The North Pacific v. Ihese

I will allow an extension. One day would take the end of arguments to 5:46pm on 09/10/2020 (UTC+1), at least that is requested by both parties. The prosecution requests further time, to the following day. I will allow an extension as sought by the prosecution. A further day is not an unduly lengthy delay beyond that sought by the defence and it appears to me to be a more realistic timetable in terms of allowing argument and then response.

The end of the period for argument will, therefore, be (time=1602370800) (midnight 10/10/2020 (UTC+1)).

Your honour, before I begin with my argumentation, I would like a clarification on the status of Exhibit A and B. Have they been admitted into evidence in the end?

Exhibits A and B, in my judgment, were not authenticated, so were not admissible and are not in evidence.

I thank your honour for the clarification, and after such, I shall begin my argumentation.

I'll keep it short and simple.

We can confirm, firstly, the trouble with the identities of the different nations of the evidence. Firstly, the trouble of Ihese - Tasihese.

We do see in Exhibit J an answer to a message from Tasihese, quoted saying "Testing" and being received as Ihese by the nation of Green Tombstone. Since this Exhibit was authenticated by the deposition of REG, we can only affirm that Tasihese and Ihese are the same person, other than the almost identical nomenclature of the nations.

Secondly, we find the trouble of who Dictatorship8 and Dictatorship 9 are.
Exhibit I, also authenticated by REG's deposition, shows us a Telegram from one of these nations to the witness, in which they claimed to be Pigeonstan. And thus, we can only affirm that Dictatorship8, Dictatorship 9 and Pigeonstan are the same person.

Although not admitted as evidence, I would still want the court to consider Exhibits A and B, even if it's for context. Within REG's deposition, when asked about this fight that the Evidence covered, the witness claimed the following:

I was most probably active with my main nation "Republica Guilleana".
I just didn't check my secondary nation "The City-State of Singapore" to suppress the posts of Tasihese.

Click to expand...

Said posts from the evidence were suppressed by the witness. Besides, from the deposition we also gathered other times in which these attacks happened as well in New World RMB. Besides, the linguistical similarities between the admitted as Evidence as of Ihese and Tasihese in these exhibits are more than telling.

On September 2nd, 2020, Pigeonstan received the following Personal Message from Ihese shown in Exhibit D:

Why your mother didn't give you a slap on time? You deserved it for being so s*n of b*tch! Filthy retardet! You are the cancer of the game! Your mother didn't give birth to you, she sh*t you! All NationStates hates you! *sshole! Go f*ck yourself, sh*tty b*stard! Mature at once, you disgusting

Click to expand...

The existence of such message was certified and authenticated by Eluvatar, part of the administration of the site.

Yes, I can confirm that a personal message was sent by @Ihese to @Pigeonstan with the contents shown in Exhibit E and was reported September 2nd, 2020

Click to expand...

On the September 11th, 2020, we find a comment from Ihese as part of Exhibit F in which the defendant claims the hostile situation between Pigeonstan and themselves, besides continuing to comment on Pigeonstan and even commenting on the corruption of the region (as seen in Exhibit G )

We are aware on the enmity between the parts came from before thanks to Pigeonstan's Deposition, in which they admitted the origin of such was that he cheated in a competition.


After we established the existence of a background and continuation of bad relationships, we can go to the source of the crime.

In a public posting, within this forum, we find Exhibit D, in which Ihese claims Pigeonstan to be a lier on their claim of having been sending harassment to them and/or their alts, which was already proven before that not only there were motives, but a continuation of these, as explained above.

As it stands today in the Legal Code, Fraud "is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual ". We see in this description the need of the act being by intent, and not by mistake (which, considering the circumstances and that there was at any moment a back up or clear-up of the defendant, was not, therefore being done on purpose), in order to damage an individual, in this case, the credibility of Pigeonstan.

Taking this into account, and the explanation given before, there's little doubt of the defendant being Guilty of such.

The other crime taking place would be Gross Misconduct, defined as " the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence. " Ihese, at the time, was a citizen of the region, and by such he had taken an oath of allegiance. Such oath goes as follows:

I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.

Click to expand...

We can all confirm and defend that in this region we don't condone harrassment in any way, shape or form, and that this act is not what a responsable person of the society would do, as "bonus pater familias". By thus, they have broken their legally mandated oath, in this case willfuly.

And thus, Ihese would be guilty of such crime too.

@Vivanco

Thank you, counsel. There are some points I would ask you to address, but first can you clarify for me:

Vivanco:

On September 2nd, 2020, Pigeonstan received the following Personal Message from Ihese shown in Exhibit D:

Click to expand...

The link above goes to Exhibit E and the context seems clear that the above should read “Exhibit E”, is that right?

In terms of the points to address, the Court in its decision on the Standard of Proof and Intent, which dealt with requirements for Fraud, found there to be a number of requirements as to the nature of the deception.

Could you deal with how the requirements below are met:

• That the deception must be as to a matter of fact. In particular, to what extent is the claim of Ihese in Exhibit D (that they did not send Pigeonstan “dirty” or “harassing” messages, such that the claim of Pigeonstan that they did was a lie) something that is an objective matter of fact, rather than a subjective assessment of the messages.
• That the deception must be material. How is it said that the claim “can reasonably be expected to affect the audience's future actions for some benefit or harm”.
• That the deception must be plausible. Why should the Court find that the claim was “something which can reasonably be expected to be believed by the audience”.
• The requirement of intention, either demonstrable or reckless intent as described in the decision. Which is said to be shown and how.

I would also ask how it is said that the requirement of Gross Misconduct that it relates to a nation’s sworn oath is proven in this case.

@Comfed, it may be of assistance to the Court for you to address these points to, when you come to present your argument.

Zyvetskistaahn:

The link above goes to Exhibit E and the context seems clear that the above should read “Exhibit E”, is that right?

Click to expand...

Yes, your honour. It was a typo.

Your honour, I shall begin my argumentation.

I note that the deposition of REG offers no concrete proof that Tasihese is Ihese, and nor does any of the evidence presented. Furthermore, the deposition of REG doesn't offer any concrete proof of the identity of Dictatorship8, Dictatorship 9, and Pigeonstan.

The defence objects to the prosecution's wish for the court to consider exhibits A and B. The only evidence that should be considered by the court is evidence admitted by the court.

As to the evidence in exhibit D, the defence will concede that the deposition of Eluvatar confirms the existence of the Personal Messages in question. However, the defence sees nothing in the messages violating the legal code.

The defence sees no evidence of any fraudulent claims. To elaborate, the defence does not see any evidence of objectively fraudulent, or deliberately misleading claims made by the defendant against the complainant.

As for the charge of gross misconduct, while the region certainly should not condone harassment, the argument that the defendant violated the section of the legal code reading "responsible action as a member of her society" is rather weak. Not only is "responsible action" highly subjective, this would be a matter for the TNP administration team, and not the courts.

It is thus the position of the defence that the defendant is not guilty on the counts of gross misconduct and fraud.

The Court is adjourned to deliberate on verdict.

After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v Ihese, the Court rules as follows:

The Defendant, Ihese, is found Not Guilty on the charge of Fraud;

The Defendant, Ihese, is found Not Guilty on the charge of Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

In relation to the crime of Fraud, the prosecution must prove to the Court by reasonably certain evidence that the Defendant has intentionally deceived, by falsehood or omission, for some benefit or to damage another individual. In this case, the deception is said to have been the post shown in Exhibit D, stating that Pigeonstan’s allegation that the Defendant had been “sending dirty and messages amount to harrassment to [Pigeonstan’s] alts” was a lie. That effectively means that the prosecution must prove that the Defendant had been sending such messages (though that, alone, would not be enough to prove Fraud).

The Court is limited to considering the admissible evidence before it. The Court cannot rely on material that is not in evidence or testimony that was not given.

As to the material that is before the Court, its capability of proving the Defendant’s statement false is limited. It was not put to Pigeonstan that the Defendant had sent messages of a harassing nature, nor did they say in evidence that the Defendant had done so. While general questions were put about “messages”, no particular message was put to or authenticated by Pigeonstan, nor were they asked to set out the terms of any message not in documentary evidence.

The only specific message that appears to have been the subject of questioning is that shown by Exhibit E. Pigeonstan stated, when asked by defence counsel why that message was a matter for the Court, that “[Pigeonstan thought] they are a matter for court because they are part of the evidence of his continued behavior and that the behavior was not because of an account hack”. That message post-dates Pigeonstan’s allegation and the alleged falsehood, so cannot itself prove the alleged falsehood. While this Court does, from the terms of the message and in light of the testimony of Eluvatar, find that the message in Exhibit E was grossly offensive and sent by the Defendant, even coupled with the testimony of Pigeonstan that it was part of a continued pattern of behaviour, the Court does not consider that it is enough amount to reasonably certain evidence of such behaviour at the time of the alleged falsehood.

The testimony of REG, similarly, was unspecific in relation to what offensive posts may have been made by the Defendant and directed at Pigeonstan. Mere references to “comments” or “attacks” in questions asked are not enough, the prosecution
cannot rely on innuendo and is bound to put its case clearly so that the defence can respond. While some posts were shown by REG which showed the Defendant’s distaste for Pigeonstan, such as Exhibits F and G, their terms (describing Pigeonstan as “annoying, liar and inmature”) do not meet anything like that suggested by Pigeonstan’s comment in a Exhibit D or that shown in Exhibit E, nor do they appear directed towards Pigeonstan.

In view of those deficiencies in the evidence presented to the Court, the Court cannot be satisfied that it is reasonably certain of the Defendant’s guilt.

In relation to the crime of Gross Misconduct, it is a requirement of the law that the oath violated must be the legally mandated, sworn oath of the Defendant. No evidence was adduced proving the Defendant to have sworn a legally mandated oath. The Court cannot, therefore, be satisfied of guilt.

This case is now closed. I am grateful to counsel for their efforts and to the witnesses.