The North Pacific v. Whole India

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
The Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India as filed by Dinoium, Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific.
Dinoium:
INDICTMENT

​
Defendant: Whole India
Plaintiff: The North Pacific

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

Criminal Acts: The Defendant committed an act of fraud by intentionally deceiving the public into believing a foreign dignitary warned them to suspend their campaign for the upcoming election in January.

Relevant Laws:
Section 1.3: Fraud
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
Specific Offense(s): Fraud

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s): Fraud: December 12th, 2019 - Present

Summary of Events: On October 30, 2019, Whole India submitted a drafted-proposal to the World Assembly’s Security Council calling for the condemnation of TBH Commander, the founder account of The Black Hawks region owned by the user of ‘Red Back’. The proposal had laid dormant not longer after Red Back addressed the accusations in the drafted proposal, calling for the proposal to be alternated to reflect his correction of the draft. Also around this time Red Back telegrammed Whole India to remove the “factually wrong” condemnation.

Despite Red Back’s wishes for it to be removed, Whole India redrafted the condemnation on November 15th, 2019 and once again submitted the condemnation. Also around this time, Whole India questioned why Red Back hadn’t organized a raid on The North Pacific yet. Red Back gave Whole India made a satirically, non-serious response saying that he could pull off such raid.

On December 10th, 2019, Whole India made a thread on the Elections sub forum, proclaiming their manifesto and platform for the Delegacy for the upcoming General election in January 2020. Within two days of their campaign declaration, Whole India announced that Red Back had warned him to leave the election.

After seeing the supposed warning, we detected that this disputed warning was done 26 days ago (now 27 days ago), the day that Red Back issued his satirical response. However, it is suspicious that Red Back requested for Whole India to suspend their campaign before it even began. We believe that Whole Island used their out-of-character browser application to alternate the message of Red Back to benefit theirselves and damage Red Back and The Black Hawks.

Supporting Evidence:
Condemn TBH Commander: http://web.archive.org/web/20191213223331/https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36402027
Red Back’s Response: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36402027#p36402027
Whole India’s Manifesto for WAD Election: http://web.archive.org/web/20191213223058/https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191420/
Full Discussion between Red Back and Whole India: https://imgur.com/az3AAmI
Condemn TBH Commander Redraft: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36437490#p36437490
Whole India’s claim of Red Back interacting with them: https://imgur.com/a/A3pc8LB
Red Back’s defense: https://imgur.com/9dBEJEb
Red Back’s Denial of Warning Whole India to withdraw: https://imgur.com/zmv5gfh

Conclusion and Recommendation:
The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.
Click to expand...

Representing The North Pacific will be Dinoium, Deputy Attorney General.

Representing the Defendant will be Whole India Deropia

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be Lady Raven Wing.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Fraud.

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.

The Defendant has pled Not Guilty.

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 assigned a representative until further notice.

The Defendant has indicated an intent to represent themselves.

Timetable:
  1. Evidence Submission (Monday December 16, 2019 - Sunday December 22, 2019).
  2. Recess (Monday December 23, 2019 - Friday December 27, 2019).
  3. Argumentation (Saturday December 28, 2019 - Wednesday January 1 2020).
  4. Deliberation (Thursday January 2, 2020 - Monday January 6, 2020.
  5. Sentencing (Tuesday January 7, 2020 - Saturday January 11, 2020).
 
Last edited:
Lady Raven Wing:
The Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Whole India as filed by Dinoium, Deputy Attorney General of The North Pacific.


Representing The North Pacific will be Dinoium, Deputy Attorney General.

Representing the Defendant will be

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be Lady Raven Wing.

The Defendant is charged with one count of Fraud.

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.
Click to expand...
I plea to the Court that I am Not Guilty
 
Whole India:
Well represent myself.
Click to expand...
Understood.

We will now move into the period of Evidence Submission, @Whole India & @Dinoium.

Do the Defendant or Prosecution have any evidence to present? Keep in mind the documentary requirements stipulated in the Court Rules and Procedures, Chapter 1 Section 3.
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7207426/

Evidence Submission will last for a period of 6 days. Extensions may be granted to this time if needed.

A rough timeline will be added promptly to the OP post, keeping in mind that it is subject to change by the Court's authority. A Christmas recess of 5 days is presently included. If the Defendant or Prosecution have problems with the timeline as given, please inform the me.
 
Last edited:
Your Honor, the prosecution has no opposition to the current schedule. And with that being said, the prosecution would like to submit three exhibits to the consideration of the court.

az3AAmI.png
xo3LeOt.jpg

Link to post.
9dBEJEb.png

Link to post.

Additionally, Your Honor, the prosecution would like to name @red back as a witness to verify Exhibit A and to testify regarding their full conversation between the 4th and the 15th of November 2019 in a separate deposition thread.

(As a side note: These screenshots were taken on Friday, December 13th, 2019, not yesterday, December 15th, 2019.)
 
As a note to the Prosecution @Dinoium, the Witness has been notified by forum PM and Nationstates tg. Appearance of the Witness for deposition is otherwise left to the Prosecution, as their called witness.
 
Lady Raven Wing:
Understood.

We will now move into the period of Evidence Submission, @Whole India & @Dinoium.

Do the Defendant or Prosecution have any evidence to present? Keep in mind the documentary requirements stipulated in the Court Rules and Procedures, Chapter 1 Section 3.
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7207426/

Evidence Submission will last for a period of 6 days. Extensions may be granted to this time if needed.

A rough timeline will be added promptly to the OP post, keeping in mind that it is subject to change by the Court's authority. A Christmas recess of 5 days is presently included. If the Defendant or Prosecution have problems with the timeline as given, please inform the me.
Click to expand...

https://i.imgur.com/Spqts2f.jpg
 
Whole India:
https://i.imgur.com/Spqts2f.jpg
Click to expand...
Whole India:
https://i.imgur.com/Spqts2f.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/x9XieB3.jpg
Proofs from our side of defense
Click to expand...
The prosecution objects to the defense’s evidence on two grounds:


While Whole India claims that he told Red Back that he wished to run, election season hadn’t already started. Plus, if Whole India said that 32 days ago, why was his election dispatch and election thread released way much after.

We also believe that Whole India alternated what Red Back said. These pictures were taken 5 days ago, meaning 26 days ago in that telegram was November 15th, the day Red Back supposedly told you how why TBH hadn’t raided TNP yet.

Whole India is using an OOC browser program of Google Chrome, which allows you to alternate your page temporarily but only for your screen by doing “Inspect Element”.

We also dispute the grammar of Red Back’s supposed message. “My third warning to you leave the election race.” We believe that Whole India alternated his post to benefit himself. However, this point is not grammarly correct. It should had been “My third warning to you is to the election race.” We believe this is relevant since Whole India has made plenty of grammar errors and we believe that Whole India alternated it without proof-reading and was in a rush.

We also question why Whole India hasn’t show the full conversation between himself and Red Back? We have showed our disputed full conversation thanks to Red Back and yet Whole India shows the most recent posts? We believe Whole India isn’t showing the full conversation to benefit his alternations.

In your supposed message to Red Back, the way you state that makes it seem like the election was then. Why only wait to make your thread and dispatch? They already came earlier than January 2020. The reason: Whole India never said that. He alternated it.

We call on the court to not accept Whole India’s evidence to the court record for the above following reasons. Thank you, Your Honor.
 
Thank you to the Defendant @Whole India for the evidence, which will now need to be authenticated.

When you say 'our,' is that to be taken by the Court that you know possess legal counsel? If not, while representing yourself is allowed, the Court will recommend that the Defendant have other legal counsel in order to better defend themselves. The Court is aware of at least one individual willing to offer such, if the Defendant will have them.
 
The Court recognizes the objection of the Prosecution. At this time, the objection shall be held pending the deposition of Red Back, and the Defendant @Whole India answering the following questions:

1. What explanation is there of the disrepenscy between the posting of the Defendant's campaign thread, and of the warning telegrams, particularly that the latter occurred weeks beforehand?

2. The Court wishes for the Defendant to produce the full conversation involving the warnings, showing both the telegram to Red Back and at least the initial response together. The telegram to Red Back and all warnings at once are preferred.
 
Last edited:
Lady Raven Wing:
The Court recognizes the objection of the Prosecution. At this time, the objection shall be held pending the deposition of Red Back, and the Defendant @Whole India answering the following questions:

1. What explanation is there of the disrepenscy between the posting of the Defendant's campaign thread, and of the warning telegrams, particularly that the latter occurred weeks beforehand?

2. The Court wishes for the Defendant to produce the full conversation involving the warnings, showing both the telegram to Red Back and at least the initial response together. The telegram to Red Back and all warnings at once are preferred.
Click to expand...

1] I didn't knew when the elections were going to start and secondly few weeks or so I asked Sundred about when election campaigning would start and he told me that I could do it right now and then I created the Dispatch and Thread. If the Court allows me Sundred Can be a Witness in the case.

2] Sadly my keyboard is damaged so if you wait for few days then when my new Keyboard is brought I will Send you the Entire Conversation.
 
Whole India:
1] I didn't knew when the elections were going to start and secondly few weeks or so I asked Sundred about when election campaigning would start and he told me that I could do it right now and then I created the Dispatch and Thread. If the Court allows me Sundred Can be a Witness in the case.

2] Sadly my keyboard is damaged so if you wait for few days then when my new Keyboard is brought I will Send you the Entire Conversation.
Click to expand...
1. You have not answered the question. The question is why the screenshots of telegrams from Red Back occurred 31 days ago, which is before the posting of your campaign thread and dispatch 7-8 days ago. The question is not why you posted the campaign thread and dispatch this recently. As such, the Court would like you to explain the relevance of the questions to Sundred regarding election timing to the matter of when Red Back's warning telegrams were sent.

2. The Evidence Submission period lasts until Sunday December 22, 2019 (subject to extensions if requested with demonstrated need). The Court has apportioned the time to wait for the conversation.
 
Just for the court record, the prosecution objects for Artemis (Sundred) being called as a witness in the nearby future of this case as it wouldn’t be impartial. They helped bring awareness that W.I. might had committed Fraud. It wouldn’t be right to have someone non-impartial to testify to the court as they might purposely have a bias against W.I.
 
Your Honour, I am pleased to inform the Court that a resolution has been negotiated in this case. My client, @Whole India, has instructed me to withdraw the Not Guilty plea previously entered with the Court. The Defence would enter a plea of Guilty at this time.

The Defence is ready to proceed to the Sentencing Phase, Your Honour.
 
The prosecution has no objection to moving right towards the sentencing phase. We wish to get this done before the new year.
 
Per the Court Rules & Procedures (Chapter 1, Section 3.6), the following is the official record of the Deposition of Red Back, as conducted here:
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191444/
Dinoium:
Thank you, Your Honor.

So greetings @red back. I know very much you don’t wish to get dragged into any court-related drama but it is necessary so we can authenticate some things.

Now, while you have already already informed us this, we need this for the official court record. Did you communicate with Whole India and if so, what was the timeline of the conversation?
Click to expand...

red back:
Hi All,

My communication started with Whole India around the 6th of November of this year (2019) when I became aware of a condemnation they had submitted to the Security Council. The submitted condemnation was aimed at me personally but listed a large amount of operations I had no part of in planning or running as I had not been active in raiding from around 2011. I posted on the forum thread in NationStates & also sent a message in game pointing this out. The conversation thread has been submitted into evidence unaltered. I have had no communication for about a month.

I have also made it known to Dinoium that if required I have no objections for a NationStates in game Mod confirming what I have submitted to be unaltered & all of our correspondence.
Click to expand...

Dinoium:
Thank you for confirming that you had such a conversation.

As for NS mods confirming, feel free. Though, for the moment, I’d prefer if you confirm the below evidence first before proceeding to NS moderation intervention.

Firstly, can you confirm that this conversation happened and if so, can you upload a more updated version of the full conversation?

Additionally to that, did this telegram happened?
Click to expand...

red back:
Dinoium:
Firstly, can you confirm that this conversation happened and if so, can you upload a more updated version of the full conversation?
Click to expand...
Yes, this conversation took place. This is the full conversation I had with Whole India & there has been no more correspondence since.
Click to expand...


Dinoium:
Additionally to that, did this telegram happened?
Click to expand...
red back:
I never received this message.
Click to expand...
 
The prosecution hereby submits the following sentencing recommendation to the consideration of the court.
HnlkOVD.png

Attorney General’s Joint Sentencing Recommendation for Whole India​


Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “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.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors

  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. 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. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...
 
The Defence humbly submits its sentencing recommendation to the Court for consideration.

[spoiler=
 
The defence humbly submits its sentencing recommendation to the court for consideration.

Joint Sentencing Recommendation - Defence:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation



  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “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.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. 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. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...
 
court_seal.png

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

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Lady Raven Wing and Lord Lore​

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

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...

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

Dinoium:
Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “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.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors
Click to expand...
Dinoium:
  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. 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. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...


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

Deropia:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation
Click to expand...
Deropia:
  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “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.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. 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. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...


The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Madjack:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.

Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.

Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.

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. Madjack
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 12, and Chapter 2, clause 1, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Whole India, be punished for Fraud by:

  1. A suspension of voting rights for a period of 75 days; and,
  2. A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before 1 May 2020.
The Defendant has committed Fraud, a serious crime. They did this by falsely claiming that an innocent nation had attempted to intimidate them in order to stop them running in the upcoming general election. They did so in order to damage the reputation of that innocent nation and to further their own prospects at that election.

In committing the crime, the Defendant, as well as making the false claim, also produced images purporting to show the attempted intimidation. Those images were produced by the Defendant to the Court, though the Defendant's plea was entered before they were authenticated. The conclusion the Court must draw from the Defendant's plea is that those images were doctored.

The Court has considered the recommendation made by the parties in this matter, but is driven to the conclusion that the recommendation does not produce a proportionate punishment. The Court notes the comparison made to the case The North Pacific v Madjack. While the Court considers the case is useful, the Court also bears in mind that there were two crimes being sentenced on that occasion, that the crime in that case was of greater seriousness and that there would have, had it been successful, be greater risk to the region from the crime. However, the Court also notes that final sentence reached in that case was with the Defendant having the benefit of substantial evidence of positive good character in contributing to the region, an early plea, and remorse: the starting point would clearly have been higher.

When accounting for the fact that the starting point in Madjack must have been significantly higher than the finish and that this crime is complete and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same, the Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence reached in Madjack.

This Defendant does have the mitigation of lacking previous conviction. They also entered a plea, which is to their benefit, though the Court does consider that this mitigation must be limited by the fact that it was done only after the injured party had been required to give evidence and after doctored images were submitted to the Court. Further, they are a new nation, though, again, the Court does consider the effect of this to be limited when set against the plainly deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Defendant. The Court does not consider that the lack of remorse constitutes an aggravating factor, but clearly it cannot benefit the Defendant.

Taking the above together, the Court considers that a suspension of voting rights for 75 days and a restriction on being a candidate in elections until 1 May 2020 is the proportionate punishment for the crime.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly 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 Whole India.
 
Last edited:
The Defence thanks the Court for rendering its verdict in such a timely matter.

In my capacity as Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly, I assure the Court that its sentence will be carried out forthwith.
 
As the sentence above was vacated on appeal, it has been struck on in the post. The new sentence as decided upon by the Court is below.
 
court_seal.png

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

Order drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Lady Raven Wing and Lord Lore
​
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code:

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...

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...

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

Dinoium:
Your Honours,

The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Pursuant Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “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.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

Aggravating Factors

  1. Since the commission of the offence, the Defendant has shown no remorse for their actions.
  2. The Defendant is a new member of the community, during a time in which new citizens are normally on their best behaviour, the Defendant willfully comitted fraud in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

Mitigating Factors

  1. The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  2. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.

Comparison to Similar Cases

In TNP V. 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. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.


General Comments

The office of the Attorney General asks the court to impose a punishment that wouldn’t fully restrict their eligibility to repair their reputation and continue to become an upstanding citizen of the region. The Procecution also believes that a lighter sentence is nessicary as the Defence negotiated in good faith and brought this trial to a speedy resolution after the Defendant was informed by counsel of the high probability of conviction.

Final Recommendation

With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel agree that Whole India’s sentence should be: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing (or barring from the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)

Thank you,

Dinoium, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General of TNP
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. Whole India’
Click to expand...

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

Deropia:
Your Honours,



The representatives of the state of The North Pacific and the legal counsel of Whole India have reached a plea agreement in which the prosecution and the defence will issue a Joint Sentencing Recommendation



  1. 12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.


Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific, “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.” While there is no legally defined punishment for fraud, by precedence, fraud is punishable by “suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”





Mitigating Factors



  • The Defendant has no previous criminal record.
  • Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice the Defendant changed their plea to Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court.
  • My client, @Whole India, is a new member of the community, and as such is not accustomed to our laws and perhaps did not appreciate the consequences of their actions.


Comparison to Similar Cases



In TNP V. 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. While MadJack did admittedly had also some more serious charges before agreeing to a plea deal, he did violate the law in order to benefit themselves during an election period, specifically the delegacy.



General Comments



As counsel for the Defendant, I would ask that the Court accept the joint recommendation put forth by my colleague and I. My clients admission of guilt has saved the Court and its officers a considerable amount of time and resources by doing so. I would also ask that the Court show leniency to Whole India, and impose a sentence that will not interfere with his ability to reintegrate into the community and does not deter continued participation from the Defendant.



Final Recommendation



With the presented precedence, mitigating factors, and comments, the Attorney General and the Defense Counsel have agreed to put forth a Joint Recommendation regarding sentencing: The Defendants voting rights be restricted for a period of 31 days from the date of sentencing and, considering that the offence took place while advertising a campaign for public office, that the Defendant also be barred from holding a public office a period of 93 days from the date of sentencing. (or barring them from participation in the upcoming General and Judicial elections in January and March respectively.)



Thank you,



Deropia, Esq.

Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly of TNP

Counsel for the Defendant, @Whole India
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration its decision on sentence in The North Pacific v Madjack:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.

Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.

Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.

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. Madjack
Click to expand...

The Court finds as follows:

Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, clause 12, and Chapter 2, clause 1, the Court sees fit that the Defendant, Whole India, be punished for Fraud by:

  1. A suspension of voting rights for a period of 70 days, with credit to be given for 40 days already served, leaving 30 days left to be served; and,
  2. A restriction on being a candidate in any election commencing before 1 May 2020.
The Defendant has committed Fraud, a serious crime. They did this by falsely claiming that an innocent nation had attempted to intimidate them in order to stop them running in the upcoming general election. They did so in order to damage the reputation of that innocent nation and to further their own prospects at that election.

The Court has considered the recommendation made by the parties in this matter, but is driven to the conclusion that the recommendation does not produce a proportionate punishment. The Court notes the comparison made to the case The North Pacific v Madjack. While the Court considers the case is useful, the Court also bears in mind that there were two crimes being sentenced on that occasion, that the crime in that case was of greater seriousness and that there would have, had it been successful, be greater risk to the region from the crime. However, the Court also notes that final sentence reached in that case was with the Defendant having the benefit of substantial evidence of positive good character in contributing to the region, an early plea, and remorse: the starting point would clearly have been higher.

When accounting for the fact that the starting point in Madjack must have been significantly higher than the finish and that this crime is complete and would be expected to attract a higher sentence than a conspiracy to do the same, the Court considers that the appropriate starting point for the sentence would have been similar to the final sentence reached in Madjack.

This Defendant does have the mitigation of lacking previous conviction. They also entered a plea, which is to their benefit, though the Court does consider that this mitigation must be limited by the fact that it was done only after the injured party had been required to give evidence, which could have resulted in them being liable for prosecution had the Defendant continued, and succeeded in, their denial of guilt. Further, they are a new nation, though, again, the Court does consider the effect of this to be limited when set against the plainly deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Defendant. The Court does not consider that the lack of remorse constitutes an aggravating factor, but clearly it cannot benefit the Defendant.

Taking the above together, the Court considers that a suspension of voting rights for 70 days and a restriction on being a candidate in elections until 1 May 2020 is the proportionate punishment for the crime.The Court notes that, though the original sentence handed down in this matter has been vacated, the Defendant and the region at large has proceeded on the basis that that sentence was effective. The Court considers that the Defendant should be given credit for the time that they have served on that basis and does not consider it necessary, in so doing, to decide whether the sentence was void from the outset or not. This calls for credit of 40 days to be given in connection with the suspension of voting rights; no credit is required to be noted for the restriction on candidacy in elections, due to the form of the order. While the Defendant has accrued a notional benefit in being able to stand for elections in the period between the original sentence being vacated and this sentence being handed down, no election has in fact occurred in that period and the Court does not consider any adjustment of the date is required given that the notional benefit has not translated into any real benefit.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly 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 Whole India.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top