[Private] TNP v Slatos

I will momentarily note the acceptance of the indictment. The discussion of that decision is below.

February 11, 2020

[4:32 AM] Justice Death: Seeing as Max hates us, we have yet another indictment @Zyvet @The Bestest of Persons
forum.thenorthpacific.org

Court Filings

The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
The North Pacific
Court Filings
The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.
[4:54 AM] The Bestest of Persons: Yeah. I am in favor of accepting it.

I should be able to deal oversee this one if you want me to.
[4:58 AM] Justice Death:That'd be good, especially since you haven't had one yet :yum:
[4:59 AM] Justice Death: Honestly at this rate I fully expect Artemiz to run into the next term
[9:41 AM] Zyvet: It seems fairly obvious to me that the charge can be made out on the evidence. Being the lead in a raid seems self-evidently to be "taking arms", whether it is also "material support" to Slatos' region seems unnecessary to decide but I would think that it is. The purpose, particularly given Stargate's founderlessness, can be readily concluded to be to undermine or overthrow its government. Not entirely sure whether Stargate's being an ally is a question of law or fact but, either way, it is question with an obvious answer.

@The Bestest of Persons I would be minded to appoint you to moderate. As to the SHO, I do not think it should be Dreadton, given that he provided some evidence to the AG. I would be minded to see whether Artemis or SillyString would be SHO, were it not for the fact that I imagine Dero will end up as defence counsel I would suggest them as well
[10:39 AM] Zyvet: And, on further reflection, also the fact that he is Speaker and can't be a THO would be a concern :P
[4:36 PM] The Bestest of Persons: I think the AG should be requested to stop putting indictments in quotes inside the posts. Given the new forum it makes it very inconvenient to get the information from inside the box.
[4:42 PM] The Bestest of Persons: I also noticed that the Deputy AG invented a new word. "Treatied"
[4:44 PM] Justice Death: Personally I've been using the edit button to get their post directly (and hitting cancel afterwards to not screw with the post)
[4:44 PM] Justice Death: Anyways, indictment seems good
[4:45 PM] The Bestest of Persons: Yeah but if they didn't put it inside the quote you could just hit the quote button on the post and insert it directly into a new thread
[4:48 PM] Justice Death: Yea
[4:56 PM] Zyvet: Given Artemis has posted a motion for a declaration of war against Slatos, I think that they may be out as SHO
[4:56 PM]Zyvet: <.<
[4:57 PM] Justice Death: Lol
[4:57 PM] The Bestest of Persons:I would suggest Sil Dorsett but they would probably stab anyone who asked them to get near the court again
[5:03 PM] The Bestest of Persons: @Zyvet Bootsie might work if you can talk them into it.
[5:04 PM] Zyvet: Sil is quick on the draw and willing, so I would be minded to go with them
[5:06 PM] Justice Death: We might need to lower the limitations on THOs at this rate
[5:07 PM] Justice Death: Though that's not something we specifically can do
[5:07 PM] The Bestest of Persons: Before we pull the trigger. Is there a template for notifying people over Telegram/PM or is it more a wing it situation.
[5:08 PM] Justice Death: For defendants?
[5:11 PM] The Bestest of Persons: Yeah
[5:12 PM] Justice Death:

Hello [defendant's name].

You have been indicted on [charges], 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

[5:12 PM] Justice Death: Made this for WI, I believe it's been approximately used for Artem & Ikea
[...]
[5:17 PM] Zyvet: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191617/#post-10299995
Was the variant used in the Artem and Ikea RIke trials
[...]
[...]
[5:18 PM] Zyvet: (The additions of relevance are specifying that the Court may appoint counsel if the Defendant does not and that, if the Defendant does not respond, NG will be entered and counsel appointed)
[5:18 PM] Justice Death: Ah, right
[5:18 PM] Justice Death: Forgot about those bits

[...]

[5:29 PM] The Bestest of Persons: I'm going to go out of the house if you need my input or get ready to accept the slatos indictment, ping me and I will get back asap
[5:31 PM] Justice Death: :thumbsup:

[...]

February 12, 2020

[12:59 AM] Zyvet: @The Bestest of Persons I will note the acceptance of the indictment in Slatos soon
(NB: Lady Raven Wing is Justice Death and Lord Lore is The Bestest of Persons; omissions are made from the above log in relation to discussions of the trials of Ikea Rike and Artemizistan.)
 
A thread has been created for this case here

Notification has been given through the proper channels and in addition to the Defendant and Prosecution through the Forum's native pinging mechanism.
 
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303562 - Recommendation of the Defense

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303725 - Recommendation of the Prosecution

I am of the opinion to grand the Defense's sentencing recommendation. The difference between recommendation is negligible and the Prosecution bases their reasoning entirely on a case that doesn't have any parallel or value in comparison.

The Defense cites precedent that is actually relevant while the Ag's office cites TNP vs Madjack which did not end in any Treason or Conspiracy to Commit Treason charges. I can come up with a draft of sentencing when I get home from work if we are all in agreement.
 
I think that I would be minded to go with the defence recommendation, except that I would not impose any removal of citizenship, as the Defendant's citizenship has been removed, or removal from office, as they cannot hold office without being a citizen and as no strangeness of mandatory penalty arises. It should also be noted of course, that some elements of the punishment in Ikea Rike were for the other crimes, however, I think that overall this strikes me as a case where the penalty for treason should be similar.

In terms of the crime, I think this should clearly be considered a "taking arms" type treason. I think that in principle the level of the crime is lower than in Ikea Rike as it seems that the Defendant is essentially naive and foolish (as opposed to coming to TNP only to commit the crime), the crime was for a brief period, and, as in Ikea Rike, there was no actual harm. Nonetheless, I think that a similar penalty is appropriate, when set against the fact that the Defendant here does not have demonstrable remorse, albeit that they have entered a guilty plea and, essentially, admitted the crime before charges were brought. I would perhaps take issue with "The Defendant recognizes that they acted inappropriately in regards to their attempted raid on Stargate ", from the Defence recommendation, plainly the conduct is more than inappropriate.

As has been noted, the prosecution reference to Madjack is of almost no relevance and I would say that that should be noted in the order.

I would be happy for you to draft the order, @Lord Lore.
 
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 Lord Lore, joined by​

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

Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, Greater Dienstad, The East Pacific, Balder and Europe.

Chapter 2: Penal Code
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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

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

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303562


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

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303725


And at the request of the Prosecution and Defense we took further into consideration the precedent set by the sentencing of Ikea Rike and Madjack.

Trial of Ikea Rike

Trial of Madjack

After careful consideration the Court under guidance of Chapter 2, Clauses 1 & 2 sees fit that the Defendant, Slatos, be sentenced with:
  • Ejection and Banning for a period of 90 days, ending on [x date];
  • Removal of Citizenship;
  • Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days, ending on [x date + 90 days];
  • Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 180 days, ending on [x date + 180 days]
  • Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 180 days, ending on [x date + 180 days]
The Defendant has committed the grievous crime of Treason. They did so by taking up arms against The North Pacific treaty ally of Stargate.

While actions of the Defendant can be described as unusual, the Court has seen no evidence that they joined The North Pacific with the malicious intent to commit the crime.

Furthermore, after review the Court believes that the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike holds the greatest connection in Precedent to this case, and as such the Court believes that a comparable sentence be handed down to the Treason sentencing in The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike.
 
There is duplication of the citizenship ban in the sentence, the 180 one should presumably be the right to seek and hold office.

In relation to office and voting rights, the defence suggest that the sentence become effective in gaining citizenship and that would seem appropriate to me, so, presuming you are agreed, the language around commencement of them should reflect that.

I have some suggestions for alteration of the body of the order.
The Court has considered the recommendations of the prosecution and the defence and has concluded that the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike has the greatest similarity to this case. They relate to the same crime and in neither case did harm result.

However, unlike in that case, the Court has seen no evidence that this Defendant joined The North Pacific with the malicious intent to commit the crime nor any suggesting any longer term commission of the crime. The Defendant does benefit from an early guilty plea but there is no comparable demonstration of remorse and the Court is not satisfied that the Defendant is remorseful.

Balancing those points, the Court considers that a comparable sentence to the Treason sentencing in The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike is appropriate.
The last paragraph is broken into two and the first half moved to be above the second paragraph, which seemed to me to be a counterpoint to the circumstances of the Ikea Rike case. I have also expanded somewhat on the second paragraph.
 
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 Lord Lore and Zyvetskistaahn, joined by​

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

Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, Greater Dienstad, The East Pacific, Balder and Europe.

Chapter 2: Penal Code
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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

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

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303562


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

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303725


And at the request of the Prosecution and Defense we took further into consideration the precedent set by the sentencing of Ikea Rike and Madjack.

Trial of Ikea Rike

Trial of Madjack

After careful consideration the Court under guidance of Chapter 2, Clauses 1 & 2 sees fit that the Defendant, Slatos, be sentenced with:
  • Ejection and Banning for a period of 90 days, ending on [x date];
  • Removal of Citizenship;
  • Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days, ending on [x date + 90 days];
  • Removal of the right to seek and hold government office for a period of 180 days, ending on [x date + 180 days]
  • Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 180 days, ending on [x date + 180 days]
The Court has considered the recommendations of the prosecution and the defence and has concluded that the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike has the greatest similarity to this case. They relate to the same crime and in neither case did harm result.

However, unlike in that case, the Court has seen no evidence that this Defendant joined The North Pacific with the malicious intent to commit the crime nor any suggesting any longer term commission of the crime. The Defendant does benefit from an early guilty plea but there is no comparable demonstration of remorse and the Court is not satisfied that the Defendant is remorseful.

Balancing those points, the Court considers that a comparable sentence to the Treason sentencing in The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike is appropriate.

Personally I don't agree with the recommendation of "x days after gaining citizenship". Adds a variable that could technically be infinate that the Speaker's office and Election Commission could have to have on their books until the magic day when he decides to gain citizenship again. Unless there is a hard end date I rather just default it to an x number of days after the banning ends. I do agree with your version of body, a little easier to read.
 
Last edited:
I would have in mind something along the lines of:

"Suspension of the right to vote, commencing when the Defendant attains citizenship and lasting for a period of 180 days or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner, provided that if the Defendant attains citizenship after 31 August 2021 there will be no suspension of this right." (with the same for seeking and holding office)

Rather than a wholly open ended restriction, but I do not have a strong preference and would be content to go with what is drafted.
 
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 Lord Lore and Zyvetskistaahn, joined by​

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

Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, Greater Dienstad, The East Pacific, Balder and Europe.

Chapter 2: Penal Code
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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

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

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303562


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

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191772/post-10303725


And at the request of the Prosecution and Defense we took further into consideration the precedent set by the sentencing of Ikea Rike and Madjack.

Trial of Ikea Rike

Trial of Madjack

After careful consideration the Court under guidance of Chapter 2, Clauses 1 & 2 sees fit that the Defendant, Slatos, be sentenced with:
  • Ejection and Banning for a period of 90 days, ending on [x date];
  • Removal of Citizenship;
  • Removal of the right to seek and hold citizenship for a period of 90 days after the banning period, ending on [x date + 90 days];
  • Removal of the right to seek and hold government office for a period of 180 days after gaining citizenship, or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner;
  • Suspension of the right to vote for a period of 180 days after gaining citizenship, or until 31 August 2021 whichever shall be sooner.
The Court has considered the recommendations of the prosecution and the defence and has concluded that the case of The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike has the greatest similarity to this case. They relate to the same crime and in neither case did harm result.

However, unlike in that case, the Court has seen no evidence that this Defendant joined The North Pacific with the malicious intent to commit the crime nor any suggesting any longer term commission of the crime. The Defendant does benefit from an early guilty plea but there is no comparable demonstration of remorse and the Court is not satisfied that the Defendant is remorseful.

Balancing those points, the Court considers that a comparable sentence to the Treason sentencing in The North Pacific v. Ikea Rike is appropriate.
 
Subject to the inclusion of the formal parts at the end of the order (below), I am content with the most recent draft.

The Delegate, 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 Slatos.
 
[23:32] Lady Justice: Seeing as Max hates us, we have yet another indictment @Zyvet @The Bestest of Persons
forum.thenorthpacific.org

Court Filings

The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
The North Pacific
Court Filings
The request for indictment is accepted. I will be the moderating justice.

[23:54] The Bestest of Persons: Yeah. I am in favor of accepting it.

I should be able to deal oversee this one if you want me to.
[23:58] Lady Justice: That'd be good, especially since you haven't had one yet :yum:
[04:41] Zyvet: It seems fairly obvious to me that the charge can be made out on the evidence. Being the lead in a raid seems self-evidently to be "taking arms", whether it is also "material support" to Slatos' region seems unnecessary to decide but I would think that it is. The purpose, particularly given Stargate's founderlessness, can be readily concluded to be to undermine or overthrow its government. Not entirely sure whether Stargate's being an ally is a question of law or fact but, either way, it is question with an obvious answer.

@The Bestest of Persons I would be minded to appoint you to moderate. As to the SHO, I do not think it should be Dreadton, given that he provided some evidence to the AG. I would be minded to see whether Artemis or SillyString would be SHO, were it not for the fact that I imagine Dero will end up as defence counsel I would suggest them as well
[05:39] Zyvet: And, on further reflection, also the fact that he is Speaker and can't be a THO would be a concern :P
[11:36] The Bestest of Persons: I think the AG should be requested to stop putting indictments in quotes inside the posts. Given the new forum it makes it very inconvenient to get the information from inside the box.
[11:42] The Bestest of Persons: I also noticed that the Deputy AG invented a new word. "Treatied"
[11:44] Lady Justice: Personally I've been using the edit button to get their post directly (and hitting cancel afterwards to not screw with the post)
[11:44] Lady Justice: Anyways, indictment seems good
[11:45] The Bestest of Persons: Yeah but if they didn't put it inside the quote you could just hit the quote button on the post and insert it directly into a new thread
[11:48] Lady Justice: Yea
[11:56] Zyvet: Given Artemis has posted a motion for a declaration of war against Slatos, I think that they may be out as SHO
[11:56] Zyvet: <.<
[11:57] Lady Justice: Lol
[11:57] The Bestest of Persons: I would suggest Sil Dorsett but they would probably stab anyone who asked them to get near the court again
[12:03] The Bestest of Persons: @Zyvet Bootsie might work if you can talk them into it.
[12:04] Zyvet: Sil is quick on the draw and willing, so I would be minded to go with them
[12:06] Lady Justice: We might need to lower the limitations on THOs at this rate
[12:07] Lady Justice: Though that's not something we specifically can do
[12:07] The Bestest of Persons: Before we pull the trigger. Is there a template for notifying people over Telegram/PM or is it more a wing it situation.
[12:08] Lady Justice: For defendants?
[12:11] The Bestest of Persons: Yeah
[12:12] Lady Justice:
Hello [defendant's name].

You have been indicted on [charges], 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
[12:12] Lady Justice: Made this for WI, I believe it's been approximately used for Artem & Ikea
[12:29] The Bestest of Persons: I'm going to go out of the house if you need my input or get ready to accept the slatos indictment, ping me and I will get back asap
[12:31] Lady Justice: :thumbsup:
[19:59] Zyvet: @The Bestest of Persons I will note the acceptance of the indictment in Slatos soon
[20:19] Zyvet: For consideration, though I think that my view is that it is not an issue that causes much difficulty, the evidence that comprises of a link to the citizens discord is, perhaps, not public evidence, in the sense that it cannot be seen by residents. I am not sure whether it makes a substantial difference (certainly I do not think that it causes an issue requiring the measures taken for the Ikea Rike and Artemizistan matters), particularly given that the message linked to is also exhibited by a screenshot, but it may require some thought
[20:20] Zyvet: (indictment accepted)
[20:31] The Bestest of Persons: @Zyvet just had to wait until i decided to pick up an extra shift at work and left the house :p
[20:32] Zyvet: Got 'em
[20:34] The Bestest of Persons: I will post the thread and send out the messages as soon as i get home. ~1:30am est
[09:57] Zyvet: "I plea guilty on a charges of treason.

Though I would still like to defend myself"
<.<
[11:47] Zyvet: Sil has came to the view that he can no longer be SHO, as he would be required to recuse. I am of the view that it is in my discretion to designate another SHO in the circumstances and I think I will go with SillyString
[14:25] The Bestest of Persons: Should I accept the guilty plea or ask for clarification on if they plan to defend themselves or plead guilty
[14:35] The Bestest of Persons: I asked for clarification. Not taking the chance his second statement is a poorly worded retraction of the guilty plea.
[14:57] Zyvet: Clarification would have been my view
[14:58] Zyvet: Given that it seems somewhat equivocal
[16:47] The Bestest of Persons: Cant really figure out what to do with the slatos case. Especially if they dont response.
[17:49] Zyvet: Well... hopefully they do respond. I think there is a fair concern that the second post raises a question as to whether the Defendant actually accepts guilt; it is explicable that the second post is just stating an intent to self-represent, but the wording is somewhat odd for it to just be that. It would seem right to me that, if not satisfied that a clear plea has been entered, the course should probably be to enter a not guilty plea and appoint counsel. If the Defendant wanted to plead guilty and self-represent, they can correct the position
[18:08] Zyvet: :stuck_out_tongue:
[04:23] The Bestest of Persons: I am going to treat his none-reply as a failure to notify the court of plea to be safe and seek a volunteer for court appointed counsel
[14:27] Lady Justice: Sounds fair
[00:09] The Bestest of Persons: As expected Deropia is the only volunteer for the job (via DM on Discord). I am inclined to accept him as a court appointed counsel
[00:14] Lady Justice: Sounds fine
[14:11] Zyvet: Being that there was a majority, it is of little consequence, but I would have agreed Deropia’s appointment
[19:03] Zyvet: @The Bestest of Persons regarding Dero’s request to enter a plea. I think, unfortunately, that it probably cannot be acceded to, given that the Defendant did not enter a valid plea themselves and that Dero openly states that he has been unable to take instructions. It is one thing to allow counsel to enter a plea on instructions but quite another to allow them to waive the Defendant’s right to require the prosecution to prove them guilty absent instructions to do so.

Dero will plainly be limited in what he can do, as he cannot put forward a positive case, but he can test the prosecution’s evidence, take any appropriate issue with its admissibility, and make argument as to why we cannot be satisfied of guilt.
[20:51] The Bestest of Persons: That was my thinking as well. I was just at work and couldn't respond immediately.
[22:06] The Bestest of Persons: The letter has arrived from the doctor's office. Its a Trial.
[22:07] The Bestest of Persons: Its also crossing term lines. Yay, just what we needed.
[00:52] The Bestest of Persons: Please tell Im being punked. Please tell me the camera crew is gonna jump out of my closet anytime. All i want is a clear and obvious plea. Q.Q
[12:59] Zyvet: There can be no normal trials
[14:44] Lady Justice: Indeed
[15:01] Zyvet: @The Bestest of Persons your wish has been granted and a clear plea entered, to sentence we go
[15:21] The Bestest of Persons: Is the timestamp still broken?
[15:27] The Bestest of Persons: The answer is yes
[12:17] Lady Justice: Right-o
[00:21] The Bestest of Persons: Does anyone else find the AG office's complete absence from the Slatos case...... odd. They specifically stated that both of them would be acted co-prosecution they have both been pinged multiple times and neither have even acknowledged the case.
[12:18] Lady Justice: That is indeed odd
[18:57] Zyvet: I mean, the AG themselves has been tended towards absence for all the trials, to be honest :stuck_out_tongue:
[22:19] The Bestest of Persons: We are down to the last 17 hours of sentencing for the Slatos case and only have a Defense recommendation
[22:33] The Bestest of Persons: Wait I actually messed up the sentencing phase pretty bad. Didn't notice my mistake until Madjack pointed it out to me. I will be extending sentencing until 3:30pm tomorrow as a correction.
[22:46] The Bestest of Persons: Im blaming both of you for not catching my mistake sooner <.<
[23:53] Lady Justice: In my defense, I still has a case at the time you originally posted it
[23:53] Lady Justice: :stuck_out_tongue:
[15:30] The Bestest of Persons: ............................
[15:31] The Bestest of Persons: Im.... just. I don't please tell me that the AG just admitted in court that he doesn't even know what the person is charged with
[15:34] The Bestest of Persons: Wait no its even weirder. He referenced Madjack's case..... Madjack was NOT convinced on treason or Conspiracy those charges were dropped.
[15:34] The Bestest of Persons: So it has no value as reference
[15:36] Lady Justice: Blegh
[15:49] The Bestest of Persons: Moving discussion to the private thread.
[04:30] The Bestest of Persons: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191765/post-10303804 - I am a simple man, short and sweet to the point is my style.
[04:32] The Bestest of Persons: I also felt that linking would work better then trying to mess with quoteseption on the new forum system.
[20:36] Zyvet: You should both be able to see the AG’s things now. Given that the Slatos case is strictly ongoing, I would think it appropriate to refrain from looking at anything connected to it.
[21:13] The Bestest of Persons: Fine by me
[21:38] The Bestest of Persons: Updated the draft to incorporate the suggestions Zyvet made. @Lady Justice got anything you want to add?
[21:47] Lady Justice: Nothing I can see
[04:09] The Bestest of Persons: Changed it so the government office and vote suspensions like the previous ruling to keep consistency. Just need the final thoughts or a sign off on the final draft.
[14:34] Zyvet: I have indicated my agreement to the draft, subject to the addition of the formal parts

(The Bestest of Persons is myself (Lord Lore), Zyvet is Zyvetskistaahn, Lady Justice is Lady Raven Wing; Omissions have been made for other trials going on concurrently and discussions about rules changes due to the passing of the AGORA Act.)


Delegate, Speaker and Chief Election Commissioner have been informed of the sentencing via Forum Direct Message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top