The North Pacific v 9003


This Court is now in session and will be hearing the case The North Pacific v 9003.


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: McMasterdonia

Name(s) of Accused: 9003

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s): Sunday 13 December 2020

Crime: Perjury

Section 1.4: Perjury
14. "Perjury" is defined as the willful provision of deceptive testimony provided under oath and the provision of altered evidence with the intent to deceive in a criminal trial being heard by the Court of The North Pacific.

Specifics of Crime(s):
The accused 9003 wilfully provided deceptive testimony during the trial of The North Pacific v St George. The accused provided evidence to the Court in the form of a complaint that included quotes by Madjack AKA St George made about Wonderess. When questions on this evidence, the accused claimed that they had not seen the quotes before until they were posted in the thread. This is clearly deceptive testimony provided by 9003 in order to deceive the Court.

Summary of Events: As above.

Evidence: and

Presiding over this case as Moderating Justice will be @saintpeter.

Representing The North Pacific as Prosecutor: @Dinoium

Representing 9003 as counsel: @Lady Raven Wing

Plea of the Defendant: Guilty

Current Phase: Sentencing

This post will be updated as information becomes available including the trial timetable.
Last edited:


I plea guilty.
The Defendant's plea has been registered.

As the Defendant has plead guilty to the charge, sentencing shall now commence. Prosecutor and Defense will have until (time=1610579400) for their submissions. If one of the sides needs more time, please inform the Court in a timely manner.

Cc: @Dinoium @Lady Raven Wing


Semi-retired legal nerd.
Thank you, your honor. I’d like to apologize for the long absence of time and no sentencing recommendation from the prosecution earlier. Myself, sister, and father having been suffering from the in-real-life COVID-19 pandemic, tans thus has hindered my activity the past while. However, over the past few days, the prosecution and the defendant’s counsel have agreed on a plea deal.

The defendant (seen above) has agreed to plead guilty for an exclusion recommendation on one of the punishments the penal code permits by law for “Perjury”. We have agreed to provide two separate recommendations as apart of our deal, which I’ll be submitting below.


Your Honor, as the duly prosecutor of “The North Pacific V. 9003”, it is my job to recommend a sentencing in which can help craft the Court’s opinion, especially on this historic case. Today, as apart of the plea bargain between both parties, I’d like to announce our general agreement:
  1. 9003 will be pleading guilty in this case effectively;
  2. After re-examination of the defendant’s actions, we were agreed that while guilty of breaking this law known as “Perjury”, they did not do what they did in bad faith — or at least not maliciously use their government position to commit Perjury;
  3. In return for pleading guilty, we recommend no government barring or position restrictions are leveled on the defendant and;
  4. In exchange for not facing this one specific punishment, both sides have agreed instead of recommending a harder punishment for the other aforementioned punishments.
As written in the penal law, perjury can be punished in this such matter:

The Legal Code of The North Pacific:
“4. Perjury may be punished by the suspension of voting rights, restriction on standing for election, and/or restriction on serving as a government official for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.”

As mentioned in our summary, we don’t wish for the “and/or restriction on serving as a government official for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit” punishment to be dealt out. We don’t think the government official abused their position in a way to commit this crime.[1]

This doesn’t mean the defendant can’t be guilty, though. Both the counsel and prosecution agreed that a harsher punishment (based off of strong reasoning and past precedence) by “the suspension of voting rights or restriction on standing for election” is appropriate to do as regardless perjury was still committed.

I have prepared my reasoning below, which you can use for your suggestion.

Mitigating Factors
  1. The Defendant has no prior criminal record in this region and has been an upstanding citizen;
  2. The Defendant has dedicated to civil service and the benefit for the region, especially in the courts, and most definitely didn’t mean any damage in this red-flag case filing that has led to their perjury offense;
  3. Upon retaining experienced legal counsel, and obtaining legal advice, the Defendant has entered their plea as Guilty. The Guilty plea ensures a speedy resolution to the trial and frees up the resources of the court. They are also aware that what they did were wrong, and hope to return to contributing to the benefit of our civil service;
  4. The Defendant did not abuse their duly office for leverage, influence, or conspiracy in their commission of perjury, and should not be used against them.
Aggravative Factors
  1. The Defendant has admitted to committing a crime against our region;
  2. The Defendant knowingly lied under oath, and while usage of their political office for leverage while committing perjury is out of the question, their action still poses a dangerous consequence to our legal system.
Profile about the Defendant

9003 has been a citizen of our region multiple times, with their most recent application being from November 2019. 9003 has always been seen as a figure that rose through our political system very fast. They have served as the Minister of Defense for the past two terms and have helped greatly in the development of our new judicial system by serving as an counsel for those who cannot represent themselves.

9003 has been commended by the World Assembly for his championing contributions to the greater community, and hailed by many TNP citizens for his work. He has never prided himself of malice and never wanted that to be his character.

Comparison to Similar Cases

The North Pacific V. The Democratic Republic of Tomb: While this case was not in any way related to “Perjury”, “Gross Misconduct” shares a very similar penal punishment to our aforementioned crime. In that case, Tomb would be sentenced to three months of voting right suspension for committing Gross Misconduct. If we were to say Perjury’s punishment in a regular case should be like the Tomb case, a default suspension of voter rights for perjury should be 3 months as set by precedence. This however is no ordinary case, so I beg the court to take some other verdicts into consideration.

The North Pacific V. MadJack: This case is a more rocky one, as it had multiple other serious cases tied to it. In the end, however, the defendant MadJack was also sentenced to three months of voting right suspension for conspiracy to commit gross misconduct and conspiracy to commit fraud. Fraud is another crime that usually goes hand-and-hand with Perjury. Conspiracy usually grants a lighter punishment to the original defined one. If both Gross Misconduct and Fraud punishments are to be treated the same for Perjury, and we note that we have two halves of the regular default precedence punishment set by the above case for Tomb, we equate to 3 months again. Under more normal circumstances, the defendant would be sentenced for a voting rights suspension for 3 months. I want to take one more case into consideration, however.

The North Pacific V. Whole India: This case probably echoes the most for this case as both had plead deals and have penal punishments that are similar. In this case, the defendant Whole India would be found guilty of 75 days of voter right suspension (or roughly 2 and a half months). Not much should be said about this, however we see a difference in the longevity of the voter right suspension than the other 2 examples.

General Comments

With these 3 provided similar cases, multiple factors, evidence provided in the filing, the Defendant showing remorse, and generally having a good record, both the Prosecution and the Defense believe that the Defendant doesn’t deserve to be guilty of a specific punishment, and instead the Defendant should be given a harsher punishment in exchange for all of the other aforementioned punishments.

Final Recommendation

The Prosecution recommends their ability to serve as a government official should not be sanctioned to allow further better civil commitment. Basing off of the Whole India case, MadJack case, and Tomb case, I suggest a voter right suspension for 150 days (or 5 months, June 10th, 2021) and restrictions on standing for election until July 31st, 2021. Or roughly the restriction from standing on election for the May general election and March and July judicial elections.

Thank You,

Dinoium, Esq.
Regional Prosecutor
Representative of ‘The North Pacific’ in ‘The North Pacific V. 9003’

Lady Raven Wing

Sentencing Recommendation of the Defense:

Your Honor, my client has plead guilty to the charge of perjury. Per the Legal Code of our region, they may be punished by "the suspension of voting rights, restriction on standing for election, and/or restriction on serving as a government official for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit."

The Crime in Question:
9003, acting as a private citizen and in concert with others, drafted and then submitted an indictment of St George that resulted in the 2020 case of The North Pacific vs St George. When acting as a witness during the period of evidence submission, 9003 admitted that they had not previously seen several of the pieces of evidence that they had been asked to authenticate and which had been included in the indictment they had filed. Due to this, they were for Perjury. While 9003 acted in negligence rather than malice (as attested to by BMWSurfer, who worked with 9003 on the indictment and who said when asked that "I assisted 9003 with writing the brief. We used Google Docs to draft, and I used the 'suggest' feature to suggest changes to the wording and some of the specific evidence in the complaint. While I can't say for certain whether or not he read the complaint or not, I wouldn't be surprised if he copy and pasted the complaint without reading it."), they have still proven willing to acknowledge such and plead guilty in this case, rather than spawn a lengthy trial.

Mitigating Factors:

1. 9003, when first indicted availed themselves of competent legal advice offered by myself, and upon discussion and advice from the same, pleaded guilty to the charge of Perjury.

2. 9003 is a longtime citizen of The North Pacific, with a history of service to the region and no prior convictions or indictments.

3. 9003 is remorseful. The following is a statement from them that I have been authorized to include here for the purposes of indicating their remorse:
"I am sorry for my statements made in the case against MJ. I understand that it looks like the comments were made maliciously, I want to set the record straight that the comments were an honest mistake on my part. I regret this mistake and regret the interference it has caused within the justice system of The North Pacific. I hope that with this trial I can begin to make amends for my mistakes.

Comparative Cases:
This being the first case of Perjury to be tried under the current laws, there exists no directly comparative cases. However, several cases involving instances of Gross Misconduct are similar, due to their involvement in instances of threats to the order of the region. As these Gross Misconduct cases involve threats to the Executive and constitutional order of the region, so does Perjury generally threaten the Judicial order of the region.

1. In the case of Ikea Rike, they were involved in an attempt to overthrow the government of The North Pacific. Their punishment for Gross Misconduct in this case amounted to a removal from office and a total of 3 months voting rights suspension. Combined with other relevant punishments, Ikea Rike's total punishments that are shared with Perjury include a year of not being allowed to seek or hold office and 6 months of voting rights restrictions. This case is primiarly instructive as an upper bound on punishment, as Ikea Rike committed far more serious crimes than did 9003.

2. In the case of Bobberino, they were punished for the use of their office to potentially negatively impact the election and the rights of NPA soldiers. This punishment consisted of 5 months voting rights suspension, and being removed from the office then held. This case is most similar to that of 9003, in the relative scale of the crime and potential impact of the crime had it gone unreported.

3. In the 2019 case of The North Pacific v. Madjack, they were punished for an attempted conspiracy to subvert the contemporary election through having the New Pacific Order fake evidence of his opponent being an agent of the NPO in exchange for favors as delegate. Ultimately, Madjack was punished for conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Fraud, and received 3 months voting rights suspension and the inability to run for office for about 8 months. This too is a higher crime than the one committed by 9003 due to the nature of the attempted crime, although not the specific charges.

Final Recommendation:

Considering all of this, the Defense submits that a suspension of 9003's voting rights for 4 months, and the same on the ability to stand for election, is an appropriate punishment for Perjury in this instance. While Perjury is a serious crime with the potential to negatively affect the Judicial proceedings of the region and the rights of other citizens, in this instance 9003 does not warrant the full brunt of the law. The crime in question was committed out of negligence rather than malice, and 9003 has expressed remorse over it. Additionally, the voting rights suspension is well within the range provided to similar crimes committed that would have negatively impacted some function of the government. While the suspension on running for office is somewhat lesser than that in the cases of Madjack and Ikea Rike, it is also the case that 9003's actions did not implicate their own office (or specific future offices), nor was the total crime comparatively as serious a threat to the region or other citizens, thus warranting a lesser punishment. Similarly, a restriction of the right to serve as a government official is not appropriate in this instance, as 9003's actions did not implicate their office or any future offices they make seek, only themselves and potentially another citizen. Thus, it should be left for any government officials to decide whether to appoint 9003 to a given office, and to the voters after the suspension of any right to run for office has expired.

Thank you,
Lady Raven Wing, on behalf of 9003