[Private] TNP v. Tomb

This is the private thread for deliberations on the trial of The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.

What are your opinions on the matter? The legal question at hand is whether Tomb's denial of the complainant's request to join the NPA is a violation of the Bill of Rights. If it is, then Tomb is guilty of gross misconduct. If not, then he isn't.

In my opinion, I think Flem should have filed an R4R. Such would set a precedent for the future, and would be a more definitive legal decision. Nevertheless we are presented with a criminal trial hinging on a legal conclusion. I think we should discuss this from the viewpoint of a legal question.

I'm not sure what my opinion is yet, I'll go over the evidence and arguments again and post here what I have decided. In the mean time, Justices, Severisen and Kialga, how do you feel?

I'm not sure I agree with you on the R4R idea. From a certain standpoint, yes it could be beneficial, however the actions of the Defendant do violate the BoR. It even goes beyond the already plotted points in the Indictment if you look at Section 5 of the BoR, which states that any nation is protected from the abuse of power by a government official.

While the denial of the application is not a violation, as it could happen to anyone, the terms are in fact a direct violation of rights. Regardless of the opinions, vocal or not, of the applicant, there is no reason to place a mandate on the grounds of protecting the organization. The prosecuting party has the right, as a citizen, to be as vocal about what they feel is wrong without fear of having their mouth shut. This should trump any doctrine they subsequently have to abide by after citizenship. And regardless of these facts, the final say, according to the Code of Governance of the NPA, the final say in an applicants application falls to the Minister of Defense, not the Delegate.

Discussion with someone over their actions is one thing, but attempting to use your authority to zip, lock, and throw-away-the-key of a someone who is openly against policies is absurd and has no backing that can be justified. I feel it is quite simple, guilty as charged.

I am full agreement with Kialga. Plain and simiple, attempting to curtail someone's freedom of speech as a condition of their acceptance in NPA is not justifiable.

I guess it's settled then. Tomb is guilty. I'll prepare the verdict before the end of the day.

Regarding sentencing, I think two months is a reasonable sentence. I think it is prudent to consult the rest of the court on the matter.

Two months seems short, but four months (a full term equivalent) is a bit farfetched. Three months seems the most reasonable for what the charges are and the actions of Tomb.