[Redacted] [Private] Criminal Charges against Bill Kennedy

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The AG has posted an indictment here. Please state your thoughts on whether this indictment should be accepted in full, accepted in part (if we can even do that, I need to double check) or rejected.

As far as I can see, the evidence basically asks the court to indulge in a conspiracy theory. No evidence has been presented that a crime has happened, the only thing presented that he MIGHT have two citizen accounts based entirely on the accusations of a random individual on the RMB and his own accusations that are based on nothing but "the chain of events" but the AG didn't even feel like telling us what that "chain of events" even was just mentions them in passing and then presenting the random accusations from someone on the RMB as evidence.

As far as I can tell.

No Fraud because he never actually attempted to deceive people with the use of three of the exact same name.

No Gross Misconduct was committed unless the two citizens accounts are run by the same person which is only a random accusation that an IP check DISMISSED as a possibility but was still added for seemingly no reason.

No Proxying, it is a stretch at best and coming to the court in bad faith at worst, since Accounts 1 & 3 have the same and Account 2 could entirely be explained by a Dynamic IP [cuz why in hell would you proxy to an IP address that points towards another one you are known by], and the JerryMVGA IP was pointed to by Admin Flem as a static non-proxy IP in a completely different part of the world so where in the world is the Proxying the AG refers to.

I broadly agree, but I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut.

Fraud I agree on - only if Eraver attempted to conceal owning the other accounts would that seem to be a viable charge, and with substantially similar names, that's... terrible concealment. If both citizenship accounts were owned by the same person, that would qualify, but as you said... the admin response was that they are not. (Note: I was not involved in the admin IP check that was requested, had not heard of it before today, and have not seen or sought out any additional details beyond what Flem told Goyanes).

Grosse Misconduct is kind of questionable. It's designed to provide a way to criminalize violations of the law which are not in and of themselves crimes. It's not designed as a catch-all "this person did a wrong", and the indictment doesn't contain any indication of other, non-criminal parts of the law that might have been broken. But if you want to get picky about it, if you did commit another crime, you also probably committed GM (since breaking the law is a violation of your oath).

Proxying... here's the tricky one. The law actually provides two ways in which someone can proxy:

a) using a proxy server to render themselves anonymous
2) any practice which allows a member multiple accounts

The second one is the issue here. Having multiple accounts is technically proxying. By my thinking, so might be the admins' policy of occasionally allowing multiple accounts. As an admin, and as someone who has multiple accounts, I think I need to recuse myself from making a decision on whether to accept this case, and on hearing the case if it is accepted.

As much as I believe I can be impartial, it is hard to deny that I have a vested interest in the outcome of these charges and any trial. I am willing to entertain arguments to the contrary, but otherwise I'll post my recusal shortly.

Put me down for a vote for Rejection.

Even if the AG pushes the links between the three. I am just drawn to the fact that Accounts 2 and 3 were only created. They never made posts anywhere. If they had been used then maybe you might have proxying with them but the fact they even the charge they were created entirely to cause problems in RMB RP, then its an issue for the RMP Moderation Staff & by extension Administration.

When it comes down to it we are being asked to make a decision on the links between Eraver and JerryMVGA. The "evidence" behind that link is just the baseless accusations of a mob of RMBers. And He outright LIED about the ties between the two in the court filing. He called it "inconclusive" like we were going to not read the actual message and read that the IP check came with the result that it was unlikely.

Our law doesn't require using a proxy server to qualify as proxying. By my reading, any possession of multiple accounts may be grounds for a charge. I don't think the fact that they didn't post is legally sound; the law makes no mention of posting or not posting when it defines proxying.

Edit: I probably have a conflict of interest on this too, so take that for what you will. Obviously I don't want "posting" to be the dividing line since I've posted with both of my forum accounts.

I agree with Lore's assertion on the fraud and Gross misconduct.

The fraud charge being that no proof was provided that there was any intent to deceive, it could be argued the complete opposite due to the use of the same name.

The gross misconduct charge being that the IP check was passed.

I do see the legal basis on the Proxying charge due to the "any practice" clause and the fact that the IP adresses of two of the accounts are shared, i do however see the problem being that the accounts don't have any posts, in my opinion the Proxying clause stands due to the "any practice" clause as stated above.

Edit: Reading Sillystrings prior, it could be seen that since the Proxying charge stands, so should the gross misconduct as it can occur because of negligence

Raw Discord log regarding this matter:

[1:17 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: @COE @Limerick1 There ya go
[1:18 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9188977/1/#new COE, all current discussion has been in this thread
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[1:28 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Ive also been reading through the constitution again and I have come to the opinion that to accept this Indictment would end up being a violation of the Bill of Rights. Specifically of #7 and #9.

"7: When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. [...]"

"9: [...] No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. [...]"

As Eraver aka Bill Kennedy has been confirmed to be banned from the forum for 3 years due to Terms of Service Violations ([REDACTED]), then to proceed with a trial as is would be denied a fair trial and would be forced to accept a trial in absentia, and due to Section 9 of the Bill of Rights we would be guilty of denying them due process by conducting a trial where they can not be heard.
[6:01 PM] COE: Well, it could be argued that it wouldn't be the governmental authorities of the region that were denying them the opportunity to be heard - it'd be the admin team
[6:12 PM] COE: I agree that the indictment should be rejected, but for different reasons
[6:12 PM] COE: I would reject it on substantive grounds: that the facts of the case clearly don't conform to gross misconduct or fraud, and that the charge of proxying is frivolous
[6:13 PM] COE: Since the duplicate accounts never even posted, much less registered to vote, there's no injury to anyone from them existing, and it doesn't rise to the level of criminal prosecution.
[6:16 PM] COE: I understand that this view could be criticized for passing judgment before the case is tried, but that criticism does not apply, since I am, for the sake of argument, accepting all the facts the AG has presented as given. Even if everything the AG says is true, the first two charges are still bogus, and the third one is not worth prosecuting
[7:46 PM] Limerick1: is share the opinion held by COE, the first two charges are false, and based on that the third is inconsequential to even try
[7:46 PM] Limerick1: I*
[7:55 PM] COE: In our denial of the indictment, I think the BOR argument is worth mentioning, but I don't think we should phrase it in a precedent-setting way.
[8:44 PM] Limerick1: well said
[11:04 PM] COE: OK, so how about something that reads like this:
The Court rejects the indictment of Bill Kennedy, on substantive and procedural grounds.

The charge of Fraud is not supported by the summary of events. The three accounts owned by the same player are all named very similarly - clearly no deception was intended or accomplished there. The JerryMVGA account is, by the best evidence presented, a different player, and so is irrelevant to the charges.

While it is true that "any practice which allows a member multiple accounts" meets the legal definition of Proxying (and, thereby, Gross Misconduct), the Court must draw a line somewhere. Sometimes, a charge is just too frivolous to hear in the Courtroom. In this case, the alleged multiple accounts are in the validating group, and have made no posts to date. On the face of it, no harm has been done, and the Court has determined that accepting these charges would be a gross overreaction to the offense.

On a procedural note, the fact that the accused is banned from the forum could constitute a violation of their right to a fair trial - in particular the opportunity to be heard. While there may be ways around that, there is no precedent for how to guarantee a forum-banned defendent a fair trial, and the Court would be venturing onto thin ice to do so. If the charges were weightier, that route might deserve more consideration.

The Court will reconsider this decision if an indictment is presented that can demonstrate that these are serious charges that are worthy of the Court's time and attention.
[11:04 PM] COE: Oh, forgot to put in Lore's rationale
[11:05 PM] COE: Stand by.
[11:09 PM] COE: OK, edited.
[11:34 PM] COE: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium @Limerick1 any suggestions?
[11:35 PM] COE: We're well past the three day timeframe that the court rules suggest.
[11:50 PM] Limerick1: i like it and the 3 day timeframe is under the best circumstances, we faced a recusal and a defendant being banned unfortunately
[9:46 AM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I have no objection
[10:45 PM] COE: Too late, looks like the charges have been dropped
[10:45 PM] COE: I guess we're done here then
[11:11 PM] COE: This chat should still be posted in the special chambers and archived, so that it will be declassified at the appropriate time though