@Chewie can you elaborate on your knowledge of TNP law and your thoughts on this case? Also, can you give us a short background on yourself for those who do not know you or are unfamiliar with your experience?
Treason - taking up arms against the region, providing support for someone taking up arms against the region
Espionage - sharing information that has not been authorized by the government that is not accessible to the general public
Election fraud - willfully tricking or trying to trick the government in a election to change the vote
Fraud - willfully tricking people to harm or benefit someone
Perjury - lying under oath in a criminal trial to deceive the judge
Crashing - any unauthorized actions that could destroy information on the forum
Phishing - attempting to take personal information from another person
Spamming - wasting space it causing shock on any regional property
Proxying - using a third party server to render the user anonymous
Adspam - recruitment for other regions
Conspiracy - planning attempting or helping someone commit a crime defined in this code
Gross misconduct - violation of a legally sworn oath
My thoughts on the case is this
He is a criminal that deserves to be kicked out of the region forever for treason, fraud and conspiracy (I believe that there is enough evidence to convict him of treason and fraud because while his motives are unknown he might have been trying to worsen the relationship between TNP and FWO)
This is my background
My nation here is Chinese rebel and I’ve been in the region for around one and a half months I have had many wars with bulbasaur Reichpact and xeosia later, the wars starting when I became pacifist, and I’m friends with pigeonstan(though that seems unbelievable to most people, that someone can be friends with him) I have had experience in another region, called the Republic of Conservative Nations, with prosecuting (becoming the region’s prosecutor general)
He is a criminal that deserves to be kicked out of the region forever for treason, fraud and conspiracy (I believe that there is enough evidence to convict him of treason and fraud because while his motives are unknown he might have been trying to worsen the relationship between TNP and FWO)
New Francois was indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Treason. Do you believe as Prosecutor you are able to prosecute them for crimes not listed in the indictment?
Chewie, are you involved in any way with the FWO? You mention NF's possible motive of worsening the relationship with TNP and FWO (which in my own personal opinion couldn't be any worse...), and I am concerned that if you are involved in FWO you may have a vested interest in the result of this case.
Chewie, are you involved in any way with the FWO? You mention NF's possible motive of worsening the relationship with TNP and FWO (which in my own personal opinion couldn't be any worse...), and I am concerned that if you are involved in FWO you may have a vested interest in the result of this case.
New Francois was indicted for Conspiracy to Commit Treason. Do you believe as Prosecutor you are able to prosecute them for crimes not listed in the indictment?
Incorrect. You are terribly, terribly if you think this is the first time 2 criminal cases co-existed with one another. This has happened plenty of times in the past
February 2020
[*] The North Pacific V. Whole India
[*] The North Pacific V. Ikea Rike
[*] The North Pacific V. Artemizistan
May 2014
[*] The North Pacific V. King Durk the Awesome
[*] The North Pacific V. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
March 2013
[*] The North Pacific V. Ravania
[*] The North Pacific V. Eluvatar
[*] The North Pacific V. Kogvuron
February 2013
[*] The North Pacific V. Eluvatar
[*] The North Pacific V. John Ascoft Land
[*] The North Pacific V. Unibot
January 2013
[*] The North Pacific V. John Ascoft Land
[*] The North Pacific V. Unibot
[*] The North Pacific V. Govindia
[*] The North Pacific V. Empire of Narnia
[*] The North Pacific V. Mall
[*] The North Pacific V. SacofTomatos
There’s a lot of more instances where this happened. Though, I’m not going to type them out all. It’d take forever. You can find previous cases here. As a note I’ve chosen to exclude civil cases for reasons.
Though, back on topic: if the Defense Counsel where to approach you on a plea deal of dropping a charge in exchange for pleading guilty to another, would you be open to agreeing to such a deal?
-
As I was finishing writing this, you posed a serious concern.
Incorrect. You are terribly, terribly if you think this is the first time 2 criminal cases co-existed with one another. This has happened plenty of times in the past
February 2020
[*] The North Pacific V. Whole India
[*] The North Pacific V. Ikea Rike
[*] The North Pacific V. Artemizistan
May 2014
[*] The North Pacific V. King Durk the Awesome
[*] The North Pacific V. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch
March 2013
[*] The North Pacific V. Ravania
[*] The North Pacific V. Eluvatar
[*] The North Pacific V. Kogvuron
February 2013
[*] The North Pacific V. Eluvatar
[*] The North Pacific V. John Ascoft Land
[*] The North Pacific V. Unibot
January 2013
[*] The North Pacific V. John Ascoft Land
[*] The North Pacific V. Unibot
[*] The North Pacific V. Govindia
[*] The North Pacific V. Empire of Narnia
[*] The North Pacific V. Mall
[*] The North Pacific V. SacofTomatos
There’s a lot of more instances where this happened. Though, I’m not going to type them out all. It’d take forever. You can find previous cases here. As a note I’ve chosen to exclude civil cases for reasons.
Though, back on topic: if the Defense Counsel where to approach you on a plea deal of dropping a charge in exchange for pleading guilty to another, would you be open to agreeing to such a deal?
-
As I was finishing writing this, you posed a serious concern.
Doesn’t this mean you have a conflict-of-interest and bias in this case as its prosecutor?
1) Do you have a legal basis to be able to prosecute them for crimes not listed in the indictment?
2) How do you believe they have committed treason (as opposed to simply conspiracy to commit treason) and fraud?
That didn’t answer my question - Due to previous (and current) residence in First World Order, this poses a conflict-of-interest and potential bias for the defendant. This is a risk to the case’s impartiality.
That being said, I’ll reiterate: Doesn’t this mean you have a conflict-of-interest and bias in this case as its prosecutor?
That didn’t answer my question - Due to previous (and current) residence in First World Order, this poses a conflict-of-interest and potential bias for the defendant. This is a risk to the case’s impartiality.
That being said, I’ll reiterate: Doesn’t this mean you have a conflict-of-interest and bias in this case as its prosecutor?
1) Do you have a legal basis to be able to prosecute them for crimes not listed in the indictment?
2) How do you believe they have committed treason (as opposed to simply conspiracy to commit treason) and fraud?
1. I believe that when he posted those words they included a declaration of war against TNP
2. I believe that he included many falsehoods in those posts in a effort to prevent relations between the two regions
Would you mind disclosing your other nations, then? I doubt you wouldn’t have a CoI simply because you didn’t like Mr. “New Francois”. This is a conflict-of-interest regarding your involvement in the First World Order region, not just a sole individual. We also can’t factually prove you dislike the mentioned individual as it could be a lie to damage the impartiality of the case (and thus tip the case in favor of the defendant) without proof in the form of confrontations with such individual in the past.
Your vote in the most recent elections proves otherwise. How can you represent The North Pacific in court as a prosecutor when you voted for the accused (and only for the accused for the position he ran in) in the election when the accused's misdeeds were exposed? That brings to question your capability to advocate for TNP against the accused.
Technically speaking, no, but we must keep in mind that this happened because a member of that region attempted to subvert the North Pacific because they are butthurt that they did not get embassies with the North Pacific. So anything emanating from that region must be suspect.
Of course not. However, that doesn’t mean a conflict of interest doesn’t exists. And anyways, we cannot verify whether he does dislike the defendant or not. After all, the charges brought against the defendant were seen taken place in FWO.
If Chewie is still in such region, it could prove to be an impartiality issue. After all, TWO is notorious for its anti-TNP stance. A disclosure of Chewie’s aliases and CoIs would help clear this issue.
Edit: Kyle also brings up a similar good point. I would take this comment into consideration as well.
I would be directing a question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
Can the Foreign Ministry of the North Pacific confirm with region Republic of Conservative Nations about the track record of the proposed prosecutor?
Your vote in the most recent elections proves otherwise. How can you represent The North Pacific in court as a prosecutor when you voted for the accused (and only for the accused for the position he ran in) in the election when the accused's misdeeds were exposed? That brings to question your capability to advocate for TNP against the accused.
Technically speaking, no, but we must keep in mind that this happened because a member of that region attempted to subvert the North Pacific because they are butthurt that they did not get embassies with the North Pacific. So anything emanating from that region must be suspect.
You said you started to "hate" New Francois during his residence in the FWO. Wasn't he already in FWO before the election, before you lodged your vote? I mean, if NF wasn't there before the election, he wouldn't have done this plot to win an election to subvert TNP for his region. So there is a disconnect there.
It is important for court trails to be done fairly and above reproach. When questions of integrity as it relates to those prosecuting, defending, or overseeing the trail arise. These questions need to be addressed in order to maintain the public's faith in the process. A prosecutor who openly hates the defendant is a major issue. A prosecutors job is not to seek revenge or let their personal feelings get in the way of justice and the best interest of the region.
It is important for court trails to be done fairly and above reproach. When questions of integrity as it relates to those prosecuting, defending, or overseeing the trail arise. These questions need to be addressed in order to maintain the public's faith in the process. A prosecutor who openly hates the defendant is a major issue. A prosecutors job is not to seek revenge or let their personal feelings get in the way of justice and the best interest of the region.
I’m also curious as to why my question was ignored by the Prosecutor-nominee? If you don’t have Conflict-of-Interests, surely disclosing your aliases to prove this shouldn’t be a problem. Unless, of course, the prosecutor is hiding something from us? I’m not going to jump the gun so I’ll relax with my questioning. But, these concerns shouldn’t be ignored so simply. Especially when multiple people are concerned with the nominee’s impartiality.
You said you started to "hate" New Francois during his residence in the FWO. Wasn't he already in FWO before the election, before you lodged your vote? I mean, if NF wasn't there before the election, he wouldn't have done this plot to win an election to subvert TNP for his region. So there is a disconnect there.
It is important for court trails to be done fairly and above reproach. When questions of integrity as it relates to those prosecuting, defending, or overseeing the trail arise. These questions need to be addressed in order to maintain the public's faith in the process. A prosecutor who openly hates the defendant is a major issue. A prosecutors job is not to seek revenge or let their personal feelings get in the way of justice and the best interest of the region.
I’m also curious as to why my question was ignored by the Prosecutor-nominee? If you don’t have Conflict-of-Interests, surely disclosing your aliases to prove this shouldn’t be a problem. Unless, of course, the prosecutor is hiding something from us? I’m not going to jump the gun so I’ll relax with my questioning. But, these concerns shouldn’t be ignored so simply. Especially when multiple people are concerned with the nominee’s impartiality.
New Francois is being charged with conspiracy which the criminal code says is
24. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
According to the criminal code and constitution, if he is found guilty he is to by punished by a sentence less then ejection a d banning, and removal of any basic rights.
If the person who filed this complaint, or the court decides to charge him with treason which according to the criminal code
"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.
And if found guilty Will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
New Francois is being charged with conspiracy which the criminal code says is
24. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
According to the criminal code and constitution, if he is found guilty he is to by punished by a sentence less then ejection a d banning, and removal of any basic rights.
If the person who filed this complaint, or the court decides to charge him with treason which according to the criminal code
"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.
And if found guilty Will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
Use it as proof of intent
then I would call every person on the rmb at the time as a witness (if they don’t have a forum account I will encourage them to get one) and of course i will pick his words apart going back to the Latin and Greek as proof what he posted was treason, or conspiracy to commit treason
I'm afraid this isn't really the breakdown I was hoping for, hoping to see a more legal insight and the explanation on why is it those crimes. I'm uncertain if you would have enough knowledge to be the prosecutor for this case.
@Praetor simply put? He seemed to have both the willingness and experience needed for the part. It was presented to me as a matter of utmost urgency that I nominate a prosecutor before the end of my term. At the time this was presented to me the voting period in the election had ended. We were in a period where the announcement of the results could come at any time. So trying to find people who were 1) capable and 2) willing in a very tight window proved to be a bit of a challenge. Which is what made @Chewie seem viable when he agreed to do it.
(why I was told I needed to get this done before the end of my term is beyond me, as Tlomz would have been very capable in accomplishing the task. It was a Justice who did so though, so I took such a statement seriously).
Information has, however, come up that is very concerning. Information that, had I been aware of, I would not have nominated Chewie.
I find his decision to vote for New Francois and his association with FWO to be enough for me to advocate for a vote AGAINST his confirmation.
No, but New Francois proposed his treason plot on the FWO RMB and seemed to be trying to recruit FWO residents/citizens/whathaveyou to his cause. It's enough to raise concerns.
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.
I would suggest not - or at least that such a move would be very open to an r4r, the result of which would likely be an overturning of the Delegate's action due to breaking the spirit of the law. There may be another way forward, however. Should the delegate appoint another prosecutor, and then we simply not move this motion to vote (or secure enough objections once it is moved to vote to prevent a vote from being scheduled), then that may be a course of action that is less legally tenuous.
It has been 9 days since this nomination was opened, 7 since the last post. Are there no further questions? Are we moving forward with this nomination, or is the nominee going to withdraw? Should we not approve of this nominee, we will need the remaining time to vet another prosecutor.
I was in discussions with the delegate as to the status of this appointment and will await an indication from him on whether he will be appointing another prosecutor.
However, seeing a motion to vote and a second, these are accepted, and a vote has been scheduled to begin tomorrow at (time=1600700411). I urge @TlomzKrano to indicate his preferred move forward.