The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
court_seal.png


The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya​

The Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. The Swedish Republic of New Kenya as filed by Guy, Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific.

Indictment:
Indictment​

Defendant: The Swedish Republic of New Kenya
Complaining Party: The North Pacific

The Office of the Attorney General requests that the Court issue an indictment charging New Kenya with the crimes of: Treason, Fraud, Gross Misconduct, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.

Statement of Facts

Swedish Republic of New Kenya ('New Kenya'), registered on these forums as tSRoNK, has committed multiple offenses against the Criminal Code of TNP in the course of attempting to subvert its democratic governance. New Kenya is currently a resident of TNP.

In January, New Kenya, at the time a citizen of TNP, applied for membership in the North Pacific Armed Forces (NPA). New Kenya took the required oath, which states:
I, _________ request to join The North Pacific Army. I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad. I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military. I pledge to respect the chain of command and my fellow officers at all times. I pledge my loyalty to the North Pacific Region, our people, and our government.
Click to expand...
Although New Kenya lost their citizenship on March 8th due to insufficient forum activity, their membership in the NPA remained active and ongoing.

In June, New Kenya engaged Pierconium, at the time Delegate of The Pacific, in a telegram exchange (see Telegram Exchange #1). New Kenya attempted to reach an agreement with Pierconium regarding a plan for New Kenya to win the Delegacy in the May 2016 elections for delegate, and, following that, to transform The North Pacific into, in New Kenya's words, "being one of [their] satellite regions". In order to succeed in gaining the Delegacy, New Kenya suggested that the election should be "flooded with votes". Pierconium promptly presented this information to TNP's security apparatus.

In August, New Kenya later made a similar offer to Aleisyr, who was not a citizen of TNP (Telegram Exchange #2). Again, New Kenya's plan was to stand in the September 2016 elections for Delegate, and should he win, serve as merely a figurehead while Aleisyr would act as the "true ruler".

From these two conversations, it seems clear to this office that New Kenya viewed these two nations - Pierconium and Aleisyr - as potential co-conspirators in a plot against the TNP government, and sought to enlist them as allies in preparation for seizing the delegacy.

Applicable Law

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
Click to expand...

With respect to these clauses, we contend the following:
  1. That seeking to use one's nation in a coup against TNP constitutes taking up arms against her lawful government, and that offering one's nation to someone presumed or known to be an enemy of TNP in that same purpose constitutes the provision of material support for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing that government, even if the plotted coup does not materialize. Ergo, we contend that New Kenya committed Treason against TNP.
  2. That by holding citizenship and NPA membership under false pretenses, by intentionally swearing an oath that they did not intend to keep, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing this government, New Kenya committed Fraud.
  3. That by planning to overthrow the government of TNP, in violation of their sworn oaths as a citizen and as a member of the NPA, Kenya committed Gross Misconduct.
Supporting Evidence

Screen_Shot_2016_06_05_at_10_13_00_PM.png
c29f8d237d.png

Conclusion and Recommendation

We believe the court will find in this request for an indictment sufficient evidence of malfeasance to justify charging New Kenya with the crimes we have laid out.

We also believe that even if the Court finds, contrary to our arguments, that New Kenya's crimes do not fit all three descriptions found in the Legal Code, that there will remain sufficient evidence for this office to prove beyond reasonable doubt tat New Kenya planned and attempted to commit all three. Therefore, we strongly recommend and request that New Kenya be additionally charged with three counts of Conspiracy - Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.

Signed,
Guy
Click to expand...

Representing The North Pacific are SillyString, Attorney General, and Guy, Deputy Attorney General.

Representing The Swedish Republic of New Kenya will be flemingovia, Attorney for the Defendant.

Presiding of over this case as Moderating Justice will be Eluvatar, Chief Justice.

The Defendant is charged with Treason, Fraud, Gross Misconduct, and Conspiracy to commit the same crimes.

The Defendant will have 72 hours from the opening of the thread to enter a plea. If at that time no plea has been entered, a default plea of "Not Guilty" will be entered for the Defendant.

The Swedish Republic of New Kenya plead not guilty

Timetable
  1. Plea Submission - 2016-10-05 - 2016-10-06
  2. Evidence Submission - 2016-10-06 - 2016-10-22
  3. Recess - 2016-10-23 - 2016-11-02
  4. Evidence Submission - 2016-11-03
  5. Argumentation - 2016-11-04 - 2016-11-06
  6. Deliberation - 2016-11-06 - 2016-11-10

Witnesses
  • The Swedish Republic of New Kenya (named by the Defense, cross-examination requested)
  • Pierconium (named by the Defense as 'hostile' -- assumed to be Prosecution's witness as they have provided evidence for the Prosecution)
  • Aleisyr (named by the Defense as 'hostile' -- assumed to be Prosecution's witness as they have provided evidence for the Prosecution)
  • Lord Ravenclaw (named by the Defense)
 
The court can select an attourney for me. This is an absolute ridiculous claim and will be fun beating it.
 
Duly noted.

We are now in Evidence Submission. Evidence Submission will be for four days, unless an extension is necessary. Any necessary extension should be requested in the next three days. A further four days will be granted to argumentation. The Court intends to conclude deliberations within four days of the end of argumentation. Should the defendant be found guilty, a further four days will be granted to sentencing recommendations from the defense and prosecution, and the sentence would be handed down within four days after that.

The timetable will be recorded in the opening post of this trial, and may be altered as necessary.
 
Your honour, before we move to evidence submission, the defence moves for the immediate dismissal of the following charges against my client:

Conspiracy to Commit Treason,
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.

Reason for motion: improper filing of charges

Rationale: in the "filing" of charges by the attorney general's office the title mentions these charges, yet in the body of the submission the charges are never actually filed. Instead, the deputy attorney general recommended and requested that my client be charged with these crimes, expressed as an opinion:

We also believe that even if the Court finds, contrary to our arguments, that New Kenya's crimes do not fit all three descriptions found in the Legal Code, that there will remain sufficient evidence for this office to prove beyond reasonable doubt tat New Kenya planned and attempted to commit all three. Therefore, we strongly recommend and request that New Kenya be additionally charged with three counts of Conspiracy - Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.
Click to expand...

A belief expressed, and an opinion and a request given, do not constitute a proper filing of charges, and therefore the defence petitions the court that these secondary charges be dropped.

My client is happy to answer to the main charges of treason, fraud and gross misconduct.
 
Your honour, we obviously oppose that, quite frankly frivolous, motion to dismiss.

The prosecution's filing is framed as a request for the Court to issue an indictment charging the defendant with six offences:
The Office of the Attorney General requests that the Court issue an indictment charging New Kenya with the crimes of: Treason, Fraud, Gross Misconduct, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.
Click to expand...
As counsel for the defence notes, the conclusion of our filing notes that the request for indictment contains sufficient evidence against the defendant for him to properly be charged with the additional, so-called secondary, three offences. It directly recommends to the Court that the defendant be accordingly charged with those offences.
We also believe that even if the Court finds, contrary to our arguments, that New Kenya's crimes do not fit all three descriptions found in the Legal Code, that there will remain sufficient evidence for this office to prove beyond reasonable doubt tat New Kenya planned and attempted to commit all three. Therefore, we strongly recommend and request that New Kenya be additionally charged with three counts of Conspiracy - Conspiracy to Commit Treason, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and Conspiracy to Commit Gross Misconduct.
Click to expand...

In this case, Chief Justice Eluvatar has accepted the request for indictment, thereby confirming its procedural correctness. The Court has issued an indictment charging the defendant with the aforementioned six offences.

The practice of asking the Court to issue an indictment charging the defendant with certain crimes is entirely consistent with practice.

There can be no question that, as a result of the Court accepting our request for indictment, the defendant has properly been charged with the conspiracy offences as well.
 
Objection, your honour.

The deputy attorney general was not invited to respond or approach up the bench.

This is not a peanut gallery

I move his comments be struck.
 
It is the practice of this court to permit either side to object to the motions of the other. Motion to strike denied.

The motion to dismiss the Conspiracy charges is denied. The crimes the defendant is accused of are listed in full at the beginning of the indictment, and elaborated on in the main text. There is no mistaking the meaning intended by the Attorney General's office.

It is my understanding that members are not generally able to edit posts in the Courtroom: the exceptions are the Court Justices and forum staff who have moderation powers. In the interests of fairness, and the appearance thereof, I would therefore request that the defense counsel endeavor not to make use of the advantage they have over the prosecution in this regard. In other words, I am asking flemingovia to please refrain from editing their posts, as Guy cannot do so.
 
Your honour, the defence wishes to submit as evidence an examination of TSRONK (aka The Swedish Republic of New Kenya).

Could the court advise us as to how you wish this examination to be carried out, especially considering the tight time schedule you have set, and the possible need for cross-examination.
 
Your honour,

Given the rules regarding the admissibility of screenshots, the prosecution is currently in an ongoing process to allow for their verification in testimony. We estimate that we may require a reasonable extension (a few days) to allow that to happen. We are mindful of the defendant's right for a speedy trial, and we do not currently foresee any other delays.

We of course would be interested in cross-examining the accused.
 
I'm sorry, your honour, I had meant to refer to the defendant's expectation for a speedy trial.
 
The court would suggest the use of http://doodle.com/ to schedule a deposition which meets the standards of the Adopted Court Rules.

An extension of four days to Evidence Submission may be granted, please expect that it has been in scheduling a deposition.

If it is impossible to secure the presence of the moderating justice, you may hold a deposition in front of a neutral third party, allowing the justice to evaluate objections and the like after the fact through the deposition log.
 
Your honour, the admission of screenshots is hardly something that is new to the court, and the Attorney General's office should not need an extension to allow for verification. We therefore object.

If it of any help, the defence does not intend at this stage to dispute the screenshots or claim they have been photoshopped or doctored (unless my client instructs me otherwise).
 
Your honour, the defence intends to call the following witnesses:

Periconium (under whichever guise), Aliesyr. We wish them to be treated by the court as hostile witnesses.

Lord Ravenclaw, as an expert witness.

We would also like the court to subpoena all discussions by government officials and security council members including, but not limited to, the then Delegate and Assistant Delegate, relating to the intel recieved from Pierconium and Aliesyr. This would include forum discussion and also logs of IRC and Discord chats.

Should this be deemed by the court to be sensitive to the security of the region, defence has no objection to this evidence being heard in camera.
 
The court would certainly prefer depositions to take place as soon as possible. If it is possible for a deposition to take place in the next couple of days, that should be done. If however it is not possible to find a time which suits both counsel and the witness within the original evidence submission timeline, then an extension will be granted. This applies both to any depositions to verify the documents submitted by the prosecution and to any deposition of the defendant.

I will note that the third sentence of clause 6 of the Bill of Rights should be kept in mind regarding any deposition of the defendant:
Bill of Rights:
6. ... No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
Click to expand...

Documentary evidence is not acceptable unverified unless I grant an exception:
Adopted Court Rules:
1.3.4 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...

I will accept a motion from the defense to waive verification of specific documents, understanding that if the motion is withdrawn we extend or return to evidence submission. I would likewise accept such a motion from the prosecution regarding specific documents submitted by the defense. I would not allow the prosecution to withdraw such a motion.
 
And what of the subpoena?

Examination of this evidence is important, since it will show whether Kenya is a criminal mastermind with the potential to overthrow the region or a new player caught up in overenthusiasm, entrapped and played by more experienced players.
 
flemingovia:
Your honour, the defence intends to call the following witnesses:

Periconium (under whichever guise), Aliesyr. We wish them to be treated by the court as hostile witnesses.

Lord Ravenclaw, as an expert witness.

We would also like the court to subpoena all discussions by government officials and security council members including, but not limited to, the then Delegate and Assistant Delegate, relating to the intel recieved from Pierconium and Aliesyr. This would include forum discussion and also logs of IRC and Discord chats.

Should this be deemed by the court to be sensitive to the security of the region, defence has no objection to this evidence being heard in camera.
Click to expand...

The court recognizes your intention to examine Pierconium and Aleisyr. I would suggest coordinating in terms of timing with the prosecution, as they would no doubt wish to depose them as well, and need to be present for your own deposition. If you are cross-examining them as the prosecution's witnesses, then to whatever extent this court understands the term "hostile witness" it applies. Such a term is not present in the Adopted Court Rules however, so please do not make any assumptions regarding what that means that are not warranted under TNP law and judicial procedure.

The court recognizes your intention to examine Lord Ravenclaw. I would again remind you that "expert witness" is not present in the Adopted Court Rules today, so please do not make any assumptions not warranted under TNP law and judicial procedure.

Insofar as no rules or laws regarding subpoenas exist, the Court asks the defense to do one or more of three things:

  1. File a request for review (to the full Court) regarding whether the Court may subpoena (that is, order the testimony and retrieval of documents by) citizens or officials of various branches, specifically the Executive Branch and The North Pacific Security Council, in connection with a criminal trial.
  2. File a freedom of information act request of the Delegate and an informal request for information of The North Pacific Security Council via its chair, the Vice Delegate, for the information you seek directly.
  3. File a motion within this trial that specifies on what basis in TNP law, including the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Legal Code, and Adopted Court Rules, you are asking the Court to subpoena (that is, order the testimony and retrieval of documents by), and whom (by name).

As a note, the following topics of historical interest may be relevant in this matter (Noting that the Freedom of Information Act has since been amended):

  1. Request for review: Vice Delegate's consultations with the Security Council
  2. [private] r3n's request for review
  3. Request for Review: FOIA silliness
  4. Request for Information
  5. Request for Review: Existence of a duty to disclose
 
Your honours, we would note our preliminary objection to that request.

Defence counsel has claimed that such evidence would have great probative value in determining whether New Kenya is a "criminal mastermind with the potential to overthrow the region" or not.

However, we would submit that these matters raised in counsel's latest post are all irrelevant. Certainly, they do not form elements of the alleged offences. While they may provide context to the defendant's offending, they certainly do not absolve him of it.

Further, the ambit of the request if far too wide, and unconnected to its claimed purpose. I do not see how requiring any conversation between any "government officials and security council members" relating to the telegram exchange to be submitted to the Court will assist its inquiries whatsoever.

Such conversation may not be in one's offical capacity, may indeed not have anything to do with the official's responsibilities, and may be altogether entirely informal. Indeed, such conversations may be private. Not every conversation between two government officials in this region relating to a case should be capable of being subpoenaed. Doing so would open our officials', who give up their time for this region, every conversation for public scrutiny.

There are also obvious practical difficulties -- we would likely have to wait weeks while such evidence is collared from anyone who's been in government since then.

We would ask that the Court, at the least, ask the defence to reframe its request. We could then have a more reasoned discussion about it.
 
Do you mean to suggest that the defense should characterize its requested order as applying only to discussions matching some more specific characterization?
 
With regards to the depositions, if we could reach an acceptable time to take evidence from Pierconium and Aleisyr, that should substantially advance the progress of the trial.

Given the time zones, I would suggest that sometime early in the week, around 9am EDT / 2pm BST / 12am AEDT may work for us all.
 
Eluvatar:
Do you mean to suggest that the defense should characterize its requested order as applying only to discussions matching some more specific characterization?
Click to expand...
Indeed. We believe that the current request is too wide, and needs to be narrowed before it can even be reasonably raised.

As of now, we do not believe that defence has made its case for any subpoena to be issued.
 
The court will not rule on your preliminary objection, but advises the defense to construct any motion they file or other actions they take accounting for the fact that the Court will be considering its arguments, with or without the prosecution's further clarification into a specific objection to their specific action.
 
Your honour, we understand fully the prosecution's desire to obstruct the defence's access to evidence. They have little evidence to present themselves, so of course would prefer the defence to have as little access to information as possible.

However, in the interests of a fair and open trial we would urge that the court not allow the defence to be denied access to any information that may help prove my client's innocence.

The prosecution claims that the defence's subpoena is wide ranging. Indeed it is. The defence intends to show that my client was a naive and innocent party played and entrapped by significantly more experienced players for their own positical ends. We do not have access to government or Security council converstations or logs, and have no way of knowing prior to examination which of these logs might provide the "smoking gun" which proves my client is the victim here, not the villain.

Asking the defence to be specific in our request concerning something we have no access to is asking a bit much!

Dealing with a couple of other issues raised in earlier posts, the defence used the term "hostile witness" since both individuals have provided evidence against my client. In most courts, once a witness is identified as hostile, counsel is given more leeway by a court to ask leading questions, much as in cross-examination.

When the defence referred to Lord Ravenclaw as an expert witness it was to indicate to your honour and to the prosecution that he was being called more by virtue of his knowledge and understanding in general than in terms of his specific knowledge relevant to this case.
 
Should the Prosecution demand a more specific request for documentation, the defence requests the subpoena of all conversations concerning New Kenya which took place after the government and Security council received the alleged intel that New Kenya had contacted Aliesyr and Pierconium regarding a bid for the delegacy of the North PAcific.

Does that help?
 
further to your honour's suggestion I ask the court to note that I have requested of the Vice Delegate access to Security council's records

CLICKY

Should the court also request that examination or discussion of these records be made in closed session, the defence will happily accede to this.
 
Given the various requests made by the defence, and the lack of progress in scheduling depositions, I do believe an extension is warranted. I think another four days is reasonable.
 
Guy:
Given the various requests made by the defence, and the lack of progress in scheduling depositions, I do believe an extension is warranted. I think another four days is reasonable.
Click to expand...
given the way this trial is panning out, this seems perfectly reasonable to the defence.
 
RL: I have chopped the top offt he infex fuinger of my left hand. Typing is hard and may affexct my input for a day or two.

Sorry.
 
Apologies for my late arrival, I was otherwise occupied for the majority of this week.

I will be in touch with both the Attorney General's Office and Defense Counsel tomorrow to discuss a suitable time for my deposition.
 
As Chief Justice, I appoint Altmoras as Temporary Hearing Officer for matters relating to this trial.

In consultation with Kialga, I am appointing Altmoras as Temporary Hearing Officer for matters relating to this trial.
 
It appears likely that, due to factors beyond the control of either party, the evidence submission phase will have to be extended again.
 
Your honour, we would suggest 12pm UTC on 14 October for a deposition of Pierconium, if that works for everyone.

It seems as if another extension will be necessary.
 
The Court is asked by the defense whether counsel cross-examining a witness is prohibited from going into issues not raised during examination. The Court is asked whether only evidence directly declared during evidence submission may be referred to in arguments.

I am not prepared to predecide on objections to questions in general, but relevant questions should be relevant regardless of whether their subject has already been raised.

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.
Click to expand...

All evidence must be presented during Evidence Submission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top