Criminal Complaint Against McMasterdonia
It brings me no pleasure to present these criminal charges to the Court. I understand that by doing so, I will be labeled a disgrace and traitor to those deeply invested in the success of McMasterdonia's delegacy platform. I acknowledge that this criminal complaint, coupled with my past r4r, will paint the picture of me as an enemy to McMasterdonia by some and a purposeful disruption to his political successes. However, despite political accomplishments, I refuse to believe that anyone is above the law. McMasterdonia has arguably committed a crime through the promotion of his personal agenda via government means which needs to be considered by the Court. He promoted a campaign which serves to only boost his personal notoriety in the NationStates realm. As I understand the presentation of criminal charges against a long-standing member of our community and current delegate is both uncomfortable and lethally-perceived, I will take this responsibility upon myself to ensure due process in our legal proceedings.
Name of Accused: McMasterdonia
Dates of Alleged Offense(s): 3/31/2020, 4/1/2020, 4/2/2020, 4/3/2020
Specific Crime: Gross Misconduct
Summary of Events: The accused used their gameside and Discord powers granted to them as delegate to promote their personal WA Secretary-General campaign. Powers in question include “region boosting” their nation on the gameside regional page, pinning their campaign dispatch and other supportive dispatches to the regional World Factbook Entry, and mass-pinging WA residents on the regional Discord server.
Hmm, so colorable argument. I'm inclined to say that Siwale may have a colorable argument (idk on formatting), but I'm not up-to-date on the legality of using various appearance permissions.
I will of course defer to you two, given you seem in agreement about rejection.
Given that the refusal of indictments is a matter that requires the Court to give reasons, I have drafted some as below. They are, essentially, my thinking on the subject, incorporating the points made by Wonderess. I have marked you as a dissent, LRW. At the end are discord discussions.
A point I have not included, on the form question, is whether it must be titled as an indictment to meet the requirement as to form. This is because I do not consider that to be a requirement as to form, previous indictments have been filed and accepted (here, here, and here) headed only "criminal complaint" (and, indeed, not including the word "indictment" at all). At the material times, the Court Rules did require charges to be in the form of an indictment.
I have also come to the view on the question of whether the form is deficient in not identifying the particular conduct that amounted to the crime. In essence I do not think that it is, I think it goes just far enough in doing so. While it does not include a specific section headed "criminal acts" or "specifics of offence", the summary section, in effect, is such. I have included comment on appropriately identifying sections, but I think it would be unduly pedantic to say that it is void for such. More problematic, having reviewed old indictments, is the section at that start, seeking to explain why the indictment is filed and head off public reaction. I do not think that can be said to form any part of the proper form of the indictment and, to mind, is substantial enough to warrant rejection as not being in the proper form.
I would note, rejections have in the past been quite short (some have, I think wrongly, failed to state reasons) and this would be longer than historic rejections by quite a way. Part of that is that I take the view that I take the requirement of the Rules that "the reasons for rejecting an indictment must be publicly disclosed in full" to mean what it says, that all of our reasons must be stated and stated fully, while it appears that historic Courts have taken a more lax approach; another part is because I believe that the Court should, generally, avoid very summary reasons where it renders what is, or could be, a final decision. If you, Wonderess, want to redraft to shorten the reasons, I would not take issue with you doing so.
Rejection of Indictment
Reasons drafted by Zyvetskistaahn and joined Wonderess, Lady Raven Wing dissenting.
Procedural Defect
The Court Rules and Procedures require that "All criminal charges brought before the Court must be presented in the form of an indictment." The Court does not consider that the charges filed meet that requirement.
While the request, in broad terms, met the requirements as to form in terms of including necessary elements (though perhaps not headed as accurately as may be desired), it goes further. The complaint filed also includes a substantial portion seeking to explain Siwale's motivation in bringing it and anticipating public reaction to it. This is substantial defect in its form. Such editorialising is not permissible in an indictment, the purpose of which is to put to a Defendant the crime they are said to have committed.
Lack of Evidence
The request appears to rest on the allegation that the Defendant acted for personal gain. While the request identifies promotion of the Defendant's WA Secretary-General campaign, it does not identify how this would translate to personal gain for the Defendant. Further, there is no evidence that any personal gain formed part of the Defendant's motivation.
While the Court must, at this stage, will accept as true such reasonably plausible evidence as is presented and draw such reasonable inferences as follow from it, the Court must nonetheless ask whether the evidence presented is such that it could reasonably find the Defendant guilty on what is presented. The Court does not consider that it is reasonable to infer, absent evidence of the fact, that the personal gain was the Defendant's motivation or, even if it were reasonable to draw such an inference, that such an inference alone could be a sufficient basis on which to find the Defendant guilty.
Personal gain
Further, the acts of the Defendant are in the context of an April Fools' event for election to an office that holds no power and which, as the timing of its election suggests, is a joke. In that context, insofar as it is reasonable to infer any personal gain for the Defendant, this inference can be limited only to an increase in prominence. The Defendant is the Delegate of the region, which itself is specially prominent, and can be assumed to be widely known in any event. The increase in prominence which it is reasonable to infer is necessarily small.
Some increase in prominence is a likelihood in connection with many actions of government officials. Such an increase as can be inferred would seldom be sufficient to taint government action with criminality, absent evidence that it formed a substantial part of an official's motivation when compared to other reasons for their action.
Conclusion
For those reasons, the Court rejects the request for indictment filed by Siwale concerning McMasterdonia. The request may be resubmitted only if significant changes have been made to address these reasons.
April 4, 2020
[3:06 AM] 22 Years of Faith: Does a criminal complaint = an indictment?
[...]
[1:40 PM] Zyvet: In respect of the criminal matter, I will need to think on what is meant by “the form of an indictment”. Looking at the complaint, I think it may be deficient in that it does not specify what conduct in particular amounted to the crime and how it did so. Though, in a sense, that presumes that past indictments are prescriptive as to the form of all indictments.
But, in any event, I am not convinced as to the substance of the charge. I do not really see that the Defendant’s rises to the level of a violation of the oath. I do not think there has been any malfeasance or misfeasance, the only arguable issue could be motivation for personal gain. The issue I have with that is that the position of Secretary-General carries no benefit for its holder, the only gain the Defendant could have is in their prominence, but that the Delegate gains prominence (and probably acts intending to do so) is true in relation to any number of government functions they perform and I do not see that that could be sufficient to taint them with criminality.
[...]
[7:56 PM] 22 Years of Faith: I also think that given the event was a joke, there was no real harm or corrupts actions committed, so I would endorse a decision to reject the matter on either or both of those grounds of it not being clearly an indictment and / or the matter not having standing given the NS event was entirely in jest and intended as such.
April 5, 2020
[4:19 PM] Zyvet: @Lady Justice have you had opportunity to consider the criminal matter and the finalised opinion for the r4r
[6:11 PM] Lady Justice: I've posted some thoughts
(NB: Lady Justice is Lady Raven Wing, 22 Years of Faith is Wonderess; omissions have been made from the above log to exclude discussion solely relating to the ongoing request for review relating to the Delegate's Oath)
To continue my disagreement (and make it more specific), I would dissent from the latter two reasons and join on the first (if you wish to note such in detail).
To complicate things, I will agree with the 1st and 3rd but not the 2nd. I believe Siwale's issue is with the use of Delegate powers which were abused to further the Delegate's own campaign. Whether the intent was there or not this was the effect of McM's action. One could say that the pinned dispatch and boosting were not done by McM, but the Discord ping was done by him without question.
Below is a redraft to account for the above. I have changed the record as to joining/dissenting. I have removed the part concerning lack of evidence to be separate from the reasons of the Court, as it is not supported by a majority, but would indicate in a more summary form that it does form part of my view as to why I support rejection, unless you are of the view that it would not be appropriate to do so. I have added the words "There is no such evidence in this case." to the end of the personal gain section, to make clear the link between the prior sentence and this case
Rejection of Indictment
Reasons drafted by Zyvetskistaahn and joined by Wonderess, Lady Raven Wing joining as to procedural defect and dissenting as to personal gain.
Procedural Defect
The Court Rules and Procedures require that "All criminal charges brought before the Court must be presented in the form of an indictment." The Court does not consider that the charges filed meet that requirement.
While the request, in broad terms, met the requirements as to form in terms of including necessary elements (though perhaps not headed as accurately as may be desired), it goes further. The complaint filed also includes a substantial portion seeking to explain Siwale's motivation in bringing it and anticipating public reaction to it. This is substantial defect in its form. Such editorialising is not permissible in an indictment, the purpose of which is to put to a Defendant the crime they are said to have committed.
Personal gain
Further, the acts of the Defendant are in the context of an April Fools' event for election to an office that holds no power and which, as the timing of its election suggests, is a joke. In that context, insofar as it is reasonable to infer any personal gain for the Defendant, this inference can be limited only to an increase in prominence. The Defendant is the Delegate of the region, which itself is specially prominent, and can be assumed to be widely known in any event. The increase in prominence which it is reasonable to infer is necessarily small.
Some increase in prominence is a likelihood in connection with many actions of government officials. Such an increase as can be inferred would seldom be sufficient to taint government action with criminality, absent evidence that it formed a substantial part of an official's motivation when compared to other reasons for their action. There is no such evidence in this case.
Conclusion
For those reasons, the Court rejects the request for indictment filed by Siwale concerning McMasterdonia. The request may be resubmitted only if significant changes have been made to address these reasons.
I would additionally have rejected the indictment for lack of evidence as to whether the Defendant was influenced by personal gain. I do not consider that it is reasonable to infer, absent evidence of the fact, that personal gain was any part of the Defendant's motivation or, even if it were reasonable to draw such an inference, that such an inference alone could be a sufficient basis on which to find the Defendant guilty so as to merit trial.
