The North Pacific v. Bobberino

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
The Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino as filed by Darcania, Attorney General of The North Pacific.
Darcania:
Indictment

Defendant: Bobberino
Plaintiff: The North Pacific

The Office of the Attorney General humbly requests that the Court initiate proceedings in regards to the PLAINTIFF charging that the DEFENDANT did commit the following criminal act:

Specific Offenses/Criminal Acts:

  1. Gross Misconduct: Bobberino violated his sworn oath of office by failing to "act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force". In this, he acted against the best interests of The North Pacific by seeking to utilize the North Pacific Army, and his position as Minister of Defense, to advertise his own campaign for Delegate, leaving out the campaigns of his opponents in the election for Delegate. He sought personal gain via leveraging his position in the North Pacific Army to campaign for his own election as Delegate to the exclusion of all others.
Relevant Laws:

Date of Alleged Offenses: 4 September, 2019

Summary of Events: The defendant had, on the date of the alleged offense, initially posted his campaign as any citizen would, in the Elections Subforum. The defendant then, by leveraging his position as Minister of Defense, posted a link to his campaign in the #npa-announcements channel, normally reserved for official North Pacific Army announcements and orders from the Minister or other members of High Command. In this message he also had pinged all NPA Soldiers, another action normally reserved for official North Pacific Army announcements and orders. This message also included an imperative to vote for the defendant under threat of a ban. Three minutes after the message was posted, it was clarified that the threat of a ban was a joke. Thirty minutes after the message was posted, it was deleted by NPA General Darcania.

Supporting Evidence: All of the below screenshots can be authenticated by witness testimony if needed.

Screenshot of the bot's logging of the original, since-deleted message.

Screenshot the #npa-announcements channel where the message was originally posted, post-deletion.

Bobberino's Oath of Office | (Screenshot)

Link to Bobberino's campaign. (https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190906/)

https://i.imgur.com/2AgUmBY.png
https://i.imgur.com/dUF6LYW.png
https://i.imgur.com/QBFywQf.png
https://i.imgur.com/YRjyuME.png
https://i.imgur.com/oJpgtxo.png
https://i.imgur.com/y8YUx3y.png

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify this charge. It is thus recommended that a trial begin as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Representing The North Pacific will be Darcania, Attorney General.

Representing the Defendant will be Marilyn Manson, Goyanes, and Dinoium.

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be Eluvatar.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Gross Misconduct.

The defense has plead guilty.

The Defendant will have 48 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.

Additionally, the Defendant is requested to notify the Court as to who will be serving as their Counsel. If they do not do so then the Defendant will be listed as representing themselves until further notice.
 
Last edited:
If it please the Court, could the above off-topic posts by a member of the public and any related responses be split off from this thread and placed in the Public Gallery?

As well, I recall that, in previous iterations of the forums, members were prohibited from editing posts in the Courtroom, yet it appears I have the ability to do so. Could the Court clarify its standing on post editing in the Courtroom, and submit an admin request to edit said permissions if necessary?
 
Darcania:
As well, I recall that, in previous iterations of the forums, members were prohibited from editing posts in the Courtroom, yet it appears I have the ability to do so. Could the Court clarify its standing on post editing in the Courtroom, and submit an admin request to edit said permissions if necessary?
Click to expand...
While the way this forum records edit history renders that requirement less essential, permissions have been adjusted.
 
Your honors. On the behalf of the legal counsel of the defendant, we will be pleading guilty on the charges of Gross Misconduct.
 
I am confident that I could deliver a recommendation within 24 hours of the verdict.
 
Your Honors,


As the legal counsel for the defendant, Bobberino, I am submitting this sentencing recommendation on his behalf. The Court of the North Pacific will sentence Bobberino (henceforth referred to as Bob), in accordance with his guilty plea on one charge:


  1. Gross Misconduct, in violation of TNP Legal Code Section 1.8 (23)

According to Section 2.1 of the TNP Legal Code,
Legal Code of The North Pacific:
1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...
In accordance with the charges laid out in this case, Section 2.8 states that “Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”


Circumstances


The details of the criminal act are discussed in the indictment by Attorney General Darcania, and are not rebuked by the defense.


Mitigating Factors


  1. The defense has plead guilty on the charge, and is not contesting any of the evidence brought forward by the prosecution. By doing this, Bob has shown he is accepting responsibility for his actions, and is showing remorse by accepting the punishment of TNP’s legal authorities.
  2. Bob is an upstanding member of the TNP community, that up to now, has no criminal record, and has promoted the military interests of The North Pacific by leading the NPA on numerous military expeditions. Under his watch, the Ministry of Defense worked closely with the delegacy and other appropriate bodies to ensure the security of the region, a net positive for TNP.
  3. Bob is unlikely to offend again, as shown by his acceptance of responsibility, no prior record, and service to the Region. Bob is also not associated with any movements seeking to undermine the democracy of TNP.

Comparison of Similar Cases


  • In TNP vs. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. Madjack arguably committed a more serious crime, as he was indicted on numerous charges (some of which were dropped following his plea deal), and compromised the foreign policy of TNP, as well as the electoral process.
  • Link to TNP vs. Madjack: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190419/

  • In TNP vs. Tomb, the court sentenced Tomb to a suspension of voting rights for three months. Tomb committed not just gross misconduct, but also violations of the TNP Bill of Rights, as he denied Flemingovia a spot on the NPA due to critical previous comments he had made of the organization.
  • Link to TNP vs. Tomb: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7393401/

General Comments


The defense understands that the sentencing must be proportional to the crime committed. We ask that the court not impose a sentence that impedes Bob’s ability to participate in the community in a constructive way once served. We also argue that relative to prior cases, Bob’s criminality is on a much lower scale, and ask that the sentence be reflective of that.


Final Recommendation


In all consideration of the TNP Legal and Penal codes, as well as prior judicial precedent and the related factors discussed here, the defense feels that Bobberino should be given a minimum possible sentence.


As such the defense recommends the following: A suspension of voting rights for a period of 2 months and 15 days effective from the final verdict date.

Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation,


D. Dinoium Esq.
 
Your honors,

I apologize your the doublepost but I wish to alarm the Court that I will be resigning from the Defense Counsel of the defendant. Thank you.
 
Your honor, the defense has submitted a sentencing recommendation before the sentencing phase has begun, and before they have indicated that they are ready for sentencing to begin. May I ask what phase of the trial we are now in, and how you intend us to continue?
 
Excellent. We're in sentencing.

@Darcania you have 72 hours to submit a sentencing recommendation.

@Bobberino you have the same amount of time to replace or supplement the one Dinoium provided earlier, should you so choose.
 
Last edited:
Your honor, the prosecution submits the following recommendation for the sentence of defendant Bobberino for one count of Gross Misconduct:

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

Thus, I submit the following factors and my own thoughts on what the sentence should be.

Aggravating Factors
  1. Possibility of violating the rights of NPA soldiers: In his original message, the defendant threatened a ban for those soldiers who did not vote for him in the election. This would be a clear abuse of his authority as a government official, depriving an individual the right to fully participate as they choose in the governmental authority, i.e. the army. While the defendant clarified this was a joke three minutes later, even the threat of such abuse could curtail an individual's capability of expressing their speech.
    This factor is less severe than it may initially appear due to the defendant's common use of this "threat" as a joke, and his general reputation of joking as such, and of joking in general. However, it is still an aggravating factor that I believe the Court should consider when sentencing, especially as a joke should not excuse any crime, just as impairments have not excused any crime in the past.
  2. Possibility of spoiling the election: For this, one has to consider if this incident was never brought before the Attorney General, and passed silently by. If the defendant had won the election, especially by some slim margin, would the results have been different had he not abused his position? How many votes were made under threat, even if that threat was a joke? What of those who were thus pushed only to his campaign, and not to any others? Even without this hypothetical, his abuse of his authority would have granted him an advantage in the election over his opponents, and if this act is not punished, could lead to others of few scruples seeking to abuse their own authority in turn.
  3. Apparent lack of remorse: Despite several soldiers, including high-ranking officers, informing the defendant of the inappropriate nature of his message, the defendant never apologized for his message and in fact left it in place - it was only deleted by another general, rather than the defendant himself, half an hour later. As well, despite the defendant's guilty plea, one may sometimes see the defendant joking that he and others are no longer allowed to make jokes, pointing to this very court case, displaying a flagrant disregard for these proceedings and why they are happening.
    I cannot speak for how the defendant has acted in private, but in public areas, not only he has shown no remorse or acceptance, but he has also joked about these proceedings and the events that has led to them.
    Due to this factor, I can only conclude that the major factor behind the defendant's guilty plea was the preponderance of evidence, rather than a feeling of remorse. I do not doubt that there is some remorse involved, but I do not believe it to be major enough to be a mitigating factor, as the defense posits.

However, the prosecution agrees that the sentence carried out should not cause undue, long-term harm to the defendant's future career as a citizen of The North Pacific, especially as the defendant is a first-time offender.

As such:

Sentencing Recommendation for one count of Gross Misconduct

The first punishment listed in the Penal Code is removal from office. As the defendant has been sentenced for gross misconduct specifically for his use of his office for his own personal gain, the prosection recommends that the Court remove the defendant from any office they may hold at the time of sentencing, which may be none.

The second punishment listed is a suspension of voting rights for some finite duration. In this, the prosecution agrees that a suspension lesser than the three months given to Tomb in his trial is in order. However, due to the specific circumstances surrounding the defendant's use of his authority to push for his own purposes in the election, I would recommend an extended duration for election voting rights, that being at least until the end of the next General election. The prosecution thus recommends a suspension of all voting rights for two months, fifteen days, and a suspension of election voting rights for an additional two and a half months, to a total of five months.

Thank you, your honor.
 
court_seal.png


Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific
In the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino

Order drafted by Eluvatar on behalf of Dreadton and Lord Lore​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 23 of the North Pacific Criminal Code (Legal Code, Chapter 1):

23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 8 of the North Pacific Penal Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):

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

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the defense:

Dinoium:
Your Honors,


As the legal counsel for the defendant, Bobberino, I am submitting this sentencing recommendation on his behalf. The Court of the North Pacific will sentence Bobberino (henceforth referred to as Bob), in accordance with his guilty plea on one charge:


  1. Gross Misconduct, in violation of TNP Legal Code Section 1.8 (23)

According to Section 2.1 of the TNP Legal Code,
Legal Code of The North Pacific:
1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...
In accordance with the charges laid out in this case, Section 2.8 states that “Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”


Circumstances


The details of the criminal act are discussed in the indictment by Attorney General Darcania, and are not rebuked by the defense.


Mitigating Factors


  1. The defense has plead guilty on the charge, and is not contesting any of the evidence brought forward by the prosecution. By doing this, Bob has shown he is accepting responsibility for his actions, and is showing remorse by accepting the punishment of TNP’s legal authorities.
  2. Bob is an upstanding member of the TNP community, that up to now, has no criminal record, and has promoted the military interests of The North Pacific by leading the NPA on numerous military expeditions. Under his watch, the Ministry of Defense worked closely with the delegacy and other appropriate bodies to ensure the security of the region, a net positive for TNP.
  3. Bob is unlikely to offend again, as shown by his acceptance of responsibility, no prior record, and service to the Region. Bob is also not associated with any movements seeking to undermine the democracy of TNP.

Comparison of Similar Cases


  • In TNP vs. Madjack, the court sentenced Madjack to a suspension of voting rights for three months, and a ban on running or holding office until January 2020. Madjack arguably committed a more serious crime, as he was indicted on numerous charges (some of which were dropped following his plea deal), and compromised the foreign policy of TNP, as well as the electoral process.
  • Link to TNP vs. Madjack: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190419/

  • In TNP vs. Tomb, the court sentenced Tomb to a suspension of voting rights for three months. Tomb committed not just gross misconduct, but also violations of the TNP Bill of Rights, as he denied Flemingovia a spot on the NPA due to critical previous comments he had made of the organization.
  • Link to TNP vs. Tomb: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7393401/

General Comments


The defense understands that the sentencing must be proportional to the crime committed. We ask that the court not impose a sentence that impedes Bob’s ability to participate in the community in a constructive way once served. We also argue that relative to prior cases, Bob’s criminality is on a much lower scale, and ask that the sentence be reflective of that.


Final Recommendation


In all consideration of the TNP Legal and Penal codes, as well as prior judicial precedent and the related factors discussed here, the defense feels that Bobberino should be given a minimum possible sentence.


As such the defense recommends the following: A suspension of voting rights for a period of 2 months and 15 days effective from the final verdict date.

Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation,


D. Dinoium Esq.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the sentencing recommendation by the prosecution:

Darcania:
Your honor, the prosecution submits the following recommendation for the sentence of defendant Bobberino for one count of Gross Misconduct:

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

Thus, I submit the following factors and my own thoughts on what the sentence should be.

Aggravating Factors
  1. Possibility of violating the rights of NPA soldiers: In his original message, the defendant threatened a ban for those soldiers who did not vote for him in the election. This would be a clear abuse of his authority as a government official, depriving an individual the right to fully participate as they choose in the governmental authority, i.e. the army. While the defendant clarified this was a joke three minutes later, even the threat of such abuse could curtail an individual's capability of expressing their speech.
    This factor is less severe than it may initially appear due to the defendant's common use of this "threat" as a joke, and his general reputation of joking as such, and of joking in general. However, it is still an aggravating factor that I believe the Court should consider when sentencing, especially as a joke should not excuse any crime, just as impairments have not excused any crime in the past.
  2. Possibility of spoiling the election: For this, one has to consider if this incident was never brought before the Attorney General, and passed silently by. If the defendant had won the election, especially by some slim margin, would the results have been different had he not abused his position? How many votes were made under threat, even if that threat was a joke? What of those who were thus pushed only to his campaign, and not to any others? Even without this hypothetical, his abuse of his authority would have granted him an advantage in the election over his opponents, and if this act is not punished, could lead to others of few scruples seeking to abuse their own authority in turn.
  3. Apparent lack of remorse: Despite several soldiers, including high-ranking officers, informing the defendant of the inappropriate nature of his message, the defendant never apologized for his message and in fact left it in place - it was only deleted by another general, rather than the defendant himself, half an hour later. As well, despite the defendant's guilty plea, one may sometimes see the defendant joking that he and others are no longer allowed to make jokes, pointing to this very court case, displaying a flagrant disregard for these proceedings and why they are happening.
    I cannot speak for how the defendant has acted in private, but in public areas, not only he has shown no remorse or acceptance, but he has also joked about these proceedings and the events that has led to them.
    Due to this factor, I can only conclude that the major factor behind the defendant's guilty plea was the preponderance of evidence, rather than a feeling of remorse. I do not doubt that there is some remorse involved, but I do not believe it to be major enough to be a mitigating factor, as the defense posits.

However, the prosecution agrees that the sentence carried out should not cause undue, long-term harm to the defendant's future career as a citizen of The North Pacific, especially as the defendant is a first-time offender.

As such:

Sentencing Recommendation for one count of Gross Misconduct

The first punishment listed in the Penal Code is removal from office. As the defendant has been sentenced for gross misconduct specifically for his use of his office for his own personal gain, the prosection recommends that the Court remove the defendant from any office they may hold at the time of sentencing, which may be none.

The second punishment listed is a suspension of voting rights for some finite duration. In this, the prosecution agrees that a suspension lesser than the three months given to Tomb in his trial is in order. However, due to the specific circumstances surrounding the defendant's use of his authority to push for his own purposes in the election, I would recommend an extended duration for election voting rights, that being at least until the end of the next General election. The prosecution thus recommends a suspension of all voting rights for two months, fifteen days, and a suspension of election voting rights for an additional two and a half months, to a total of five months.

Thank you, your honor.
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clause 23, The Court sees fit that Bobberino will be punished for Gross Misconduct removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a period of five months.

Bobberino has a history of good conduct in this region. However, the message in question was an abuse of power that could disrupt the Delegate election and call the result into question. Further, the defendant does not appear remorseful or to regret their actions. Not contesting the verdict is not of itself an acknowledgement of fault, regret, or remorse.

The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.

This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top