The North Pacific v. Pigeonstan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonderess

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Castle in Confidence
Discord
.wonderess
The Court is now in session and will hear the case of The North Pacific v. Pigeonstan as filed by Prydania, Delegate of The North Pacific.

Prydania:
Indictment​

I bring forward the following charge(s) holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

Name of Complainant:
Prydania

Name(s) of Accused:
Pigeonstan (Nation: Pigeonstan) a Citizen of the North Pacific. As of this filling, citizen number 3835.

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s): June 17, 2020

Crimes:

Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Fraud (Legal Code 1.3.12) (Legal Code 1.8.24)



The accused committed the act of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by presenting himself as a government official with the authority to act on the government's behalf towards the region of the South Pacific, for the purpose of their personal benefit and to the detriment of the reputation of the North Pacific and Syrixia.

Count 2: Conspiracy to Commit Fraud (Legal Code 1.3.12) (Legal Code 1.8.24)

The accused committed the act of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by misrepresenting the reason for his dismissal from the Ministry of Culture in the North Pacific Executive Discord Server, such representations were meant to damage the reputation of Syrixia and benefit the accused by presenting themselves as the victim of a minor personal dispute.

Count 3: Conspiracy to Commit Fraud (Legal Code 1.3.12) (Legal Code 1.8.24)

The accused committed the act of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by misrepresenting the reason for his dismissal from the Ministry of Culture in the North Pacific General Discord Server, such representations were meant to damage the reputation of Syrixia and benefit the accused by presenting themselves as the victim of a misunderstanding.

Count 4: Gross Misconduct (Legal Code 1.9.25)



The accused did commit the crime of Gross Misconduct by violating the Citizens Oath. The accused violated the oaths requirements to be obedient to the laws of the North Pacific and to be responsible in action when the accused presented themselves as a government official without authorization to a foriegn power, and by committing the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud as outlined in Count 1.

Count 5: Gross Misconduct (Legal Code 1.9.25)

The accused did commit the crime of Gross Misconduct by violating the Citizens Oath. The accused violated the oaths requirements to be obedient to the laws of the North Pacific and to be responsible in action when the accused purposefully misrepresented the reason for their dismissal from the government in the North Pacific Executive Discord Server, and by committing the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud as outlined in Count 2.

Count 6: Gross Misconduct (Legal Code 1.9.25)

The accused did commit the crime of Gross Misconduct by violating the Citizens Oath. The accused violated the oaths requirements to be obedient to the laws of the North Pacific and to be responsible in action when the accused purposefully misrepresented the reason for their dismissal from the government in the North Pacific General Discord Server, and by committing the crime of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud as outlined in Count 3.

Count 7: Gross Misconduct (Legal Code 1.9.25)

The accused did commit the crime of Gross Misconduct by violating the Citizens Oath. The accused violated the oaths requirements to be responsible in action when the accused acted negligent by failing to read and comprehend the entire post containing instructions provided to all members of the Ministry of Culture by Syrixia, and then acted on incomplete and flawed assumptions without first asking for clarification, endangering interregional relations with The South Pacific in the process.

Specifics of Crime(s):

Pigeonstan (hereby referred to as the accused) was informed by general ping of the current projects by the Ministry of Culture. The instructions were clear and addressed to specific members of the Ministry. The accused failed to read and properly comprehend the instructions given. Instead the accused joined the official Discord server for the region of The South Pacific. Upon joining, the accused did represent himself as an official of the North Pacific government on official government business. The accused did not have permission from the Delegate, his ministers, or any other lawful government authority to represent himself as such to a foriegn government. By presenting themselves as an official of the North Pacific on official duty, the accused did cause confusion and attempted to benefit themselves by having an authority which they did not have. Such an action constitutes a conspiracy to commit Fraud by benefit of oneself, by attempting to damage the reputation of the region abroad, by attempting to damage the reputation of Syrixia and the Ministry of Culture, and by attempting to Damage the reputation of the Northern Broadcast Service, Ministry of Radio, and Dreadton. Such an action further constitutes a violation of the Citizens Oath requirement to be obedient to the Laws of the region and responsible in action.

The accused was removed as a staff member of the Ministry of Culture by Minister Syrixia due to prior bad conduct and due to the above entitled matter. The accused was informed of their removal and the reason for such an action. The accused did misrepresent the reason for his dismissal to other members of the The North Pacific [Executive] Discord Server. The accused did intentionally attempt to harm the reputation of Syrixia, the Minister of Culture by painting his dismissal as a result of a trivial disagreement. Such an action constitutes a conspiracy to commit Fraud by attempting to damage another individual. Such an action further constitutes a violation of the Citizens Oath requirement to be obedient to the Laws of the region and responsible in action.

The accused did misrepresent the reason for his dismissal to other citizens of the region in the #citizens-chanel of the North Pacific Regional Discord server. The accused claimed that he was sent by the Ministry of Culture to the South Pacific, and that it was not his fault that they misrepresented themselves. The accused attempted to frame their dismissal as a misunderstanding, once again attempted to harm the reputation of Syrixia. Such an action constitutes a conspiracy to commit Fraud by attempting to damage another individual. Such an action further constitutes a violation of the Citizens Oath requirement to be obedient to the Laws of the region and responsible in action.

Summary of Events:

The accused, along with all other members of the Ministry of Culture, were informed of current projects of the Ministry.The accused then joined the South Pacific Discord server. Once he joined, he claimed to have been sent from the Ministry of Culture to make a Northern Broadcast Service show with the South Pacific Regional Government. The South Pacific Regional officers knew of no such plans and reached out to the Minister of Communications, Gorundu who was in the channel .

Gorundu posted in the Culture channel, requesting clarification on what the accused was doing and under what authority. Syrixia confirmed that the accused had no such authority, nor was anything close to what the accused had claimed discussed. Syrixia informed the accused that he was being removed from the ministry due to his actions. The accused proceeded to claim in the public channel of the Executive Discord that his dismissal was due to a minor disagreement held over from the TNP Game Server.

The accused was questioned by a citizen in the regional general discord about an TSP expose. The accused claimed that it has to do with ministry of culture agents entering TSP discord. The Accused then claimed again that they were told to help the South Pacific make a NBS show and that it was not his fault.

Evidence:
https://www.nationstates.net/region...=display_region_rmb?postid=39290523#p39290523

https://www.nationstates.net/region...=display_region_rmb?postid=39290680#p39290680

https://www.nationstates.net/region...=display_region_rmb?postid=39291154#p39291154

https://imgur.com/a/0YtpO64
(Post presented here, from the The North Pacific Executive Discord Private channels, were declassified by order of the Delegate, @Prydania )

Request for Emergency Order on The Preservation of Evidence​

The post listed in this motion can be easily manipulated or deleted by the accused or others with no hope of recovery from on site sources. Due to the nature of the charges in this matter, we believe that there is a reasonable risk that this evidence may be tampered with or destroyed. As such, we request that the court issue an Emergency Order preventing the destruction of this evidence during its deliberation on the indictment and during all other matters until this case is resolved.

Based on a clear danger of evidentiary spoliation in this matter, We request that the court issue an Emergency Order preventing the editing, suppression, deletion of the above linked Regional Message Board post identified as Postid=39290523#p39290523, Postid=39290680#p39290680, and Postid=39291154#p39291154, and all other Discord post by the accused, regional officers, Game Side Advocates, and/or any other person who may be able to edit, suppress, or delete the referenced post.
Click to expand...

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be @Wonderess

Representing The North Pacific as counsel: @Dreadton

Representing Pigeonstan as counsel (if applicable): @Mall (formerly @saintpeter)

Plea of the Defendant: Not Guilty On All Charges

Currently the court awaits both the defense and the prosecution to appoint legal counsel. The defendant will have 24 hours after the regional appointment and oath taking of the prosecution to declare a plea and obtain representation if they so desire. If the defendant fails to do so then a plea of not guilty will be recorded and representation will be appointed by the court as is outlined in Section 2.3 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

The trial is currently awaiting the resolution of the Request for Review submitted by the defense in order to continue.

The Defendant has three days to find new counsel or choose to represent themselves.

Evidence submission will be allowed until July 13th at 6 PM Central Time Friday July 17th at 10 PM Central Time.

This post will be updated as information becomes available including the trial timetable.
 
Last edited:
i am typing this in order to apologize for a lapse in my judgement

i fully understand that what i did was wrong
in retrospective i think this will be a life lesson for me
i often have these lapses in judgement IRL but i after this happens
i promise in the TNP and IRL after this lesson i will think before I act
this is a good life lesson for me IRL

I apologize for my actions
and promise to never have this type of lapse in judgement ever again
i am very sorry for my actions and
take this as a lesson in the future i will be a responsible ciizen


I also swear to not delete posts due to fear
i understand that this is wrong as it hurts our integrity
as a proud TNPer i vow to be loyal to the TNP forever on and on

-Thanks
Pigeonstan
 
@Pigeonstan, at this time the court suggests that you firstly find someone to represent you in this case. It is a possibility that you represent yourself, but it is not recommended. Thereafter, it can be decided what your plea is to be.
 
Justice @Wonderess
I would first like to thank the Court for quick and timely action on this matter. Alas I must inform you all that further action is not needed. I have decided to withdraw the charges against @Pigeonstan
It is my belief that his apology constitutes a recognition that he screwed up, and thus he will be fare more careful going forward. I have decided to, as I said, withdraw the charges against him in the spirit of allowing him a second chance.

I apologize for the time taken up by the court up until now, but I thank them for their vigilance.
 
@Prydania After considering your statement, it has been decided that the charges cannot be dropped at this time.

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
11. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
12. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will appoint a prosecutor to manage prosecution of the case.
13. Any citizen may be appointed as a prosecutor. Citizens will be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment as a prosecutor.
14. The designated prosecutor will be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly. The Delegate and other officials who may have appointed a prosecutor do not have the power to remove a prosecutor.
15. In the event the Regional Assembly is unable to confirm a prosecutor within 30 days of the acceptance of charges, the Delegate, or next available person in the Line of Succession if necessary, will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case with the agreement of the Speaker.
16. No one may prosecute or appoint prosecutors to a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense.
17. If the original prosecutor is unable to see a case to completion, another prosecutor will be selected by the same procedure as the original prosecutor.
18. If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
19. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 14 days of the prosecutor declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
Click to expand...

Statute 12 states that once the court ha accepted an indictment, the Delegate will begin the process of appointing a prosecutor. I am aware of Statute 18, but we have not yet reached a point in the process where that is enforceable. Furthermore, Mr. Delegate, you have brought before us a case which in itself shows the gravity to your grievances within your indictment. When a citizen involves the court, it is considered a serious matter that is to be seen through to its rightful conclusion. I understand that the defendant has submitted an apology, but that has no bearing on the actions that were committed in the eyes of the law. We as a court are called to fulfill our duty to the region.

Please continue with the appointment process of a prosecution.
 
Your Honour, the defence would note that discussions between the prosecutor and the defence are still ungoing, and requests that the "Plea Submission" period be entered only after such discussions have ended, in "establish[ing] a reasonable timetable for the trial".
 
Your honor,

The People do not wish to delay this trail while plea deal negotiations are on going. Historically, the defendant has been able to change his plea up till the case is turned over to the court for deliberations. Court Procedure Section 2.3 requires the Prosecution, Defense, and the courts to work together to establish a reasonable timetable for the trail. Delaying the trail at this stage deprives the People and the defendant, of a timely resolution to this matter. The People are content that the courts current order requiring the defendant to enter a plea 24 hours after a prosecutor is name, to be fair. If more time is needed for plea negotiations, the court can delay the end of the argument phase under Court Procedure 5.

The People wish to withdraw Count 1 Conspiracy to commit Fraud and Count 4 Gross Misconduct. The People believe the events listed in these charges are better encapsulated in Count 7 Gross Misconduct. In the interest of Justice and fairness for the Defendant, the People request the court remove Count 1 and Count 4. The People will continue prosecution on all other charges.
 
Your Honour, the prosecutor is yet to engage with the defence on the substance of a potential plea deal, after we initiated such private discussions. A decision to rush this case to "Plea Submission" fails in "establish[ing] a reasonable timetable for the trial" (emphasis mine), for it is prima facie unreasonable to expect a defendant to submit a plea when there are still discussions on a plea deal. It would also be completely unreasonable if this Court decided to require the defendant to submit a plea based on the fact that he is able to change his plea later on, for it would potentially place unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on the Court, prosecutor and defence.
 
Your Honor,

The Defendant Pleading Not Guilty to a charge, while plea agreements are on going is in no way unreasonable. It closes no avenues for the defendant. The defendant is still capable of negotiating a plea deal, arguing in his defense, and challenging any other matter related to this case. The Defense counsels attempt to color the defendants ability to defend himself from charges while a potential agreement between the parties as unreasonable shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the judicial system works.

Furthermore, the defense counsels attempt to frame the established trail procedures built to ensure a fair trail as unnecessary bureaucratic burdens is a gross misstatement of facts. Plea agreement negotiations are not required, can end at any time, or break down for any number of reasons. The defense is also ignoring prior precedent in this matter. In TNP v Bobberino, the defendant put forth a not guilty plea while negoitations were on going. Eventually a plea agreement was entered in the middle of Arguments. The People are vexed as to why Defense Counsel is trying to slow a case down without cause.
 
Your Honour, for the record, the defence is still waiting on any plea deal offer from the prosecutor after we initiated discussions earlier today. I at no point "attempt[ed] to color the defendants ability to defend himself from charges while a potential agreement between the parties as unreasonable" (emphasis mine); this discussion was not ability—measuring reasonableness extends beyond maximising capabilities. The question is whether it is reasonable to proceed with a trial and debate facts that may ultimately become irrelevant because of a plea deal. This does pose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on the Court, prosecutor and defence. Even if the prosecutor does not mind debating facts while knowing that this may later proof unnecessary, the defence does request that it not be forced to be subjected to such unreasonable burdens.
 
The People continue to find it odd that Defense Council finds defending their client while engaged in negotiations, i.e. doing their job, to be an unreasonable burden. The People await the courts ruling on this matter.
 
Dreadton:
The People wish to withdraw Count 1 Conspiracy to commit Fraud and Count 4 Gross Misconduct. The People believe the events listed in these charges are better encapsulated in Count 7 Gross Misconduct. In the interest of Justice and fairness for the Defendant, the People request the court remove Count 1 and Count 4. The People will continue prosecution on all other charges.
Click to expand...
The withdrawals are noted and accepted.

I must join the Prosecution in expressing my confusion, Counsel. If the region does not want to open negotiations at this time, there is hardly anything to be done about that. The Prosecution has shown that they remain open to a deal going forward during the trial and reserve the right to do so going forward as the trial progresses. The Defense has 24 hours following the taking of the Prosecutor's oath to enter a plea on all counts. If the Defense fails to do so, a plea of not guilty will automatically be entered.
 
Last edited:
@Wonderess : Your Honour, we would like to note that there are two outstanding R4Rs that should be concluded before this trial continues:
(i) The R4R on the scheduling of the vote that appointed the prosecutor: as long as the validity of the RA's confirmation is in dispute, the trial can obviously not continue.
(ii) The R4R on the Gross Misconduct statute and the vagueness doctrine will greatly influence the burdens of the prosecution here (that have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and thus also the defence's strategy, which means I cannot defend my client to the best of my abilities if I do not know the Court's answer to this R4R.
 
saintpeter:
@Wonderess : Your Honour, we would like to note that there are two outstanding R4Rs that should be concluded before this trial continues:
(i) The R4R on the scheduling of the vote that appointed the prosecutor: as long as the validity of the RA's confirmation is in dispute, the trial can obviously not continue.
(ii) The R4R on the Gross Misconduct statute and the vagueness doctrine will greatly influence the burdens of the prosecution here (that have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and thus also the defence's strategy, which means I cannot defend my client to the best of my abilities if I do not know the Court's answer to this R4R.
Click to expand...
The deadlines were set before either R4R was submitted. The Court will not move to the evidence phase so long as those two requests are outstanding, but the deadlines set before they were submitted stand. If there are any reasons that the rulings will change the current state of the trial, then we will address them as they come.
 
Last edited:
Your honor,

The People agree that the R4R on the scheduling of the vote needs to be resolved before the trail concludes.

We believe the Defenses R4R should be ignored for the purpose of this trial under Chapter 5 Section 2.4 of the Court's Procedures. It is our opinion that the Defense is trying to test out his novel defense theory outside of its proper forum, which would be this trial.
 
Wonderess:
The deadlines were set before either R4R was submitted. The Court will not move to the evidence phase so long as those two requests are outstanding, but the deadlines set before they were submitted stand. If there are any reasons that the rulings will change the current state of the trial, then we will address them as they come.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, I find this decision - with all due respect - incredibly confusing. The first R4R was submitted on June 20, 2020 at 7:26AM (GMT+2), whereas this very Court was declared "in session" on June 20, 2020 at 12:17AM (GMT+2), which is after the R4R was filed.

Now, let's address the second R4R. Note that the Court's Procedures, Chapter 5, Section 2.3 say:
During the proceedings on a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be resolved before the proceedings can continue, unless the contrary is allowed under this section.
Click to expand...
This applies in this case. Now, the prosecutor argues that Section 2.4 applies, which states that:
The Court determining an appeal or review relating to Court proceedings may, if it determines that the appeal or review is being made frivolously or solely for the purpose of delaying the proceedings to which the appeal or review relates, may, by unanimous vote, allow the proceedings to which the appeal or review relates to continue before the appeal or review is resolved.
Click to expand...
It is important to note that the prosecutor fails to explain why the request was made "frivolously". I am asking a general constitutional question, that happens to be relevant to this case, but that is not exclusive to this case and that should be resolved first. I would also question whether the Moderating Justice can make the decision when "The Court" (whereas other sections specifically refer to "The Moderating Justice") should make the determination.

The prosecution is trying to enforce the obviously unconstitutional statute that is being challenged in the second R4R, and this trial cannot continue when the constitutionality of the law is in question.
 
Counsel, the Court posted the case and its deadline regarding the obtainment of counsel and the submission of a plea on June 19th a5 5:17 PM Central Time. The Scheduling of Votes Request for Review was filed the next day at 12:26 AM central time. Finally, your request was filed today.

The deadline for the appointing of counsel and the submission of a plea are not cancelled or halted as they were set as deadlines before the submission of any request for review. The deliberation of a plea happens not here in the court room but outside the confines of the trial and its deliberations. It is therefore considered not a part of the formal proceedings of this courtroom, and this extends to submission of pleas. This case's proceedings will be halted as it will not move to the Evidence Phase until the requests are resolved.

Dreadton:
We believe the Defenses R4R should be ignored for the purpose of this trial under Chapter 5 Section 2.4 of the Court's Procedures. It is our opinion that the Defense is trying to test out his novel defense theory outside of its proper forum, which would be this trial.
Click to expand...
The Court is not willing to conclude this immediately. Time and consideration will be given to the request of the defense both on its inquiry and the context which surrounds it.
 
It is prudent in the eyes of the Court to accept a plea only from those who act as legal representation. You will need to get your representative to input a plea for the Court to accept it.
 
Wonderess:
It is prudent in the eyes of the Court to accept a plea only from those who act as legal representation. You will need to get your representative to input a plea for the Court to accept it.
Click to expand...
I support the plea of my client as submitted, noting that it is subject to change based on this Court's ruling in the pending R4R.
 
Your Honor,

Is @Cucuville part of @Pigeonstan 's Defense team? If not we would request his comments be stricken from the record as he does not have standing to speak before the court in this matter.
 
While the people recongize the defendants right to seek counsel, the People seek clarity on this matter. Who is the Defendants lawyer? Cucuville or Staintpeter?
 
Your Honour, I have taken the unfortunate decision that I can no longer serve as attorney for Pigeonstan, because I fear a recent dispute between me and the prosecutor may negatively affect Pigeonstan's experience in this trial. That said, I will advise Pigeonstan to choose someone else to be counsel.

I thank the Moderating Justice and this Honourable Court for their patience in dealing with this trial.
 
Your honor,

We think this is a mischaracterization of the disagreement between the Defense Council and the People, but the Defendant has the right to counsel of their choice. The People cannot dictate that Saintpeter stay on has a council, as such we are not opposed to their withdrawal. We ask that the court set a deadline for the defendant to declare a new counsel, the intent to represent themselves, or the court to appoint counsel in accordance with Court Procedures Section 2.3
 
The People request that Counsel be appointed to the defendant. The Defendant has not responded to the courts order within the designated time frame.
 
Dreadton:
The People request that Counsel be appointed to the defendant. The Defendant has not responded to the courts order within the designated time frame.
Click to expand...
Noted. Seeing that the deadline has come, the Court will seek an appointment. The defendant still has the right to appoint their own counsel at any time.
 
I thank the Court for its vote of confidence in my ability to represent the defendant. I will respectfully await the Court's decision in the pending Request for Review relating to this case before taking any action with respect to the case. I will note that any statements by my client, here or elsewhere, unless specifically approved by me are to be disregarded for the purposes of this case.
 
Defense Councils attempted to toss evidence that the People may or may not use is premature. The proper time to challenge evidence is during the evidence phase. Defense Council has no ground to toss anything at this point. Furthermore, the Defense Council cannot restrict what the People use to prosecute his case by ordering the Prosecution to ignore any statements his client makes that are not approved by him. To allow such action would be a gross overreach of the authority given to Mall to Defend this case.
We ask the court to deny Defense Councils order to ignore any statement past or present provided by the defendant unless approved by him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top