[CRIMINAL] Complaint by Cormac

Cormac

Cormac

TNPer
TNP Nation
Cormactopia III
Discord
Cormac#0804
Name of Complainant: Cormac

Name(s) of Accused: falapatorius; Gracius Maximus

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): 10/14/2015

Specific Offense(s): Espionage; Gross Misconduct

Relevant Excerpts from Legal Code or other Laws:
Section 1.2 of the Legal Code:
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Click to expand...
Section 1.8 of the 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...
Summary of Events (What happened, in your own words): falapatorius, the incumbent Attorney General, apparently divulged information from the private subforum of the Cabinet to which he has access as Attorney General. This was shortly followed by Gracius Maximus divulging information from the same Cabinet subforum, to which he had access during his prior service as Minister of Defense under former Delegate Eluvatar. In so doing, both committed espionage, insofar as they have made private information available from an entity (the Cabinet) that has not legitimately sanctioned the sharing of said information, to others to whom the information would not be accessible except by cracking technical security measures.

Each has also violated their oaths of citizenship and government office, namely the citizenship pledge of "responsible action" and the government office pledge to use the powers and rights of their offices in a responsible manner. Even if they did not willfully violate their oaths -- i.e., if they were not intentionally divulging private Cabinet information and only did so without thought -- they have nonetheless violated their oaths through negligence.

Evidentiary Submissions (Evidentiary Submissions may be submitted to the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division via PM):

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8256849&t=7455133
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8256872&t=7455133

Comments: Obviously, as the Attorney General is one of the accused, it would be improper for him to handle this complaint.
 
Could the complainant specify if falapatorius's, and my own subsequent comment, were the first instances of discussion of what happened within the Cabinet Chambers?

I am fairly certain that precedent exists that if the executive addresses a private discussion in public then subsequent discussion of that issue is not subject to criminal complaint as it has been priorly divulged.

Eluvatar, Delegate at the time, and Myroria, current Vice Delegate, divulged information about the private cabinet discussion prior to either comment named within this complaint.
 
This is not - yet - a hearing, and this is not the place for premature discussion

GM, you are not a justice. please stop acting as such.
 
flemingovia:
This is not - yet - a hearing, and this is not the place for premature discussion

GM, you are not a justice. please stop acting as such.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is the Attorney General's Office and not the Courtroom. I am not acting as anything except an accused citizen. Perhaps you should stop acting as if you are part of the AG staff?
 
Per:
Section 6.7; Clause 40 of the Legal Code:
40. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
Click to expand...
I won't be managing this complaint.
Gracius Maximus:
Actually, this is the Attorney General's Office and not the Courtroom. I am not acting as anything except an accused citizen. Perhaps you should stop acting as if you are part of the AG staff?
Click to expand...
Flemingovia:
This is not - yet - a hearing, and this is not the place for premature discussion
GM, you are not a justice. please stop acting as such.
Click to expand...
Gentlemen, please. This a complaint thread.

GM is an accused citizen entitled to defend himself, but the complaint is what it is. If it goes to trial, he can raise these issues there.

Flemingovia, as a Justice who may/may not be presiding over this, should stay as far away from this thread as possible. Weighing in to badger the accused is inappropriate.

Any future off-topic posts will be split out. Thank you.
 
40. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
41. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to manage the prosecution of a case, the Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case. If the Delegate is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in the case, then the Vice Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case.
Click to expand...

As, from what I can tell, there are no current deputy AGs, it appears that it falls on me to act as a deputy AG and take over managing the case - if such is warranted. So, going forward, here are the rules we'll be operating under:

44. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
45. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
46. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Click to expand...
 
Madame Delegate, can you clarify whether this means you have rejected the case on behalf of the Attorney General's office and I now need to proceed with managing prosecution of the case? That's how it appears but I'm not certain.
 
Cormac:
Madame Delegate, can you clarify whether this means you have rejected the case on behalf of the Attorney General's office and I now need to proceed with managing prosecution of the case? That's how it appears but I'm not certain.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no, I have not. I have not made a decision at this point about what to do. My intention was to point out to any interested parties what the procedure is at this time, and what the possible options are going forward.
 
SillyString:
Cormac:
Madame Delegate, can you clarify whether this means you have rejected the case on behalf of the Attorney General's office and I now need to proceed with managing prosecution of the case? That's how it appears but I'm not certain.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no, I have not. I have not made a decision at this point about what to do. My intention was to point out to any interested parties what the procedure is at this time, and what the possible options are going forward.
Click to expand...
Oh okay, thank you!
 
flemingovia:
As a justice, can i ask whether this complaint is being pursued either by the complainant or the AG's office?
Click to expand...
Well, as the potential defendent, who is also keeping an eye on the time lapse out of necessary concern, the acting AG has stated that she is considering it but does not have a mandated timetable for that. If she refuses to pursue the charge then the claimant has 30 days from that point to decide so we have a minimum of 30 days + the remaining determination time of the AG before a decision would be required to the Court.
 
I apologize for the delay. It is obvious that I don't have the time to deal with this complaint properly, and I think that's one of the flaws in our current system. Additionally, given the topic of the complaint and the chance that I would be called as a witness, I am not sure that I'm a viable party to deal with prosecuting the matter.

So, I am officially declining to prosecute the complaint against Gracius Maximus. The complainant has 30 days to begin proceedings on their own.

As for falapatorius, I'm asking anybody who would like to look at prosecuting the case to contact me within the next week. If I don't hear anything, I will send this one back to the complainant as well.
 
To avoid keeping GM waiting any longer, I will not be prosecuting the complaint against him either as I trust the Delegate's judgment.

Should the Delegate decline to prosecute falapatorius due only to lack of a prosecutor and not because she finds no merit in the case, however, I will be taking up that prosecution. I would prefer someone with more experience in prosecuting contact the Delegate though.
 
Seeing as the Attorney General is no longer the potential defendant in a criminal trial, can I pass the buck on the rest of this back over? :P
 
Vazos:
Does the Delegate wish to pursue the charges against falapatorius?
Click to expand...
The Delegate was acting as interim AG since there was no other option. It isn't the place of the Justices to make such queries here, however.

Thank you for your concern.
 
The Office of the Attorney General will not be pursuing charges against Falapatorius. While I do believe that the commentary from the accused to have been out of order, I am not convinced, considering that it followed from the previous Delegate's disclosure of communications, that it broke the law or can be justified to have done so to the point of gaining a guilty verdict.

The Complainant has 30 days from this point to decide if he wishes to pursue the case directly before the Court.
 
I don't agree with this decision -- isn't it the Attorney General's job to find out whether the law was broken? -- but I'm not good at NationStates judicial affairs and I don't feel qualified to prosecute this complaint, so I will not be further pursuing it.
 
Cormac:
I don't agree with this decision -- isn't it the Attorney General's job to find out whether the law was broken? -- but I'm not good at NationStates judicial affairs and I don't feel qualified to prosecute this complaint, so I will not be further pursuing it.
Click to expand...
It is the Attorney General's job to determine if sufficient evidence exists to reasonably expect a guilty verdict. I am not convinced.
 
Since the current AG is still named in the complaint, I feel there is prejudice in deciding even falap's fate and I would think the AG should recuse himself from said determination.

Seeing that he has not and seeing that he has kicked this back to the complainant, Cormac....Cormac I am willing to pursue this further.

Not at issue for me is the passionate pursuit of finding the two defendants guilty, I just do not like to see issues swept under the rug in potentially shady circumstances. I consider the current AG not pursuing this a little "shady", understanding he'll be offended, but I would say the same were anyone else the AG and also making this same decision.

In that spirit if you'd like to confer on this, I'd be willing to assist.
 
punk d:
Since the current AG is still named in the complaint, I feel there is prejudice in deciding even falap's fate and I would think the AG should recuse himself from said determination.

Seeing that he has not and seeing that he has kicked this back to the complainant, Cormac....Cormac I am willing to pursue this further.

Not at issue for me is the passionate pursuit of finding the two defendants guilty, I just do not like to see issues swept under the rug in potentially shady circumstances. I consider the current AG not pursuing this a little "shady", understanding he'll be offended, but I would say the same were anyone else the AG and also making this same decision.

In that spirit if you'd like to confer on this, I'd be willing to assist.
Click to expand...
That is out of line.

The previous interim AG determined that pursuit of the claim against me was not reasonable. The Complainant agreed. Your incorporation of my name into this issue is unwarranted and labelling my legally mandated right to refuse prosecution as 'shady' is slanderous. Those named in a complaint are not necessarily carried forward into an indictment so my name remaining on this has absolutely zero bearing on the pursuit of this case further. Any indictment presented to the Court would need to only list Falapatorius.

The law does not give you standing to pursue this complaint at this point as the Complainant has stated that he does not wish to pursue it::

Section 7.2 of the Legal Code:
15. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
16. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
17. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Click to expand...

I am the only person to have successfully argued trials in the long history of the Court here in TNP to multiple convictions and I have also defended the accused and received acquittals. I am uniquely qualified to determine whether or not a case is legitimately pursuable here in TNP. That is why I was elected to this position.

If the complainant wishes to resubmit the complaint without my name on it, since certain parties are apparently ignorant of the process, and he states that he wishes to pursue prosecution himself, then he can name you as an attorney on his behalf. Until such time as that is the case, considering the complainant has decline to pursue this himself, this matter is closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top