19 January 2020
[6:31 AM] The Bestest of Persons:
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191616/ - So this is something to watch, since it mentions that the AG has been consulted about bringing charges. I must question weather I have a conflict in any trials from this due to my seat on the security council.
[6:34 AM] Justice Death: I've been musing on whether my known dislike for CCD qualifies as a conflict of interest or not
[6:35 AM] The Bestest of Persons: I mean if general dislike qualified then there would be not qualified justices in any case.
[6:36 AM] Justice Death: True
[7:05 AM] Justice Death:
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6989211/page-6#post-10299385
The North Pacific
Court Filings
The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.
[7:07 AM] Justice Death:
The Bestest of PersonsToday at 12:31 AM
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191616/ - So this is something to watch, since it mentions that the AG has been consulted about bringing charges. I must question weather I have a conflict in any trials from this due to my seat on the security council.
I can see it both ways. On the one level, SC is certainly important in things like these for future bans and regional security/etc, but on the other the Court & SC dont strictly operate in the same space, in that SC is more external threats coming in, and we're more about possible internal threats
[7:09 AM] Justice Death: Clarification note on my recusal thing, I meant more in the direction that I wrote the Liberation for the region, though thinking on it, that isn't much different in scope than general dislike.
[11:53 AM] Zyvet: I think in the first place the question of recusal would seem to be a matter for each of you. In broad terms, I don't think a dislike of CCD gives rise to a conflict of interest, realistically it must be looked at relative to the other prospective members of the panel, and all or almost all would be considered to have a conflict if a dislike of CCD was sufficient. If the defendants wish to raise it and request recusal, that is a matter for them, but I don't think it is required at this stage.
In relation to the SC, I don't see that being on the SC necessarily creates a conflict of interest, though I can see that there is an argument when the SC is or may be taking action in relation to the defendant or may have access to information and evidence the parties and court are not privy to, from the perspective of potential inability to rule in a fair manner. Naturally, I can't say what steps the SC taking or what information it has, but I don't think that there is, in principle, a problem with saying one can consider information in one capacity and put it out of one's mind for another (that is the approach the Court takes to evidence that is excluded, given the Court must consider it in one capacity in order to exclude it). I think it is more difficult, but if you consider you can deal with the matter fairly, I don't see a need to recuse and, as above, recusal can be requested if the parties wish in any event.
[12:04 PM] Zyvet: On the indictments themselves, I have not yet had opportunity to consider the screenshots and I think there may be a procedural issue with respect to the AG’s involvement that I would like to consider.
However, the pre-trial ejections and bans may be approved by a single justice and that seems to me to be separate from the question of whether the indictment itself is accepted. Further, no procedural question arises with regard to the Delegate presenting requests for such ejections and bans.
The test for pre-trial ejections and bans is whether the proposed defendant “poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.”. If either of you considers that test to be met, I would see no issue in you approving the ejections and bans pending decision on the indictment.
[12:40 PM] Zyvet: (I should say, I am considering the screenshots now)
[1:36 PM] Zyvet: I have looked at the screenshots. I will set out my thoughts somewhat more fully later, but I think that the evidence is such that the charges of treason and gross misconduct can be made out and should, subject to procedural questions, be accepted. As to the charges of espionage, I think that I wish to consider further. I have not thought through the procedural point fully and would want to consider that further also.
On the pre-trial ejections and bans, as I have noted above, I think that it is proper for this decision to be taken by a single justice and that it is strictly separate from the question of whether the indictment should be accepted. I think, on the evidence, I am satisfied that the ejections and bans should be approved and I will approve them.
[7:35 PM] Justice Death: I'll take a look at the evidence later, as I need to get an email not with my name on it real quick, but otherwise will trust the judgement of you two in regards to indictment acceptance if I'm slow
[7:36 PM] Justice Death: Incidentally, there's a certain possibility of UM also being indicted, which could potentially mean a trial for each of us
[11:17 PM] Zyvet: So, the procedural questions that I want to consider are mainly concerned with the Attorney General issue.
While the Legal Code provisions concerned with the Attorney don’t strictly prevent someone other than the Attorney taking steps to manage a prosecution, I think the implication of them is probably that they do (unless the Attorney refuses to take on a complaint). I think that there is an argument to say that the Delegate, when they are seeking approval for ejections and bans, is an exception to that and that would probably be my view.
However, I think that it is still clear from the Constitution that the Attorney has the discretion to manage a case started by someone else which the Attorney has not previously refused to manage. I would be minded to say, therefore, that we should seek clarification from the Attorney as to whether they will be managing the prosecution.
[11:17 PM] Justice Death: I agree
[11:39 PM] Zyvet: I also am not sure that it would be appropriate to require a defendant to answer an indictment which is supported by non-public evidence. Our initial consideration of the indictment, perhaps, but should it be approved it would seem to me that the evidence it is based on must be made available.
[11:46 PM] Justice Death: I would agree. At minimum the Defendant & any Counsel need access, though effectively I can't imagine much in this instance that would be alright for them to see but not the public
21 January 2020
[5:09 AM] Zyvet: On the substance of the indictments and evidence.
Re: Artemizistan.
On treason, I think I am quite sure that the charge can be made out. The images produced plainly show involvement in a plan to overthrow the regional government. I think it is maybe questionable as to whether they took arms against the region, but it would seem to me that it is arguable and, in any event, it seems clear to me that serving as an agent of a foreign government is providing material support.
On gross misconduct, this, essentially, follows from the conclusions above. The underlying facts in relation to the treason charge readily support a breach of any oath they may have sworn. I did consider whether there is some evidential issue in that the oath itself is not exhibited, but it seems to me that it is so easily provable as to whether they did or did not swear an oath that it should not lead to refusal of an indictment.
On espionage, this is where I have the greatest difficulty. It is not clear to me that there is any point in the evidence where they share any specific information (that would not otherwise be public). I think that one could draw the inference from the evidence that sharing of information occurred (particularly given that Jocospor repeatedly asks for reports), but I am not sure if I think that would be sufficient on its own to say that it merited trial. However, given that a trial will proceed in any event (presuming one of you agree on the other charges), I think I may be prepared to say this charge should be allowed, as other evidence may well shed further light on it, but it seems to me to be the weakest of the charges.
[5:09 AM] Zyvet: Re: Ikea Rike.
On treason, again I am satisfied that this can be made out. I think this is, perhaps, clearer than in relation to Artemizistan as to taking up arms, given that endorsement gathering was involved, but as above I think it certainly is material support.
On gross misconduct, I think this can be made out on the same basis as treason for the reasons stated in relation to Artemizistan.
On espionage, I think this is the difficult one in relation to Ikea Rike as well. There seems to be more obvious information sharing but it seems to me that it is all information that would not attract criminal penalty, as I think it is all public. However, for the reasons I noted in relation to Artemizistan, I would be prepared to allow this to go to trial on the inference (which, to be fair, I think is a stronger inference on the evidence here), given that the other charges would be tried in any event.
[5:14 AM] Zyvet: @The Bestest of Persons what is your view in relation to seeking clarification from the AG and the evidence being made public when the indictment is accepted.
Are there views from either of you in relation to SHOs and to the issue of moderating. I would be minded to say that I would like to moderate one of the trials. In relation to SHOs, given that he appears to be consistently willing and available, I would be minded to say Dreadton again; the other THOs dealing with the Whole India matter might also make good choices, given they will be around anyway to attend to that and seem to be willing to do court stuff
[5:15 AM] Justice Death: Those individuals would seem reasonable to myself as well
[5:16 AM] Justice Death: I'm willing to moderate, but defer to Lore on if they wish to (given I had the last one, presuming for the moment UM doesn't end up on trial)
[5:16 AM] Justice Death: I would agree on treason & gross misconduct for the both of them
[5:18 AM] Justice Death: With espionage, I think the weakness is relatively fine, as there seems to be some indication the argument can at least be made (eg, the request for reports for example) and more generally it seems alright to me that charges can be tried with weak evidence so long as there is some form pf argument that can be made with it.
[5:20 AM] Justice Death: Also, they'll be on trial anyways as you said, which would make points regarding reputation damage or the like rather moot
[5:21 AM] Zyvet: I think that is, perhaps, the point. There is a difference, I think between asking whether the charge would merit trial in a context with other charges and in a context where it is without, given that many of the factors which would weigh against a trial exist in any event
[5:25 AM] Justice Death: I think I'm generally more willing to let weaker evidence slide on a lesser (than treason) charge, since they'll be on trial anyways for bigger crimes (treason).
That said, I can see your point, and I'm admittedly torn, if slightly leaning towards letting the espionage charges go ahead
[6:48 PM] The Bestest of Persons: Sorry about my recent little stint of quietness. I have been quite sick recently irl and have been spending most of my free time in drug induced sleep. I concur with the assessments made by you two so far, I could attempt to moderate a case if needed but it will probably be a little slow due to my current irl state.
[6:50 PM] The Bestest of Persons: Personally from what I see I doubt there will be any UM trial the delegacy isn't really pushing it and I doubt that the AG will take it up on their own.
[10:56 PM] Zyvet: Right then, I will seek the confirmation of the Attorney General as to their role in these matters.
[11:10 PM] Justice Death: Noted
[11:37 PM] Zyvet: Apparently they will be managed by Dinoium, I expect a post to that effect will be made soon enough.
[11:38 PM] Zyvet: Lore, would it be preferable, in the circumstances, for LRW to moderate?
22 January 2020
[12:58 AM] Zyvet: To note, I have asked the potential SHOs as to their willingness
[1:00 AM] Zyvet: Asta is out due to involvement in evidence handling
[1:00 AM] Zyvet: Dreadton is in
[6:31 AM] The Bestest of Persons: Honestly my health is taking a down swing. I will be active enough to assist, review and etc but right now I dont think I could run a case effectively.
[6:01 PM] Zyvet: That is wholly understandable, real life must come first
[11:47 PM] Zyvet: So, in terms of where we are. I think we are for accepting both indictments in full, with a direction requiring the evidence to be made public (linked to that, I think it would make sense to say that the plea submission periods should not start until the evidence is made public).
In relation to moderating, do you have a preference for Defendant, LRW?
In relation to SHOs, I'm going to see if Artemis responds soon, but if not then I am minded to go with Dreadton for both.
[11:54 PM] Zyvet: Alternatively, I suppose, would be requiring the evidence to be made public then accepting the indictments, that way there is not weirdness with regard to the trials themselves
[11:55 PM] Justice Death: I have no preference for a particular Defendant
[11:57 PM] Justice Death: I think in concrete terms, it'd be best to accept the indictments, with evidence being made public as a precondition of the trial beginning
23 January 2020
[3:40 PM] Zyvet: The Court accepts the above indictments filed in the cases of Ikea Rike and Artemizistan.
Having regard to the right of each Defendant to a fair, impartial, and public trial and the need for them to know the evidence against them in order to decide what plea to enter, the Court directs that the evidence contained in the indictments must be made public.
[heads=I will/tails=I appoint LRW to] moderate the trial of Ikea Rike. [tails=I will/heads=I appoint LRW to] moderate the trial of Artemizistan. I name Dreadton to be Standby Hearing Officer in relation to each trial.
@Court does the above seem appropriate for the decision to accept the indictments and require publication of the evidence
[4:51 PM] Justice Death: It looks good to me
[8:57 PM] The Bestest of Persons: To me as well
24 January 2020
[4:38 AM] Zyvet: Right, I will post it shortly. I think it would make sense for me and you (LRW) to agree a form of words for the notifications as to the charges and, when the time comes, the trial thread opening, so that it is clear that the publication of the evidence has been ordered and that the Defendants need not respond until it is published. However, I need to sleep and then do RL stuff in the morning, so I think "prompt" in the circumstances calls for a little delay.
I would be grateful if you could rework the notices you sent for the Whole India case so as to achieve the above aim and post them (either here or on the forum) so I can have look and we can agree and hopefully send them relatively quickly.
[4:39 AM] Justice Death: Right-o
[4:42 AM] Justice Death:
Hello [defendant's name].
You have been indicted on one count each of Treason, Gross Misconduct, and Espionage, and now stand trial in the North Pacific in the following thread:
[thread link]
You have 48 hours from the posting of that thread to inform the Court as to your plea of guilty or not guilty. Additionally, you may seek Legal Counsel in your defense, otherwise you shall be assumed to be representing yourself. Both of these actions must be posted in the thread linked.
~[justice name], [Chief/Associate] Justice of TNP & Moderating Justice in this case
[4:43 AM] Justice Death: At the moment it is missing changes in regards to any delays being made from delayed evidence release
