The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb

The defendant, via deposition, has sworn under oath that he committed the actions that the Prosecution alleges is a violation of Tomb's Oath of Office, specifically the crime of Gross Misconduct. When presented with the evidence, Tomb clearly indicated that it was he who ordered then Minister of Defense Eluvatar to inform Flemingovia that his rights to freedom of expression must be truncated for admittance into the North Pacific Army (hereinafter NPA). It was Tomb who then, upon learning that Flemingovia was (justifiably) reluctant to give up his Constitutional rights, ordered Eluvatar to deny the application, even after Eluvatar informed Tomb that such a denial was a violation of the law. This is not in question. This has already been acknowledged as actions carried out by the defendant.

The defense has attempted to lift this burden of guilt from Tomb and place it upon the shoulders of the appointed Minister of Defense. What it has failed to do is outline how Eluvatar acting under direct orders from the Delegate was in any way, shape, or form a removal of responsibility from the Delegate. The Delegate of the North Pacific is the chief executive of the NPA.

For reference:

Code of Governance of The North Pacific Army - excerpts with emphasis and bolding added:
Article II: Members

The North Pacific Army will serve The North Pacific's security and military interests, both at home and abroad. The NPA will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.

Article IV: Military Executive

1. Executive power of the military is vested in the Delegate and his/her appointed Minister for Defense (Delegate Directive 0x01 §4.1a). The Minister of Defense is the chief commanding officer of the NPA.

Article VII: Missions

1. All missions must receive approval by the legitimate Delegate, either expressly or categorically. The Minister of Defense will work closely with the Delegate to decide what this approval will be at any one time. All current and past approvals must be documented and available to all High Command Officers.

Article VIII: Obedience and Discipline

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.
Click to expand...

It is readily apparent that the Delegate has a leading and directive role within the NPA and that the 'chain of command' originates with the Delegacy (NPA Code - Article VIII). The Minister of Defense is appointed by the Delegate and subject to the Delegate in that chain. The Delegate gave the Minister of Defense an order that was a violation of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code. The actions of the Delegate are on trial here, not the subsequent actions of the Minister of Defense.

From the Oath of Office, of which two instances submitted by Tomb for the office of Delegate have been submitted as evidence (People's Exhibits A and B):

Legal Code:
'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.'
Click to expand...

Tomb, in his role as Delegate, violated this oath. He used his position of authority within the North Pacific and the NPA to deny Flemingovia membership because he would not accept Tomb's conditions for acceptance into the NPA. These illegally imposed conditions are a violation of Flemingovia's legally mandated rights guaranteed by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code.

The defense has presented no evidence for one simple reason, nothing exists that can possibly justify a sitting Delegate in the North Pacific violating the Oath of Office in this manner. Tomb is Guilty of Gross Misconduct while in office.

The Prosecution has provided facts that prove the allegations against Tomb and the defense has not disputed them. Further, Tomb has affirmed the facts under oath. The only choice for the Justices is to bring a Guilty verdict.

Thank you.
 
The Court is concerned about the defense's failure to present their argument. I will be PMing the members of the Defense council shortly.
 
Your honor,

The argumentation phase began on 9 June. It is now the 16th, two days longer than the originally stipulated five accounted for within the first timetable.

It is not a failing of the Court, or the Court's responsibility, that the defense has failed to produce an argument and we therefore request that the phase be closed and that the Justices move into the deliberation phase.

thank you,
Gracius Maximus
TNP Attorney General
 
Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb, the Court rules as follows:

The Democratic Republic of Tomb is found Guilty on the charge of Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

It is the Court's opinion that the Defendant's attempt to curtail the Complainant's criticisms of the NPA as a requirement to join constitutes a violation of the Bill of Rights, and is not justifiable. Having sworn an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights, the Defendant is guilty of violating that oath.
 
The sentencing period has begun.

TNP Legal Code Chapter 2:
8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...

In accordance with the court rules, the Court asks the defense and prosecution for recommendations for the duration of the suspension of voting rights.
 
After consultation with my staff, we feel that it would be fair and just for the punishment to fit within the time frame of what would have been the remainder of Tomb's term as Delegate, so either 3 months to incorporate the balance, or 4 months to incorporate the full length of the potential term.
 
Under Court rules Chapter 4, Section 2.3 of the court rules, the sentencing phase is postponed until the R4R regarding this trial is decided.
 
plembobria:
Under Court rules Chapter 4, Section 2.3 of the court rules, the sentencing phase is postponed until the R4R regarding this trial is decided.
Click to expand...
Could the Court clarify if it is now accepting R4Rs as equivalent to Appeals in response to criminal convictions?

A Request for Review is defined within the Court Rules (Chapter 2, Section 1) as 'a review of government policy or law'. A conviction within a criminal trial has not ever been considered a government policy or law within TNP, even if they set precedent in other ways.

I ask not to question the decision to withhold sentencing until the matters are addressed but to question why the Court has not rejected the R4R outright as improper (both in the submitter and the format) from the onset?
 
Chapter 4:
During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine.)

The Moderating Justice of this trial thinks that BW's requests are invalid, and against the court rules. I also think there are nothing more than an attempt to derail the sentencing process.

I don't think it proper for me, since the R4R's are related to my conduct, to personally accept or deny them. I am leaving that to the other justices. As soon as Justices Kialga or Severisen reject the R4R, as they will, the sentence will be delivered.
 
Gracius Maximus:
plembobria:
Under Court rules Chapter 4, Section 2.3 of the court rules, the sentencing phase is postponed until the R4R regarding this trial is decided.
Click to expand...
Could the Court clarify if it is now accepting R4Rs as equivalent to Appeals in response to criminal convictions?

A Request for Review is defined within the Court Rules (Chapter 2, Section 1) as 'a review of government policy or law'. A conviction within a criminal trial has not ever been considered a government policy or law within TNP, even if they set precedent in other ways.

[bold]I ask not to question the decision to withhold sentencing until the matters are addressed[/bold] but to question why the Court has not rejected the R4R outright as improper (both in the submitter and the format) from the onset?
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. I am aware of the wording of Chapter 4.

Thank you for clarifying your own position on the R4R. Not accepting a R4R that is both the wrong format and submitted by an uninterested party would not be a conflict of interest as it is a matter of violating the Court Rules, not the expression of your opinion.

That said, hopefully the remaining Justices will reach a conclusion soon.
 
Sentencing of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


Under the TNP Legal Code Chapter 2, Section 8, The Court sees fit that The Democratic Republic of Tomb will have their voting rights suspended for three months. The sentencing period will begin today, 1 July until 1 October.

The admins will be informed of this verdict. In the case that the admins fail to impose this sentence before any vote is scheduled, the Court will request that the Speaker of the RA, or any election commissioners, to nullify all votes by the Defendant.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top