[Chambers] The North Pacific v St George

Vivanco

Vivanco

Retired Law Nerd
-
-
-
Pronouns
She/Her They/Them
TNP Nation
Vivanco
Discord
ra#9794
9003 filed a request for indictment charging St George with Gross Misconduct

For reference, Gross Misconduct would be
  • Violation of a legally mandated oath.
    • Willfully
    • Through Negligence
The prior court accepted such indictment by the bases of a possible relation with prior TNP Law Cases, such as The North Pacific v Tomb, by analogy, and the posts being shown by the indictment, while having to be swore under oath and authenticated in trial, they shall be enough for the Court to consider it, thus accepting the indictment.
 
The Regional Assembly has just chosen Lady Raven Wing to be the prosecution.
Once they have taken their oath, we will proceed with the plea for the Defendant.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Your honour, I understand that there are time frames for evidence submission and for the trial itself. However, I do think a degree of flexibility is required here, particularly when we account for this time of year and the needs of a defendant to a fair trial. A 24 hour time frame is simply not suitable to allow this to occur, particularly one that is commenced in European time which is very late in the evening for me. There would be no opportunity for any response to motions made by the Prosecution or to any clarifying questions that you might have, as I will be in a real court for the day tomorrow. I request a 72 hour time frame to allow a fuller discussion of any matters that may arise. This will allow my client the proper opportunity to receive legal advice and a defence.

Nonetheless, in accordance with my duty as the representative of Madjack and in order to afford him his due rights as a citizen of The North Pacific under article 7 of the Bill of Rights, I motion that the evidence provided by 9003 be dismissed in its entirety. On an objective assessment of the evidence, it is clear that 9003 has wilfully deceived the Court in their testimony. I believe it is within your honours ability to assess this evidence as being perjurious in nature, without necessarily making a statement on 9003's criminality, and that therefore you should order it be removed from the official record.

I have presented an indictment accordingly to have 9003 pursued for the offence of perjury, a most grievous offence against the honourable Court. I believe that this is a very serious matter and not one to be taken lightly.

To elaborate further, 9003 stated in their evidence that:



Despite 9003 being the complainant that resulted in this indictment against St George for exercising his duties as the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, 9003 has stated while under oath that they had never seen the discord evidence before until they were posted in this thread. This same discord evidence was utilised by 9003 in their own complaint. This can be seen from the original complaint here.

St George has an absolute and guaranteed right to the presumption of innocence. St George has the right to a fair and impartial trial. 9003's deceptively provided evidence is contrary to the public record of the very basic facts that led to this trial to take place at all. For 9003's evidence to be included in the official record of a public trial would be unduly prejudicial to St George's rights as a citizen of The North Pacific and unfairly damage his good standing within our community.

It is my respectful submission, Your Honour, that it is your responsibility to preserve these rights of the defendant and the integrity of this Court. Therefore, the evidence of 9003 must be dismissed in its entirety as it forms the basis of a perjurious action before this Court. Furthermore, that 9003 must be pursued to the fullest extent of the law for their perjury before this court.

I have no objection to the entrance into the official record of the threads relating to madjack and Wonderess.
Click to expand...

Lady Raven Wing:
I have no objections to a further extension of the evidence submission period, particularly if the Court does in fact reject the entirety of 9003's testimony.

However, in regard to such testimony, I must object to the suggestion of completely removing the entirety of said testimony. While the response in question certainly suggests a potential problem, there has been no objection to the authentication of the two posts in question. Indeed, the Defense's objections and questions have similarly rested upon such posts to be true, and they have not provided contrary evidence that 9003's testimony regarding the existence and contents of the posts is such.
Click to expand...

An evidence motion has been put in place by the defense, asking for the complete disregard of the deposition of the witness 9003.
I request your point of view on the matter. @Owenstacey @Oracle
 
While the testimony of the witness in the deposition may be called into question due to conflicting statements, the evidence itself has been authenticated. I see no reason to dismiss the evidence submitted by 9003.
 
I'm skeptical, 9003 'authenticates' these posts by saying that these quotes are accurate but also admitted that they had not seen the comments until they were shown to them by Lady Raven Wing, so I would argue that they haven't been authenticated because 9003 had not seen these comments before so, yet having them in the original complaint. So, I think that there is an argument here to disallow the evidence.

However, Lady Raven Wing does also have a point, the defense did not try to refute this authentication during the deposition, so I am unsure but would slightly side with the defense, but if you agree with Oracle, then I would understand.
 
Here are my thoughts.

In order for a deposition to authenticate the evidence submitted by the parts it is fundamental that the court trusts the witness, since we rely on them fulfilling their oath to their full extent, and the witness has been shown a fundamental contradiction within the subject at hand of the proof shown before us. Without getting into detail on whenever this act may constitute perjury or not, since that will be discussed in another trial, it is a fact that we see a flaw within the integrity of the witness. For that, and in order to ensure the fairness of the trial to have faithful witnesses, I would accept the defense's motion and disregard the deposition of the witness, allowing the defense to open up new depositions if needed.

The defense has acted correctly in the process of objections regarding the deposition for they have acted on the main thread once the deposition had been properly introduced into the record and acted from that point.

Do we all agree?
@Owenstacey @Oracle
 
Last edited:
The parts have submitted the following arguments:
Lady Raven Wing:
Your honor, the case before the Court concerning the Defendant's deliberate non-processing of Wonderess' application for citizenship is fairly simply. By acting deliberately and explicitly to not process the citizenship application of the aforementioned, the Defendant has acted to violate their sworn oath as the Speaker of the Assembly, which constitutes Gross Misconduct.

Matters of the Law and Oath:
Gross Misconduct is defined as: "the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence."

The Oath of Office is: "I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein."

Legal Code 6.1.10 Reads: "The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship."

Arguments:
Principally, in order for the Defendant to have committed Gross Misconduct, they must have violated their oath of office in some manner. In this instance, the Defendant has acted in a biased manner towards Wonderess' citizenship application. By doing so, the Defendant has abused their power.

The Defendant's lack of action on Wonderess' citizenship application by itself would constitute suspicious actions, as it would clearly leave one potential citizen left out of general application processing. Both by the schedule published near the beginning of the Speaker's term in B.1, which demonstrates general intent to efficiently process all applications; and by the same efficiency in processing all applications within a day or two demonstrated in B.2.

I further argue that the Defendant acted with clear bias, and thus more obviously abused their power. In A.1, the Defendenat clearly indicates an intent to not process the application of Wonderess, and in A.2 & A.3 (bullet 4), the Defendant further indicates that their lack of action in not processing the application of Wonderess was due to an intense personal dislike of Wonderess. While the stated reasons may be understandable, the opinions of an applicant are not within the remit of the Speaker's office to consider when determining whether an applicant has a nation within the region and has passed the other 2 checks. As acting in a biased manner, and in conjunction in manner to serve as an abuse of power, the Defendant has thus broken their oath of office and committed Gross Misconduct.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to say that the Speaker has a legal ability to not process any applications, and more particularly to not process specific ones (whether done with stated reasons or not). The Legal Code contains provisions to address a Speaker not processing applications yes, but to have contingency procedures in case of an absent or malicious Speaker is not to allow for the Speaker to have the legal ability to not process applications. Rather, as processing citizenship applications is one of the core duties of Speaker, not doing so (whether not done at all, or as in this instance to a specific application) at all would reasonably constitue nonfeasance in office, where.in an official duty has failed to have been preformed. Nonfeasance in office is itself a violation of the oath of office, and therefore Gross Misconduct.

Thus, whether the Court finds the Defendant to have acted in a biased manner to abuse their power, to have failed to carry out an official duty, or both; the Defendant has in fact committed Gross Misconduct.
Click to expand...
mcmasterdonia:
Arguments for the Defence:​

Your Honour, I agree with the prosecution that the matter before the court is a simple one, on the face of it. The defendant aka St George aka Madjack, henceforth referred to as “St George” is not guilty of the offence of Gross Misconduct. In accepting to represent St George in this matter, I knew that the charges themselves were baseless and likely to be motivated by political machinations. What I did not foresee, was the eventual indictment of the complainant themselves. We do not yet know what findings may come from that trial.

We can only hope that the people of The North Pacific know the truth about the motivations of these charges. Those questions are for another day and another time. What question the Court must answer from this matter is whether or not St George is guilty or not guilty. Based upon the facts presented to this Court, that finding must be one of Not Guilty.

Matters of Law

The oath of office that St George has undertaken on numerous occasions as a government official and that he continues to uphold is as follows:



The Legal Code 6.1.10 refers to the duties of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly as follows:



The Bill of Rights Article 9 states the following in relation to the operation of the governmental authorities of the region:



Arguments

Declining to Process Wonderess’s Citizenship was a legal act of Regional Leadership

In declining to process Wonderess’s application, St George acted within his duties as a Government Official and well within the constitution and legal code provisions that relate to his position. St George demonstrated tenacious leadership in this decision. The defence submits that Wonderess was deserving of having his application not processed.

St George publicly stated that he would not immediately process Wonderess’ application to be a citizen of The North Pacific. He did not hide behind pretense or create a fiction to mask that decision. St George stood before the people of The North Pacific and explicitly stated his reasons for taking this action. He did not make excuses - he listened, he explained, and he demonstrated his leadership ability in taking such a courageous stand. St George should be commended not punished for his leadership of the Regional Assembly.

It is not the responsibility of the Court to punish our regional leaders for their courage. It is not the responsibility of the Court to serve as an arbiter over political disputes that are not legal disputes in nature. St George demonstrated that he is willing and able to make the right decision, even if that decision is an unpopular one. St George demonstrated that he is truly a strong regional leader capable of making the right call for the right reason at the right time.

Wonderess’s values, associations and behaviours are incompatible with the inclusive regional society that so many have strove to build. Madjack’s decision to not process that application is in recognition of the threat that Wonderess holds to that society. It is an entirely right decision and an act of regional leadership. The Court should not punish St George for exercising the political and legal rights of the office of Speaker to decline to process Wonderess’s application for citizenship.

Legal code 6.1.10 clearly states that the Speaker has 14 days to process applications. It clearly states that if that application has not been processed within that time, the individual will be granted citizenship. St George is fully in compliance with this provision of the law.

While the Speaker did not immediately process the application, there is no requirement that they must do so. Wonderess was promptly granted citizenship upon the expiration of that 14 day timeframe, with St George staying up well into the evening to ensure that this occurred. It is perfectly reasonable to infer from a reading of the legal code provisions that a Speaker has a 14 day timeframe to process an application and if they do not process it, that individual will be granted citizenship. St George even noted that in his post here. That is precisely what has occurred in this situation.

Therefore, St George’s actions of regional leadership were fully in compliance with the regional laws and did not deny Wonderess’s participation as a citizen of The North Pacific. St George’s actions as Speaker of the Regional Assembly are explicitly permitted within the legal code. The Court must not rule that St George has violated his oath in any manner, given this express provision of the Legal Code. Declining to process Wonderess’s application was a fundamentally correct and proper thing to do and well within the express powers of the office of Speaker of the Regional Assembly.

The proper forum to address this is either moderation or the Regional Assembly

The proper forum to address such allegations that fundamentally relate to the leadership of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly is the Regional Assembly. The complainant or Wonderess or any member of the Regional Assembly could have opened up a discussion thread in the Regional Assembly on St George’s actions and sought to have him removed from his post as Speaker of the Regional Assembly via a recall.

It is very telling that this process was not desirable to either the complainant or to the alleged victim. Even without being a citizen immediately, Wonderess’ had access to the residents area of the Regional Assembly and could have initiated said discussion.

Ultimately, this hearing is about the leadership of St George and his exercises of the legal powers and responsibilities of his office. It is not really a discussion of criminal liability, at least not for St George.

Secondly, the screenshots listed by the Prosecution contain quotes of allegedly biased and malicious behaviour. None of these remarks were reported to administration or moderation to be addressed. If these remarks were as egregious as alleged, it would have been the most appropriate option to refer them to moderation for immediate action - as is provided for in the Constitution of The North Pacific. No evidence other than a select few of out of context screenshots have been presented to demonstrate this.

The Court exists to preside over criminal trials and to answer requests for review. It does not exist to preside over moderation issues or political disagreements that can be resolved via the recall process in the Regional Assembly.

St George’s actions are within compliance of Bill of Rights Article 9

St George’s actions did not deny Wonderess his rights under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Even while St George processed Wonderess’s application to be a citizen of The North Pacific after a 14 day period, there were still a number of areas available to Wonderess including the following: a recall of St George via the Regional Assembly, a request for review via the Court of The North Pacific, and a criminal complaint against St George.

While we cannot be certain of Wonderess’s opinion of the criminal complaint, one thing is clear - Wonderess took no such action in response to St George’s decision to only process his application after 14 days. There was no attempt to recall St George. There was no attempt to review the actions of St George. Wonderess did not submit the criminal complaint against St George. All of these options were available to him and none of them were taken up.

Wonderess suffered no harm as a result of St George’s actions as Speaker of the Regional Assembly. Wonderess received citizenship 14 days after his application was submitted and at no point were his rights infringed upon or denied by St George.

St George’s actions do not rise to the level of Gross Misconduct

While the defence and many others certainly feel that St George’s actions were those of courageous public leadership, there may be some that disagree with that assessment. Fundamentally, that is their right as citizens of The North Pacific. They have the right to vote in the Regional Assembly and in general elections, amongst many other rights. They may choose to recall St George as Speaker of the Regional Assembly, perhaps they may swear to never vote for St George ever again. Both of those things would be completely within the laws of The North Pacific, even if they are perhaps unreasonable political positions to take.

St George’s actions, whether you characterise them as right and just, or as unreasonable, do not rise to the level of Gross Misconduct.

The only evidence relied upon by the Prosecution are a number of screenshots from the regional discord server. The Prosecution has not demonstrated that Wonderess’s rights were infringed as a resident or citizen of The North Pacific. The Prosecution has not demonstrated that St George has violated any of the legal code provisions that relate to his powers and responsibilities as Speaker of The Regional Assembly. The Prosecution has not demonstrated that St George has violated his oath.

Respectfully your honour, the defence submits that St George’s actions do not come close to the level of gross misconduct. St George’s actions were well within his legal responsibilities as Speaker of the Regional Assembly and in absolute compliance with his oath as that office holder. Should the Prosecution or anyone else disagree with this assessment, they are free to pursue his recall, to not vote for St George again, or to request a review of his actions as Speaker. It would be unconscionable for St George to be found criminally guilty for his decisive leadership as Speaker of the Regional Assembly.

In conclusion:

Therefore based on the above arguments your honour and the fact that the Prosecution has not satisfactorily demonstrated guilt to the necessary standard, the defence submits that the only fair verdict that can be rendered against St George is one of Not Guilty.
Click to expand...

There has been an objection to the arguments of the defense by the prosecution.
Lady Raven Wing:
I would object to the repeated reference to the Discord screenshots I originally submitted under C. Those screenshots were not accepted as evidence, nor did my own arguments ever mention ever them (despite what the Defense has said). To allow the Defense to still make reference to evidence not accepted as evidence by the Court would be contrary to the very purpose of having evidence authenticated.
Click to expand...

I request your points of view for the case. @Oracle @Owenstacey
 
court_seal.png


Judgment of the Court of The North Pacific
Judgment drafted by Vivanco, joined by [TBF], with [TBF] abstaining​

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

The Defendant, St George, is found Guilty on the charge of Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

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. It has been proven with the submitted evidence by the prosecution that the defendant had the lead power within the Speaker's Office, and since such power of decision is only obtained and used after the taking of the legally mandated oath, we shall accept that the defendant has been proven to have sworn a certain oath, in this case, the Speaker's office oath.

Said oath is regulated within the Legal Code, article 4.1.1:
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Within the Legal Code we find the article 6.1.10, which reads the following:
The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.
Click to expand...

Following the literal sense of the law, it is mandatory for the Speaker to process the applications within 14 days, as the legislator uses the verb "will", as an imperative order to the held office. However, it is shown that, in case of the applicant not being processed in the stated time, to be automatically granted citizenship, in order to not congestionate the bureaucratic system of citizenship for the region.

It has been proven to the Court with the submitted evidence the fact that other people were processed and that said unprocess was not due to Force Majeure, but of personal choice of the defendant.

It is suggested by the defense that the acts of the defendant can be held under the oath as they were acting under the best interest of the region, as it has been defined by the defense:
Wonderess’s values, associations and behaviours are incompatible with the inclusive regional society that so many have strove to build
Click to expand...

These supposed values, associations and behaviours, which are suggested not to be compatible with the region's society have not been proven to the Court.

It has been further proven the personal dislike of the defendant to Wonderess was the reason behind this lack of actuation, as seen in Evidence A.3, from where we quote:
This is due to a dispute I have with Wonderess. Well, yeah. I have a dispute with how Wonderess acts, the things he says and what he does when in positions of power. I believe that TNP is better off without him.
Click to expand...

The defense claims there was no harm done for Wonderess since after said 14 days, they were granted citizenship. This, however, is wrong, since in those 14 days other people have been granted the citizen check, creating a discrimination against Wonderess without further interest than to delay the interested part of the right of the acceptance and equal treatment by a government official, in comparisson to those granted the passing of the Speaker's Check as seen in the Evidence B.2.

We would like further to sustain the objection risen by the prosecution regarding the refferred evidence.

While it is true that this Courtroom is not the place for political discussions nor moderation issues, it is the place in order to annalize the law upon the facts given and decide whenever said law was broken or not. And in this case, with the reasonings given and proof given to the court, we rule that it has.
 
I have been made aware of a problem and I will promptly change the judgement to Not Guilty due to the fact that there was actually no proof submitted of the Oath taking place, such as what happened in TNP v. Ihese.

Do we all agree with the decision?

@Oracle @Owenstacey
 
Such as in TNP v. Ihese:

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.
 
Firstly, this Court would like to apologize to the parts and most specifically, to the defendant for the prior veredict. It is no secret that there are events outside of our control in real life that has kept some of our minds occupied, and even as we have done what we could to be swift and proper, we have lacked enough quality in this first veredict, having been almost rushed. With the whole COVID, Christmas and New Year that have went on in these days, we had to act as we could, and I must admit we have acted wrongfully. And I am the first who have wronged.

Upon a much further exploration in order to have an in depth reasoning as it has been requested by the defense, we have realized upon a major flaw upon our reasoning that we must amend as soon as we are able to, and we would like to take the opportunity as no continuation has been done other than this court claiming for the next phase. The parts are allowed to take this issue for a R4R whenever the Court has the power to do so, while I do believe so.

For this, and basing ourselves in the facts and case law of this region, mainly TNP v. Ihese, we would like to change the judgement to the following.

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.


Any objections / abstentions?
@Owenstacey @Oracle
 
Last edited:
This case is now closed. I thank both of your help. This thread shall be now closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top