 2015.

People's Exhibit B

The Democratic Republic of Tomb's posted Oath of Office from 11 May 2015:

I, The Democratic Republic of Tomb , do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as WA Delegate I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of WA Delegate, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

As verified in deposition here by Tomb on 27 May 2015.

People's Exhibit C

The Democratic Republic of Tomb's posted statement from 11 May 2015:

Esteemed citizens of The North Pacific,

For the past year, I've worked hard to meet the best of your expectations. I have worked extremely hard to protect the interests of TNP. I have worked extremely hard across many areas to try and contribute positively to this region. I've felt great happiness when my policies in Home Affairs worked. I've felt great happiness when our policies in the army led to an increase in our numbers and performance. I've felt great happiness when you, my friends, not only elected me once as your Delegate, but twice now. To face this recall, my fellow citizens, is rather disturbing to me. Not because I have done anything wrong, no, I have not. If acting in the best interests of The North Pacific, its citizenry, and its army a crime, then I guess I have committed that, and many times too. If trying to protect the public image of our army, and furthermore TNP, from individuals who wish to degrade it is a crime, then I guess I have committed that. But are those two former things crimes?

I will narrate to you the account of what happened from my end, and through out the whole thing, I swear that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth without any exaggerations. A few days ago, following a suggested amendment regarding the notification of on-going NPA missions to the RA, Flemingovia expressed an interest in an NPA role that might be established given that the Amendment passes an RA vote, of course. Generally speaking, you can't handle an NPA role unless you're part of the NPA. So I basically told him in the thread that he can apply to join the NPA and then if accepted, he might serve the role if appointed by the Minister of Defense. Everything is straight forward up to this point.
Flemingovia applies to join the NPA, which I was really excited about. A person with a decade's worth of experience is a great and needed applicant in any area that he applies to. But as Delegate, I cannot take anything for granted. The decisions I make affect this region, and so in any decision I make, I need to think it thoroughly.
Before I go any further, I want to point that Flemingovia has a long history of hatefully criticizing our army and degrading its public image. He mocks and insults it at every opportunity possible, especially after raids, and he is acting within his legal limit in doing so as a citizen. But please see the term as citizen. How many of you want an NPA general who goes around called our operations "panty raids"? How many of you want a sergeant who would say that we defend not because we're dedicated to defending, but because we want to maintain the "ruse"? Who wants a recruit that would make a laughingstock out of our army? I know I would not. This would not only degrade our army's image externally, which would degrade the NPA's image, it would also cause potential conflict internally in the NPA by driving away potential recruits. It would be like having a Minister of Home Affairs who urges members to not join our forum and not participate. A citizen has the right to do all of these things, but once they decide to join an organization, they need to agree to act in the best of its and TNP's interests. I believe that is part of the oath that Flemingovia took when applying.

So therefore, I tasked Minister Eluvatar to go ahead and speak with Flemingovia and basically ask him to constructively criticize the NPA if he is admitted to the NPA, instead of the negative propaganda that our army is used to by him. It's a very easy task. I'm not degrading his freedom of speech. I am not asking him to not criticize our army; I'm just asking that he do it constructively. Is that asking too much? In stead of all the powerful and offensive language that he uses, if admitted, I just wanted of him to be constructive so that our army's image would not be degraded and instead, we can all work towards improving the army. Where's the violation in anything that I said thus far?

Now, I did not really expect that one of the most dedicated members in NationStates, Flemingovia, would refuse these simple logical terms. Flemingovia has basically declined to act in the best interests of the army. He refused to protect its public image. My fellow citizens, it's as clear as sunlight. Who as a delegate would permit such a member to join the NPA? I cannot bring it up on myself to bring someone in the NPA that would degrade. I do apologize to Flemingovia, but I just cannot.

TNPers, I have never broken a law and never plan to either. I've acted in the best of interests of TNP from the first day I have arrived here, and from the first day I assumed the Delegacy to this moment. I am truthful to you, and I answer to you. I am an advocate of increasing membership across all of our governmental branches. I'm also a strong advocate of transparency, and I have asked Eluvatar to release our logs of the discussion of Flem's application. What I am trying to say is my goal be a law-abiding citizen of TNP, and I would not do anything that would violate the rights of others. I have said all that I can from my end, my fellow citizens, and I ask that you please consider what I say. Whatever you decide, I will do. However you vote, I will comply. You have elected me to this position of Delegate, and I am thankful for it, but I ask that you please consider what I said and give me another token of support.

Thank you for everything. Thank you for listening to me.

Hail TNP!

~ Tomb
Click to expand...

As verified in deposition here by Tomb on 27 May 2015.
 
THe evidence phase of the trial began May 21. Understanding that the 25th was indeed a holiday, and more time is needed to finish the submission of evidence, the evidence period will be extended to the 31st.

The Court apologizes for its failure to clarify this matter.
 
[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
[redacted]
[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?
...
[redacted]
[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.
[redacted]
[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
[redacted]
[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 :P)
[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 [redacted]
[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 [redacted]
[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
Click to expand...

As verified in deposition here by Flemingovia on 27 May 2015.
 
plembobria:
THe evidence phase of the trial began May 21. Understanding that the 25th was indeed a holiday, and more time is needed to finish the submission of evidence, the evidence period will be extended to the 31st.

The Court apologizes for its failure to clarify this matter.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.
 
If it pleases the Court, since the Evidence Submission phase has been extended to 31 May 2015, could it be extended to 1 June 2015 instead? This will allow the Prosecution the opportunity to address any motions made by the Defense over the weekend.

OOC: I am generally not very active online on weekends so would like to have the opportunity to address concerns on Monday after my return.
 
Request for clarification and procedural ruling from the Moderating Justice:

Chapter 1, Section 3.7 of TNP's Adopted Court Rules allows for the deposition of witnesses to occur in a separate thread on the forum, however, Chapter 1, Section 3.10 outlines a process of private review for the Moderating Justice.

Since these two sections seem to be in conflict with on another, specifically in regards to the Moderating Justice report, which is designed directly to deal with Instant Messenger depositions, could the Court clarify how it would like to proceed on this matter?

Thank you.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Request for clarification and procedural ruling from the Moderating Justice:

Chapter 1, Section 3.7 of TNP's Adopted Court Rules allows for the deposition of witnesses to occur in a separate thread on the forum, however, Chapter 1, Section 3.10 outlines a process of private review for the Moderating Justice.

Since these two sections seem to be in conflict with on another, specifically in regards to the Moderating Justice report, which is designed directly to deal with Instant Messenger depositions, could the Court clarify how it would like to proceed on this matter?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Since the deposition is being held on the forum, there are not separate copies, and no one can object to what is clearly on the forum. It is the court's opinion that section 3.10 does not apply in this matter.
 
plembobria:
Gracius Maximus:
Request for clarification and procedural ruling from the Moderating Justice:

Chapter 1, Section 3.7 of TNP's Adopted Court Rules allows for the deposition of witnesses to occur in a separate thread on the forum, however, Chapter 1, Section 3.10 outlines a process of private review for the Moderating Justice.

Since these two sections seem to be in conflict with on another, specifically in regards to the Moderating Justice report, which is designed directly to deal with Instant Messenger depositions, could the Court clarify how it would like to proceed on this matter?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Since the deposition is being held on the forum, there are not separate copies, and no one can object to what is clearly on the forum. It is the court's opinion that section 3.10 does not apply in this matter.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.
 
[16:55:31] <Tomb> Hi Eluvatar :)
[16:56:03] <Tomb> Eluvatar, I wanted to get in touch with you regarding a recent NPA application, that of Flemingovia's.
[16:56:36] <Tomb> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8216864&t=7279690
[16:56:48] <Tomb> ^ Is the application.
[17:01:00] <Tomb> I wanted to discuss with you whether it'd be wise to admit Flemingovia or not. Flemingovia has insulted the NPA on many multiple occasions, actually, every time they have a chance to do so.
[17:04:28] <Tomb> Also the timing of Flemingovia's NPA application is concerning me. Right when we're about to pass an amendment that'd require someone to report operations, he applies to join.
[17:17:49] <Eluvatar> He's quite transparent about that
[17:21:00] <Tomb> I don't get why a person as opposed to the NPA and its operations as Flemingovia would request to join it. I mean, if we want to admit Flemingovia, we should at least get in touch with him about his criticism of the organization.
[17:21:27] <Eluvatar> I would be perfectly happy to have a chat with flemingovia
[17:21:35] <Eluvatar> he's stated he'd be interested in defensive operations
[17:21:52] <Eluvatar> perhaps he liked working with the broader Lazarene liberation effort
[17:23:12] <Eluvatar> I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns
[17:23:23] <Tomb> I'm glad that he has an interest in it. And I'd appreciate it you talk to him. That'd be great.
[17:23:41] <Eluvatar> I suppose it's the subtleties of distinctions between TNP as a whole and NPA
[17:24:41] <Tomb> <Eluvatar>: I'm not sure I fully understand the concerns ---> My concerns of admitting Flem, or my concerns regarding the on-going amendment in discussion?
[17:25:06] <Eluvatar> the former
[17:30:59] <Tomb> Eluvatar, does it make sense for an army general or officer to criticize his own army and call some of their operations "panty raids" in front of the whole region? As he gets up the ranks of the NPA, I don't think it'd be to the best of our army's interest to have someone like that if his behavior continues.
[17:31:18] <Tomb> He'd drive away potential recruits, to begin with. Now, I certainly, don't mind hearing his complaints. I'm always opened to criticism as long as its constructive, but Flem's behavior towards the NPA has been far from constructive.
[17:31:38] <Tomb> As of late at least.
[17:31:46] <Eluvatar> I didn't find it offensive :/
[17:31:50] <Eluvatar> But maybe I have a different perspective
[17:40:28] <Tomb> Maybe. Of course, I have the highest respect for Flem, and I really appreciate the contributions they've give to the region. I'd love for Flem to join the NPA and participate, but I also want to make sure that he's going to be acting in the best interest of the NPA once in.
[17:49:47] <Eluvatar> I see it differently
[17:50:07] * Tomb nods.
[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
[17:50:37] <Tomb> Oh, no, I'm not saying deny the application.
[17:50:39] <Eluvatar> well, that's kind of vague
[17:50:42] <Eluvatar> what do I mean by "directly"
[17:52:21] <Tomb> I just simply want Flem to promise to respect the organization and act in the best of its interest up on joining. It's not too much to ask for, really.
[17:52:35] <Eluvatar> What do you mean by respect?
[17:52:55] <Eluvatar> like this could be misinterpreted really badly
[17:57:10] <Tomb> I don't see how. But I'll explain what I mean. By respect, I mean that I don't want him going on constantly criticizing every operation that the NPA participates in that he doesn't like. If he wants to criticize the army at any point, he's free to do it so in a constructive manner. "This is what I didn't like, this why, and this why I recommend doing in the
[17:57:14] <Tomb> future."
[17:57:30] <Eluvatar> Yeah that's even more misinterpretable
[17:58:07] <Eluvatar> how are we going to distinguish constructive from unconstructive?
[17:58:17] <Tomb> Constructive:
[17:58:20] <Eluvatar> why is satire that entertains unconstructive, he'll ask, etc
[18:24:43] <Tomb> There are many other areas of TNP that he can create satires about. However, I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA. That's how it stands with me right now. Feel free to get in touch with him and communicate to him my concerns (you may quote anything that was said in our conversation).
[18:24:52] <Tomb> If he agrees to work constructively, he's welcome aboard. I'm not asking for much anyways. If not, there's always a next time, as they say.
[18:25:15] <Eluvatar> I see.

As verified in deposition here by Tomb on 27 May 2015 and here by Eluvatar on 28 May 2015.
 
[16:15:25] <Eluvatar> so I spoke to flemingovia
[16:18:36] <Tomb> Yeah
[16:20:05] <Eluvatar> He does not wish to make any assurances that are not demanded of other applicants, and views this as an attack on the freedom of speech
[16:20:26] <Eluvatar> noting that our bill of rights goes above and beyond requiring protection of freedom of speach in saying that it must be _encouraged_ by the government
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> >
[16:20:43] <Eluvatar> 2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region
[16:20:48] <Eluvatar> +.
[16:21:18] <Tomb> I expected as much.
[16:21:20] <Eluvatar> Am I instructed to deny his application?
[16:21:28] <Tomb> Yes, please.
[16:43:30] <Eluvatar> done

As verified in deposition here by Tomb on 27 May 2015 and here by Eluvatar on 28 May 2015.
 
Your honor,

In past cases certain terms have been taken as a given as far as definitions are concerned. Does the current Court require that definitions of terms associated with the charges be clarified as evidence submissions or can we proceed under the assumption of 'general knowledge' (or OOC that we can all collective use online dictionaries and/or wikipedia as necessary)?

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top