TNP vs TOMB - the Peanut Gallery

Common-Sense Politics:
Gracius Maximus:
Common-Sense Politics:
Gracius Maximus:
Common-Sense Politics:
You're still not addressing the fact that a citizen was tried and convicted without competent defense. You can twist my words and try to redirect the conversation to what you see to be a stronger point all you want. Are you comfortable with that fact or not?
Click to expand...
In what way was the defense incompetent?

Romanoffia, Mall, and Belschaft all have prominent NS-legal careers.
Click to expand...
It didn't occur, for one.
Click to expand...
We are not aware of what might have been discussed off the forum. It is assumptive to believe Tomb appointed nations to his team with zero input from them.
Click to expand...
That...would be irrelevant to the context of our conversation. We're talking about the trial. It should have been clear to the presiding justice that no adequate defense of the accused was being mounted as it is upon a basic cursory reading of the case.
Click to expand...
Since we are talking about the trial, Tomb was active in the trial from 20 May to 27 May and never once expressed concern regarding the timetable. Romanoffia was part of the trial from 28 May to 4 June. So all but the last phase of the trial had members of the defense taking active part. Belschaft, who was named as defense counsel, was on the forum almost daily from 5 June to 18 June. He was never removed from the defense team.

So a party of the defense was active or available for the duration of the trial. The Court made certain that every accommodation that the defense made in regards to schedule was granted. The prosecution never objected to any request for extension or delay. No misconduct occurred in that regard.

EDIT: Autocorrect changed Romanoffia to Romania. Fixed.
 
RPI:
This bickering back and forth will get no one nowhere. If someone wants this to be looked into further, I'd suggest an R4R on whether or not the trial was "fair," and if the Court rules that it was not, one could go further by filing a criminal complaint. My :2c:
Click to expand...
I believe this to be an erroneous course of action. The burden of adequate defense counsel is not part of the mandate of the Court.

The 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...

The Court notified Tomb of the trial. Then Tomb entered his own plea and appointed his own defense counsel. That is the end of the burden stipulated by law here in TNP. Whether it is different elsewhere or in RL is immaterial.

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...

In what way did the Court violate any aspect of this?

The bottom line, as I see it, is that a popular Delegate broke the law and was found Guilty by the Court. Some people do not want to accept the verdict, which is their right, but to attempt to smear the legitimacy of the Court's actions because of the defense team's incompetence is a bit much. To claim that Tomb, being active and participating, was somehow incompetent to name his own defense team and that the burden therefore should have been the Courts to make certain he had defense counsel that wasn't completely inept is a stretch, at best. Just laughably ignorant at worst. Tomb chose his own defense team. I am certain there were others in the region that would have served him better. I believe that is very likely always the case - there is always someone better. But, that doesn't make the verdict any less valid. We can not force players to post.
 
There is no burden on the court to ensure that an accused has a competent or even adequate defence. We have the right to appoint our own counsel, as we see fit, or to defend ourselves. If we appoint absentees or Divas, that's our fault.

The only time the court gets involved is if the defendant refuses to acknowledge the court and appoint a defence.

As I read the trial thread, i see the justices going beyond their duty in making allowances for the defence requests for delay. If there is blame here, it lies with Tomb. The moment he announced his team, I thought he was being an idiot/suicidal, as did others who have been in TNP long enough to know who's who.
 
If the court had to bear the responsibility for an incompetent defence team, then all an accused would have to do is to repeatedly appoint inactives and they could permanently avoid conviction.
 
flemingovia:
If the court had to bear the responsibility for an incompetent defence team, then all an accused would have to do is to repeatedly appoint inactives and they could permanently avoid conviction.
Click to expand...
Or the Court could just appoint a Defense for them.

In cases where the Defendant doesn't show, how would the Court proceed then? As I mentioned before, per TNP law, if a Defendant doesn't plead, a plea of "Not Guilty" is automatically submitted for them. And if the Defendant never shows up to appoint a Defense Team on his behalf? Then what do we do? Nothing and have the Prostitution argue with himself, as was the case in this trial?

Clearly the Court has a responsibility to ensure the Defendant gets a Defense. In this case he appointed three people and none of them did anything for him, failing to meet even basic time lines. Had this happened in an actual Court, the Court would have appointed a Public Defender in the interest of justice and a fair trial.

A fair trial, something Tomb didn't get. One can't reasonable look at that show, where the Prostitution argued his case against no one, and say that it was fair.
 
The courts presuppose that a defendant is a responsible adult. It is under no obligation to wipe Tomb's arse for him, let alone apply lotion to prevent nappy rash.

Tomb appointed his defence team. they failed him, true. But that is not the court's fault or responsibility.

If Tomb had diminished responsibility, or was a minor, it might be a different matter, but I do not think this applies in this case.
 
Blue Wolf II:
flemingovia:
Tomb appointed his defence team. they failed him, true. But that is not the court's fault or responsibility.
Click to expand...
It's not the Court's responsibility to ensure the Defendant gets a fair trial? Since when?
Click to expand...
You have a selective definition of 'fair' it seems.

Fair in this context would imply that Tomb was given the opportunity to plead his guilt or innocence, which he did, and that he would have the opportunity to name his own defense counsel, which he did. Fair would also mean in this context that if Tomb could not make his own plea then a plea of not guilty would be entered on his behalf. It would also mean that if he could not name his own defense counsel that one would be appointed for him.

Neither of those situations took place. Tomb chose a defense team that was laughable from the onset, quite possibly because he anticipated having his own show trial. Fortunately, the Court did not allow the antics of Romanoffia to carry forward unchecked and perhaps the rest of his team took the hint. That isn't the fault of the Court.

Which part of Tomb taking responsibility for his own actions is unfair in this situation? He was active and present, he named his own counsel and provided his own plea. He knew his defense team was under performing and failed to remove them. This is a problem, true, but it is solely of his own making, not the Courts.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Also relevant now, because Ivan could ask for Tomb to be banned for 6 years and no one is going to argue in his defense otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well, the law would. Banning is not a legal punishment for Gross Misconduct.

As for the whole question, I already posted on this in the other thread. There is a prior court ruling that provides some precedent, but it does not explicitly speak to a situation where a defendant has appointed counsel that then disappears themselves. It's murky.
 
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure:
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...
*highlighted for specificity*

Tomb entered a plea, named his defense team, and agreed to the Court's timetable (with some delays for various reasons) for the trial. The Court is not responsible for the defendant's choice of counsel, the quality thereof, or it's dedication to Tomb's defense. They were given ample opportunity to put their case forward.

After Romanoffia's resignation from the Defense team, Tomb had this option:

Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure:
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
Click to expand...
The other members of the Defense were kept in place (there was no notice from Tomb stating otherwise). The Court also pmed the Defense on 2 separate occasions, asking for input. It is unknown if any response was given.

I would note that had the only participating Defense counsel had simply rephrased his questions/objections during depositions, Tomb's defense might have fared better.

Silly String:
Well, the law would. Banning is not a legal punishment for Gross Misconduct.
Click to expand...
And is completely disproportionate to the crime.
 
For those that are so interested in the lack of defense in this case, i'm surprised you all didn't reach out to the Court and volunteer yourselves to serve in Tomb's defense.

Really easy to play Tuesday morning quarterback.

The court reached out to the "defense team" (used loosely) numerous times when no response was given. I think using the logic of some in this thread, the best defense would be to cause the court to continually appoint attorneys who failed to show up in a never ending round of hot potato.

That seems really silly.
 
I think it was Tomb's job to make sure there was a defense. He could have represented himself or asked the court to appoint someone. Once you tell the court "These are my lawyers," the court can't decide they are not. Even if the representation is less than competent, it is the right of the accused to have the team he selects.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I think it was Tomb's job to make sure there was a defense. He could have represented himself or asked the court to appoint someone. Once you tell the court "These are my lawyers," the court can't decide they are not. Even if the representation is less than competent, it is the right of the accused to have the team he selects.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the Defendant is still entitled to a Defense. Tomb's Defense team effectively abandoned him mid-trial, either by never showing up (Mal and Bel) or by literally quitting and walking out on the trial itself (Roman). This left Tomb without legal representation. At that point, a new Defense should have been appointed, just as the Court would have appointed a new Prosecution had the Prosecutor left mid-trial.

Flem has been arguing that "Tomb is an adult" but not every player in TNP thinks they are fluent enough in the legal language of The North Pacific, given our complex laws, that they can represent themselves in Court. Tomb asked three people to represent him, and one quit midway and the others didn't even show up. Tomb had no way of knowing this would happen, and in the interest of fairness and justice, the trial shouldn't have been allowed to reach a verdict without a single word being spoken on behalf of the innocence of the Defendant.

This wasn't a fair trial, this was a one-sided argument.
 
I think you missed my point. Tomb would have to let the court know he was not continuing with his chosen counsel before they could appoint someone else. Otherwise, the court would be infringing on his rights.

Also, the court does not appoint prosecutors, the AG does.
 
For the record, I haven't seen or talked to Tomb in a month. Aside from a single IRC meeting during which general strategy was discussed I had no interaction with him about this matter, and first discovered that Roman was taking the lead in the defense when he started doing so.

When Roman quit as a defense counsel I was in no position to replace him, had not discussed trial strategy with Tomb, did not know his wishes in regards to this matter, and had any of this been otherwise I would still have been inheriting a defense conducted contrary to my advice and shoddily at that.

There's absolutely no question that this trial was a farce, and that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, but I don't believe that I can be faulted in regards to it.

Realistically speaking, I don't see how the Court can do anything but proclaim a mistrial.
 
You admit to being part of an initial 'strategy discussion' so how is it that your lack of activity after the fact was the Court's responsibility? You were active here on the forum, at what point did you post in the trial that you were removing yourself from the team? I must have missed that post.
 
I once defended - successfully - John Ashcroft Land through an entire long trial without once communicating with him other than saying on irc "can I be your defence?" "lol yes".

If you felt inadequate to the task of defending Tomb without consulting with him, surely the time to post that was BEFORE the verdict was announced?
 
Belschaft:
For the record, I haven't seen or talked to Tomb in a month. Aside from a single IRC meeting during which general strategy was discussed I had no interaction with him about this matter, and first discovered that Roman was taking the lead in the defense when he started doing so.

When Roman quit as a defense counsel I was in no position to replace him, had not discussed trial strategy with Tomb, did not know his wishes in regards to this matter, and had any of this been otherwise I would still have been inheriting a defense conducted contrary to my advice and shoddily at that.

There's absolutely no question that this trial was a farce, and that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, but I don't believe that I can be faulted in regards to it.

Realistically speaking, I don't see how the Court can do anything but proclaim a mistrial.
Click to expand...
The trial as a farce is exactly why I informed Tomb that I was resigning from the defence team. No question asked would be permitted, and permitted questions with their answers were then 'redacted' by the court and sent straight down Orwell's "memory hole".

That is when I realised, that no matter what defence or evidence to be submitted by the defence wouldn't mean a hill of beans, that Tomb was going to have a fair trial after which he was going to be convicted regardless of the evidence. I think Tomb realised this and decided that it wasn't worth the effort. And thus a good person was driven out of the region and the game by infantile whining in the form of a criminal complaint designed to settle someone's hurt feelings for not getting their way.

In other words, a perfectly honourable Delegate was stomped into the dust for frivolous reasons that could have been easily rectified without driving someone not only out of the region, but possibly probably out of the game.

This is worse than a mistrial - it's a trial of a persona that most likely no longer exists in the region nor NationStates.

I seem to recall Flemingovia having said in the past something to the effect that our legal system should not be used to drive people out of the region or out of the game. But this legal action has done exactly that to Tomb from what I can see. Ironie, nicht wahr?
 
Belschaft:
For the record, I haven't seen or talked to Tomb in a month. Aside from a single IRC meeting during which general strategy was discussed I had no interaction with him about this matter, and first discovered that Roman was taking the lead in the defense when he started doing so.

When Roman quit as a defense counsel I was in no position to replace him, had not discussed trial strategy with Tomb, did not know his wishes in regards to this matter, and had any of this been otherwise I would still have been inheriting a defense conducted contrary to my advice and shoddily at that.

There's absolutely no question that this trial was a farce, and that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, but I don't believe that I can be faulted in regards to it.

Realistically speaking, I don't see how the Court can do anything but proclaim a mistrial.
Click to expand...
Well, the brilliance of this defense strategy could be replicated ad infinitum. Yes, let's all just drop the ball and we can get a mistrial every time.
 
It is unfortunate that so many nations refuse to accept responsibility for their own ineptitude.

Did Tomb have an adequate defense? No.
Did Tomb appoint a clown show as his defense team? Yes.

Since Tomb was active and made the appointment the inaction, misaction, or reaction of the defense team does not mean that the trial was unfair.

It simply means that the defense team sucked. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
 
Gracius Maximus:
It is unfortunate that so many nations refuse to accept responsibility for their own ineptitude.

Did Tomb have an adequate defense? No.
Did Tomb appoint a clown show as his defense team? Yes.

Since Tomb was active and made the appointment the inaction, misaction, or reaction of the defense team does not mean that the trial was unfair.

It simply means that the defense team sucked. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Clown show?

The Court only permitted the Prosecution to argue a case. The Defence wasn't even permitted to argue a case. The Court rubber stamped every objection, no matter how bogus those objections were.

Then, when the Court decided to throw the Defence a bone in an attempt to make this look like a fair trial, the Court then not only redacted the questions but also redacted the answers to those questions which the Court allowed to be asked and answered. So, what the Hell was the point of there even being a Defence? We all know what the pre-ordained verdict was going to be no matter what the evidence showed or didn't show. This is especially true of this case in which the Defence was literally silenced and not permitted to argue a case.

Now, I ask you, Mr. Prosecutor, what would you do if you had been constantly silenced and censored, excuse me, redacted by the Court to the point that you couldn't even submit any legitimate evidence? The logical thing is to just throw one's hand up and call it quits. We all know that the verdict was going to guilty, even if it meant suppressing legitimate question (which the court permitted) and suppressing the answers to Justice approved questions that suddenly became unacceptable?

Is this a screw up on the part of the Court? Yes it was, and it is just yet one more example of how screwed up the Court system is in TNP.

So, don't use Ol' Roman as a punching back or whipping boy for something that is obviously the fault of the Court, the Legal System and the Court Rules which were not correctly followed.

The only Clown Show around here was the Court and the Prosecution.
 
The only reason the Defense weren't able to present their case is because they attempted to cross examine a witness during deposition. Plembobria was correct in refusing to allow Eluvatar to answer the questions lodged toward him because they were inappropriate for a deposition.
 
So much tail covering by a defence team who, when it comes down to it, were almost criminally incompetent.
 
Romanoffia:
Excuse me? Clown show?

The Court only permitted the Prosecution to argue a case. The Defence wasn't even permitted to argue a case. The Court rubber stamped every objection, no matter how bogus those objections were.

Then, when the Court decided to throw the Defence a bone in an attempt to make this look like a fair trial, the Court then not only redacted the questions but also redacted the answers to those questions which the Court allowed to be asked and answered. So, what the Hell was the point of there even being a Defence? We all know what the pre-ordained verdict was going to be no matter what the evidence showed or didn't show. This is especially true of this case in which the Defence was literally silenced and not permitted to argue a case.

Now, I ask you, Mr. Prosecutor, what would you do if you had been constantly silenced and censored, excuse me, redacted by the Court to the point that you couldn't even submit any legitimate evidence? The logical thing is to just throw one's hand up and call it quits. We all know that the verdict was going to guilty, even if it meant suppressing legitimate question (which the court permitted) and suppressing the answers to Justice approved questions that suddenly became unacceptable?

Is this a screw up on the part of the Court? Yes it was, and it is just yet one more example of how screwed up the Court system is in TNP.

So, don't use Ol' Roman as a punching back or whipping boy for something that is obviously the fault of the Court, the Legal System and the Court Rules which were not correctly followed.

The only Clown Show around here was the Court and the Prosecution.
Click to expand...
Sigh...

No, you are incorrect.

The reason I categorize the defense team as a 'clown show' is very simple.

1. Mall only has one argument. That the player involved in the events may not have been the player actually taking part in the activities under trial. Tomb cleared that away with a simple 'yes' to my questions in deposition regarding his statements. End of story.

2. Belschaft was just coming out of an impeachment/treason/whatever fiasco in TSP and was not in any state to take part in a legal defense. Admittedly, his position was the only one that I had any real concern about as prosecutor, because I know him to be competent overall. Bad timing I guess. Plus, it seems that Tomb disregarded his opinion in the initial strategy session because you took the lead.

3. Which brings us to you. We all knew what you would attempt to do, which is spout on and on about legal procedure, usually from RL which has no relevance here. What I did find surprising was that you posted questions in the deposition that were blatantly wrong legally (IC and OOC) and that you were clearly wrong in your initial response to my objections. It took me less than 5 minutes online to find dozens of sites that outlined what were and were not valid objections during depositions and you, as someone that supposedly has a multitude of RL legal experience, either thought you could use that to strong-arm me into acquiescence (major error in judgement) or you just don't actually know as much about the law as you claim. Then you quit. No one was surprised.

Basically, if the Court had overruled my questions then I would have done the logical thing, which is simply to reword them.

If the Court had then redacted my answers, then I would have simply (and calmly) pointed out that the redaction was in error and reposed the questions. Although, the Court is free to redact any item within the depositions that it wishes, so your complaint in that regard is actually unfounded legally.

I posted my opening statement on 11 June. On 16 June I prompted the Court because it was apparent that the defense team had opted not to utilize its right to present a defense. Which is perfectly valid. As I pointed out above, the defense is not obligated to present an argument. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

As far as the Attorney General's Office is concerned, it could have been that the defense team had so much confidence in their position that they felt I had not made a compelling enough argument. I certainly was preparing to present additional statements in response to defense counsel argumentation.

At no point is the Court obligated to force a defendant to present a defense. That is the right and privilege of the defendant and his appointed team. Too bad they got stuck in the car.
 
Basically, to sum up all of this, the defense team dropped the ball and lost a trial. In my opinion they would have lost the trial even if they were all active. It really was an open and shut case. The only issue that keeps coming up is that the defense team was incompetent and that is somehow the Court's fault.

If this verdict is somehow overturned on the basis that the losing side can just complain that they didn't do a good enough job and that makes it the Court and/or prosecutions fault, then we really should just close this whole aspect of the region down altogether.
 
It's fairly meh to criticise the Court when one was appointed as defense counsel and did absolutely nothing in that capacity. Disagreement over evidentiary decisions doesn't really mean that you should not make substantive submissions.

RL does have a concept of adjourning a trial when the defense doesn't show up, or relief for when there is ineffective assistance. As pointed above, there are issues with extending it to a game (counsel aren't really that concerned with their reputation as lawyers here), and it allows the defendant to play cat-and-mouse with the court. More importantly, you would need to find some legal basis to support any claim of post-decision relief. It doesn't appear to be supported by any of TNP's laws.

I saw it mentioned here that there are provisions for appeal. I am not certain what they are, but I would suggest to Tomb to avail himself of that opportunity if available. Even if it is an 'appeal' in the classic sense of the word (findings of fact are not re-tried), the Court's decision is so scarce that you could essentially re-argue the whole case.

SillyString:
Guy:
It is fairly nuanced. Going back to the FA example, you could now argue that you're discouraging free speech by removing ambassadorship assignments for someone who attacked that region (e.g. In the context of TNP should close down relations with them).
Click to expand...
The key difference there is the order of events.

It is not illegal, in TNP, to face consequences for your actions and speech. If you insult or attack an allied region, you will be removed as an ambassador there. If you routinely criticize the delegate's approach to XYZ, you will probably not be chosen to be minister of XYZ or might be removed as minister if you're already there. If you're an ass, people will get annoyed with you.

But that - facing reasonable consequences as a result of legal speech - is quite different from actively trying to discourage legal speech before it occurs by trying to exact promises on pain of threats.

Also important, I think, are both the magnitude of attempted control as well as the broad jurisdiction. I think a delegate can absolutely forbid their foreign minister from sharing information about treaty discussions with outside parties. The minister serves the delegate and enacts the delegate's wishes and broad vision, and their actions and participation in discussions belong to the executive branch (it also helsp that sharing such information without the delegate's consent would be treason - it almost goes without saying that prohibiting criminal acts is okay). But the delegate cannot prohibit, say, RA members from discussing any information that did get leaked amongst themselves, nor can election commissioners prevent a candidate from making a campaign thread, and so on.

At the time of the discouragement, flem was not an NPA member (and so not in the delegate's military chain of command), and the prohibitions were placed on hypothetical future speech, hypothetically assumed to be problematic or denigrating toward the NPA. Had flem been allowed in, sworn the NPA oath, and then later removed for violating its requirements to obey the chain of command and respect other NPA members, then I think that would probably have been legal and permitted.

P.S. Please don't stop posting here! :)
Click to expand...
Those are ways you could distinguish the hypothetical from the actual case, but I think that you could always find ways to distinguish any two factual scenarios.

Where the problem really lies is a lack of ability to ascertain those factors that make this case a violation of the BoR, but would not make the example that I gave a violation, in the Court's decision. This is especially problematic given (I believe) the lack of cases applicable to this point. Although, if there are applicable cases, you'd expect the Court to point them out.

So we've identified the general principle. Okay, the Government has a positive duty to encourage speech. Of course, you would see how that would also be the case with the ambassador example. Presumably, then, that scenario is not within the ambit of that section of the BoR. The main way in which the present case can be distinguished, then, is that it was a preemptive warning. In essence, an attempt to obtain an undertaking by Tomb prior to the appointment that was the issue.

So the bottom line is that the government can't obtain an undertaking from someone relating to their speech as a requirement for appointing them to a position? That still sounds rather broad to me, but okay.

I think the root cause here is the issue (again) of how scarce the Court's decision is. The fact that we are having this discussion, fleshing out the principles underlying the Court's decision that were not discussed at all in it, is what's important. There was no general discussion on how that BoR provision is to be interpreted. No discussion at all on whether government officials are bound to accommodate for any speech, even if it derogates the person's capacity to perform the job that they are holding.

I'm very willing to accept that this is a case-by-case problem. There are always underlying principles when you consider a test of how to apply the BoR (which has not even been identified by the court) -- presumably something like a balancing act, proportionality or what not. It shouldn't really be a 'this feels wrong' vs 'this feels okay' issue. All the Court said is that it wasn't justifiable. Nothing else.
 
Guy:
So the bottom line is that the government can't obtain an undertaking from someone relating to their speech as a requirement for appointing them to a position? That still sounds rather broad to me, but okay.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's entirely the case - it matters how it's gotten.

I think that it would be fine to tell someone, "I have concerns about appointing you as my ambassador to Other Region because in the past you've threatened to coup them and written angry rants about how much you hate their government. I think an ambassador doing that would damage our relations." You could then listen to their response and, if they offered to behave, accept such an assurance. And if they didn't, either send them somewhere else, or simply decline to appoint them.

But that's different, I think from saying straight up, "You have to swear not to complain about Other Region or I won't make you an ambassador."

It may be an inane distinction, but I think it's valid under our laws.
 
Sure, and I'm happy to accept that.

But this is how deep the Court's analysis should have gone. It should make it clear on what legal basis it is making those decisions, and clear enough for decision-makers not to run foul of the BoR.
 
Guy:
But this is how deep the Court's analysis should have gone. It should make it clear on what legal basis it is making those decisions, and clear enough for decision-makers not to run foul of the BoR.
Click to expand...
I can agree the Court's written decision was decidedly terse. Having said that, I'm not sure the verdict in this particular case needed an in-depth analysis of the Law, and it's interpretation/application vis a vis the matter at hand. Interpretation of the Law is better left for a request for review.

The facts of this case (and citation of the relevant Laws), as laid out by the Prosecution, are sufficient to establish how the Law was broken by the defendant. The Court was tasked to weigh the facts and determine if the defendant had indeed violated his Oath of Office, and thereby committed the crime of Gross Misconduct. The lack of counter arguments by the Defense served the defendant poorly, in that no other facts were offered into evidence. Given those circumstances, a guilty verdict was appropriate imo. Consensus by the Court was achieved on that.
 
I'm going to climb out of retirement to post here because some of what I've just read is...I'd have a large bruise on my forehead were I sat at a desk.

In TNP, Defendants have the right to choose their own counsel. As Tomb was not inactive during the trial, and because he had in fact appointed defense, it would be as much a breach of his rights to change that defense than the breach that is being claimed as a result of incompetent counsel. Tomb could well alter any Court-appointed counsel at will and any attempt to do otherwise would be an even bigger violation.

Roman, you claim that you could ask no questions, but really, you couldn't ask the interrogative questions you wanted to ask and were instead forced by the Moderating Justice to alter your questions so that they were fair and did not fall outside the remit of a deposition. Several questions were permitted and answered prior to your resigning in a huff. And to complain that your being blocked from commenting after you resigned as counsel was unfair is utterly ludicrous. You resigned, therefore you had no more right to post than any private citizen.

At the end of the day, if the Court had given the Defense any more time/rope, everyone would now be up in arms about a never-ending trial. In TNP, the Court never wins, and this whole mess has shown that to be true yet again. The concern is what is in TNP Law. RL principles should only be considered when TNP law is either silent or confusing. And even then they do not, ever, override what the RA has passed.

Tomb may well have grounds for appeal based on something that was no presented because he had no defense but I'm not going to really comment on that because I'm not up-to-date enough on Rules and Laws as to that matter.
 
Roman asked a series of questions that could and were easily objected to. Rewording his questions would have achieved his end. It did not appear that he was aware of why the prosecution's objections were sustained. Still, I give Roman credit for trying but then he quit which was not unexpected.

Bel - i think you're hurting your case every time you post. You're essentially saying that rather than resign from the case you consciously decided not to participate because you had not spoken with Tomb. In so doing, you're now trying to decry the court's actions. That's dubious.

In my opinion, Bel's answers would mean that Tomb did have someone on his team that was available to defend him. This same person chose not to participate in a case where he was an attorney and by all accounts had agreed to defend Tomb. While we talk about what the court should have done, we need to discuss what Bel should have done. He could have resigned, tried to mount a defense, or done anything to aide/get-out-of-the-way of this trial. He decided not to do anything except come out after the fact to decry the court's actions.

Again...very dubious.
 
falapatorius:
Guy:
But this is how deep the Court's analysis should have gone. It should make it clear on what legal basis it is making those decisions, and clear enough for decision-makers not to run foul of the BoR.
Click to expand...
I can agree the Court's written decision was decidedly terse. Having said that, I'm not sure the verdict in this particular case needed an in-depth analysis of the Law, and it's interpretation/application vis a vis the matter at hand. Interpretation of the Law is better left for a request for review.

The facts of this case (and citation of the relevant Laws), as laid out by the Prosecution, are sufficient to establish how the Law was broken by the defendant. The Court was tasked to weigh the facts and determine if the defendant had indeed violated his Oath of Office, and thereby committed the crime of Gross Misconduct. The lack of counter arguments by the Defense served the defendant poorly, in that no other facts were offered into evidence. Given those circumstances, a guilty verdict was appropriate imo. Consensus by the Court was achieved on that.
Click to expand...
"I vehemently disagree."

For starters, it should be noted that it is generally recognised that it is the Court's responsibility to issue reasons for its decisions. Not only is it their duty, but failure to do so is usually accepted as appealable error. While of course the venture of an appeal is somewhat constricted by only having one Court, and yes we are playing a game, it is something that the Court should be mindful of.

In every criminal trial, the question of what the prosecution actually needs to prove is at the forefront. This is the case whether the verdict as to guilt is to be delivered by a jury (in which case it will be instructed extensively) or by a judge(s) (in which case, if it is a matter where there is no agreement between the sides, it is to be determined when delivering their verdict).

What we have here, of course, is unique because we don't have the volume of criminal cases that we have IRL. The judges can't just rely on appellate court precedents, or instruct the jury based on pre-prepared standard instructions, but this is really a matter for them to decide when the first case comes forward. You either start at first principles, or adopt authority that establishes principles for you.

So the criminal law here required Tomb to either "willfully or through negligence" violate his oath. While the oath is terribly worded, I think it should suffice for this case to decide that it covers violating any TNP law (including the BoR). An interesting question arises as to what the state of mind needs to exist in relation to. I think the violation itself (i.e. knowledge that the conduct violates the oath, or negligence as to whether it does so) is the likeliest construction. There can be an argument whether this relates to knowledge of the facts leading to the violation, but I think that's getting a bit too nitty-gritty.

So Tomb needed to either willfully or negligently violate his oath. Let it be noted that there was no discussion as to what is required to establish negligence, and if it has been established in the cases, the Court has not pointed it out. We therefore have two elements here, one with an associated mens rea:

1) The accused must have performed an act [a physical element, of course, has to be intentional - you can't punish a muscle spasm]
2) The act must have violated the oath. The accused must have known, or was negligent as to, the fact that his conduct does so.

Of course, since we're assuming that by violating the BoR you are violating the oath, and therefore you can simply replace 'oath' with 'BoR'.

So then we reach the question canvassed in the exchange between Asta and I -- namely, whether Tomb's conduct actually violated the BoR. This is directly something that must be proven by the prosecution to convict. It is an element of the crime. What a violation of the BoR actually entails is something that is just as much intrinsically part of the criminal act as anything else. What the Court did is pretty much establish a two-step inquiry.

1) Did the person, in their governmental capacity, fail their duty to encourage the [exercise of?] the right for free speech
2) The failure was not justifiable.

This is pretty skint reasoning to find someone in violation. The back-and-forth between Asta and I probably totaled far more than that. You say it is terse. I agree. But not only is it terse, it is obscure. And so obscure so to make the law itself entirely obscure.

Is this a fair amount of work? Yes. But if you are going to deposit your judiciary with the power to ban people from the forum, I would expect a judicial manner of execution of its duties. I certainly would not want to be banned from my region based on a sloppy decision. While I recognise that a ban was never really a possible end-result here,
 
1. This isn't real life. Talking on and on about how it is done in real life is not relevant.
2. Everyone should probably just relax a bit.
 
This isn't about RL.

If you write a criminal code, detailing under what circumstances someone may be banned from the forum, and vest judicial power in a court, then that's exactly what I'd expect the Court to follow. Y'know, actually go through the steps and show that whoever was found guilty actually transgressed against the law they are alleged to have breached.

If you don't want to go through that, then drop the pretense of having a judicial system (and a criminal code, for that matter). My home region, TRR, has neither. There is a Citizenship Council, an inherently non-judicial body, that can remove citizenships whenever it perceives a security risk. Such decisions are appealable to our version of the RA. This is in recognition that it's a case-by-case, inherently political issue.

It might feel good for the prosecution to have both its cushy job AND not have a Court that subjects its arguments to proper analysis, but I'd have to submit you can't eat your cake and have it too.
 
Guy:
This isn't about RL.

If you write a criminal code, detailing under what circumstances someone may be banned from the forum, and vest judicial power in a court, then that's exactly what I'd expect the Court to follow. Y'know, actually go through the steps and show that whoever was found guilty actually transgressed against the law they are alleged to have breached.

If you don't want to go through that, then drop the pretense of having a judicial system (and a criminal code, for that matter). My home region, TRR, has neither. There is a Citizenship Council, an inherently non-judicial body, that can remove citizenships whenever it perceives a security risk. Such decisions are appealable to our version of the RA. This is in recognition that it's a case-by-case, inherently political issue.

It might feel good for the prosecution to have both its cushy job AND not have a Court that subjects its arguments to proper analysis, but I'd have to submit you can't eat your cake and have it too.
Click to expand...
The Court followed the criminal code and the law. That is the issue. Here and in RL the defendant is not obligated to present a defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. I submitted an opening statement and the defense decided that I was either insufficient in my submission or just didn't care, either way, it isn't the Court's responsibility to make them post.

The Court is not obligated to give reason for its decision. Yes, that would be helpful, but that isn't the law here.* It might be in RL (since you say we aren't talking about that but keep using that as your precedent) but it isn't here. The Court simply has to reach a verdict. It did.

The defendant has the right to an appeal, in this instance, the Delegate would appoint THOs to hear it since the current roster of Justices decided on the initial verdict.

You have decided to pop up and start talking about how horrible the oath is and how our system isn't working but ignore the fact that it did work and the Court followed it.

It might feel good for you to come in and spout about RL precedent AND not have a logical reason relating to the game for doing so, but I'd have to submit you can't eat your cake and have it too.

*No one here actually cares about how they do it in TRR, or TSP, or Laz, or TP, or TWP, or anywhere else. The laws of TNP are what we deal with here and the laws of TNP have been followed to the letter. Just because you and others might disagree with those laws doesn't make them invalid or wrong.
 
So let me see if I am following the logic here...

basically if I plead and appoint a defense counsel, but then I do not turn up again and my defence does not turn up, it is a mistrial?

So presumably, when the trial is re-held, I turn up and plead again, and appoint a different counsel, and then we do not turn up again .... .rinse and repeat.

the court cannot refuse to accept my plea or my choice of counsel without violating my rights and I can just ignore the court apart from the odd post pleading not guilty every few weeks.

Sweet. I must remember that one.
 
Guy:
If you write a criminal code, detailing under what circumstances someone may be banned from the forum, and vest judicial power in a court, then that's exactly what I'd expect the Court to follow. Y'know, actually go through the steps and show that whoever was found guilty actually transgressed against the law they are alleged to have breached.
Click to expand...
Once again, the Court is not required to do this. The defense and prosecution present their cases, the Justices decide on the defendant's innocence or guilt based on the facts of the case. If you'd like a detailed explanation as to how the decision was reached, that's fine. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll get one. That's up to the current Court to decide. If the evidence is compelling, how much explanation is necessary?

Could the Court have spelled it out for the armchair Justices? Sure, but they chose not to. As you said earlier:

Guy:
failure to do so is usually accepted as appealable error.
Click to expand...
That's still an option for Tomb (if and when this case is adjourned). So I'm going to leave it at that.
 
Guy:
If you write a criminal code, detailing under what circumstances someone may be banned from the forum, and vest judicial power in a court, then that's exactly what I'd expect the Court to follow. Y'know, actually go through the steps and show that whoever was found guilty actually transgressed against the law they are alleged to have breached.
Click to expand...
Wait, I've been to RL court. That's not at all what happened. The judge said "Guilty. $25 fine plus court costs due in 30 days." Then she banged her gavel and went on to the next case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top