We're done with the Deliberation stage, which basically consisted of my double checking precedent to make sure we were doing this properly and communicating that to the other hearing officers. In retrospect, it was unnecessary, but I wanted to be sure.
We are now open to arguments on sentencing: each side is free to post sentencing recommendations. If both sides post before July 11th and indicate that they do not need to make any rebuttal, we will proceed to our deliberations on Sentencing immediately. In any event, I will allow either side 24 hours to rebut the other sides' recommendation, but rebuttal should only be used to make arguments you did not make in your original recommendation, may only address the arguments made in the other sides' recommendation, and should be avoided if possible. I will not allow rebuttals to rebuttals.
No other person in TNP history has ever faced the same circumstances, nor had the moral and ethical need to break the law. No other person faced stiffer consequences for not breaking the law.
Mitigating Circumstances:
The mitigating circumstances in this case is overpowering and should be given great weight by the court in their deliberations. This was not a case of a Defendant acting for personal gain, to harm a person or the region, or a misuse of power. The Defendant was placed in an impossible situation. He faced sanction and loss of his citizenship in TRR if he failed to act. He would violate a treaty that, as a citizen of TRR, was required to follow. Within the North Pacific, the Unicorn Star Treaty, required the disclosure of this information he is alleged to have released. To date, the Delegate has not stated publicly if he has followed the treaty as required. In the Delegate’s response to a Freedom of Information request, he stated that he wanted to avoid a diplomatic spat with Europiea. Furthermore, the Delegate sought to act on this clandestinely acquired information, by complying with the demands of a foreign region. An act which collapsed the previous administration.
The letter of the law has been served. The Defendant has been tried and convicted. The court needs to turn to the spirit of the law when determining the sentence. Our criminal code is
there to punish abuse of power, to punish a misuse of the trust we place in our citizens. It is not there to force a citizen to choose between which law to break. It is not there to force a citizen to violate the trust and laws of others in which we are allied with. It is there to keep our community functioning and serving the people within.
I ask the court and those who are watching this case to take a moment and reflect on the position St George was in. He was asked to serve as an advisor to the Delegate, and he did. The Delegate knew of his citizenship and dual loyalties. The Delegate, when even present to make decisions, ran a government within a government; excluding his own Ministers. A nominal allied region came and presented St George’s statement. A statement they received unlawfully. A statement from a region the North Pacific is allied with. They then demanded his removal from a joint diplomatic channel. The Delegate caved. Caved knowing the information was illicitly obtained, then dragged his feet on disclosing. St George then faced a choice. He was being removed for speaking as a private citizen in a private area of another region. He was being told that the region in which the North Pacific was legally obligated to disclose the information to, was being held from them. A region that he had the legal obligation, by its own laws in which he agreed to follow, to disclose the information. He was effectively becoming a party to an act of Espionage after the fact.
In that position, could you have done better?
We ask the court to take this into consideration and suspend his voting rights for 1 minute, the legal minimum for this charge.
Apollogies to the court and the Prosecution. The sentence recommendation at at the end of my last submission should not have been included. I request that the court strike it.
Comparable Cases:
This case is particularly unique in many ways and thus does not lend well to being compared to many other cases ever tried by this court.
Mitigating Statement:
St. George has served as a valuable member of this community for a significant portion of time, serving in a litany of high profile positions demanding significant trust from the community. Despite previous run-ins with the law, they served their time amicably and continued to be a productive member of our community. These factors obviously do not alter the letter of the law, nor allow for wanton acts of criminality.
Statement from the Prosecution:
The role of Prosecutor is inherently apolitical, however one would be remiss to not recognize that criminal cases can have political and diplomatic implications, whether intentional or not. My primary objective as prosecutor is to remain above these distractions and stick to the facts of the case as they present themselves before myself and the court.
The facts of this case are quite simple. The defendant, in their capacity as Advisor to the Delegate, had access and actively participated in high level, private discussions regarding the conversation Delegate Gorundu had with one Rand from Europeia. Regardless of the content of this conversation, nor any political or diplomatic implications, the defendant was never authorized to share any of this private information in any capacity. Despite this lack of authorization, the defendant took the contents of these private discussions and rendered them into a dispatch which they posted publicly on-site and actively promoted their illegally created dispatch in multiple high-visibility areas as indicated by the submitted evidence.
Given this unfortunate and fundamentally blatant act of criminality, an indictment was the obvious conclusion. Thanks to productive discussions and diligent work by the Defense and Prosecution, we have arrived where we are today.
Sentencing Recommendation:
The Prosecution reiterates the sentencing recommendation shown in the plea deal of 3 months suspension of voting rights.
The Prosecution thanks the court for their time and consideration.
The court is deliberating and every effort is being made to come to a good and swift ruling. I apologize for my error with the timeline, I meant to give the Court a few days to deliberate after arguments were over. If I apply the logic I applied to the arguments timeline, our deadline would be July 16th. I can't guarantee we will announce a sentence today, but I am pretty confident we will have something by July 16h.
Section 1.13: Gross Misconduct
27. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Chapter 2: Penal Code
...
10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has ratified a treaty of alliance with.
9. The preceding clause also applies to foreign powers that the Regional Assembly has, by treaties other than alliances, agreed to prohibit espionage against.
10. The Regional Assembly has ratified treaties of alliance with Balder, Equilism, Europe, Europeia, Greater Dienstad, International Democratic Union, Lazarus, Stargate, Tajitu, The East Pacific, The Pacific, the Rejected Realms and the West Pacific.
11. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
1. The signatories shall provide information to their counterpart's World Assembly Delegate which is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, unless the signatory in possession of such intelligence reasonably believes that doing so would violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or said signatory's forum provider, or when revealing that information would unduly compromise that party's source(s) of information. If this intelligence relates to actions of the other signatory's Delegate, then it will be provided to the Security Council for The North Pacific, or to the Citizenship Council of The Rejected Realms.
2. The signatories will keep confidential all intelligence provided to them under this Article, unless the other signatory consents to the release.
3. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum, without that signatory's knowledge, and at the direction of the other signatory.
Nation: The Notorious Mad Jack
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.
I, St George, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Advisor to the Delegate, 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 Advisor to the Delegate, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
I, St George, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Minister of Culture, 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 Minister of Culture, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
The Prosecution and the Defense submit the following to the court. After deliberation, we agree to the following:
The Prosecution dismisses the charge of Espionage and charges the Defendant with one count of Gross Misconduct.
The Prosecution strikes the evidence submission of the log from the Office of the Delegate Channel.
The Prosecution and Defense agree that the inclusion of the Dispatch Accusing European President Rand of Espionage was made by St George and is properly before the court as evidence as required by “On the Sentence Issued by the Court in the Case of The North Pacific v. Whole India.”
The Defense waves any conflict claims regarding Great Blights Mum and Oracle. The Defendant understands that waving conflict would preclude an appeal based on conflict for these Temporary Hearing Officers.
The Prosecution accepts the Defendants Plea of No Contest to the count of Gross Misconduct.
The Prosecution and Defense submit a Joint Recommendation of 3 months, Suspension Voting Rights. Each party will submit a separate statement on relevant law and other factors the Court should consider when determining a final sentence.
Statement of Facts
At all times, TNP had and maintained a treaty with TRR, the Unicorn Star Treaty. This treaty requires the signatories to share information pertinent to the others regional security :
Unicorn Star Treaty:
Article 3- Intelligence Sharing
1. The signatories shall provide information to their counterpart's World Assembly Delegate which is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, unless the signatory in possession of such intelligence reasonably believes that doing so would violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or said signatory's forum provider, or when revealing that information would unduly compromise that party's source(s) of information. If this intelligence relates to actions of the other signatory's Delegate, then it will be provided to the Security Council for The North Pacific, or to the Citizenship Council of The Rejected Realms.
2. The signatories will keep confidential all intelligence provided to them under this Article, unless the other signatory consents to the release.
3. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum, without that signatory's knowledge, and at the direction of the other signatory.
At all times, TNP had and maintained a treaty with Europeia, the Treaty of Friendship between The North Pacific and Europeia. The treaty requires the signatories to share information pertinent to the others regional security:
the Treaty of Friendship:
2. Intelligence Undertakings
(a) Neither TNP nor Europeia will set spies on the other. For this purpose, a "spy" is a person acting under false pretenses in one region, without that region's knowledge, and at the direction of the other region's legitimate government.
(b) TNP and Europeia each shall provide information to the other if such information is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, or otherwise upon the other's reasonable request, unless the party in possession of such information reasonably believes that providing that information might violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or the region's forum provider, or when revealing that information would unduly compromise that party's source(s) of information. Both signatories shall endeavor to reveal as much as possible in such situations, but not more than they can under laws, terms of service or the need to protect sources.
(c.) TNP and Europeia will each make it a violation of their internal laws to spy on the other, if a similar or related law to the same effect does not already exist. To the extent permitted by each region's laws, this Section 2(c.) shall be deemed self-executing.
At all times, the Defendant was a Citizen of TNP, a government official, and subject to its laws. At all times, the Defendant was a citizen of TRR, and subject to its laws; this includes the Aegis Accords, and relevant Citizenship laws of TRR.
At the time of the alleged offense, the Defendant St George was a citizen of the North Pacific (TNP), Advisor to the Delegate (TNP), Minister of Culture (TNP), and a citizen of the Rejected Realms. In his capacity as a citizen of TRR, he commented on the inclusion of Europea to the Aegis Accords in a private citizens only area of TRR’s forums. He did this solely in his capacity as a resident of TRR and not in any capacity as an official and/or citizen of TNP. As a citizen of TRR, who has a vested interest in the matter, he spoke openly and honestly on the topic, relying on his personal beliefs and experiences in past positions in both regions.
On or about June 7, 2023, the Defendant's statements in the private area of TRR were disclosed to the Delegate of the North Pacific Gorundu (the Delegate). The Delegate disclosed that he had been contacted by the then President of Europeia Rand about the statements the Defendant made. The disclosure was made in an area the Defendant had lawful access to. The Delegate noted that the disclosure showed that Europeia had access to or information from a private area of TRR, that should have not been disclosed to Europeia. The Delegate later noted that TNP had a duty to disclose this information to TRR. The Delegate, after some discussion, noted that it was possibly an attempt to get the Defendant removed from his positions within TNP.
On or about June 8, 2023, the Defendant inquired about disclosing this information to TRR, as required by treaty. The Delegate declined at the time to disclose the information, awaiting further comment from Rand.
On or about June 9, 2023, the Defendant again inquired about disclosing the information to TRR. The Delegate informed the Defendant that Rand had ignored the Delegate’s notification about being required to inform TRR of the leak of information from their private area. Instead the conversation focused on removing the Defendant from the Modern Gameplay Compact Server. On the same day, the Defendant published a dispatch outlining what he believed to be Europeia’s violation of TRRs sovereignty and resigned from his positions within TNP. This included information obtained from his access to a channel as part of his duties as an Advisor to the Delegate. The release of the information was not expressly authorized by the Delegate.
On No Contest Pleas
Regarding the plea of No Contest, the court of The North Pacific has previously encountered one other such use of this plea, specifically in the case of ‘The North Pacific v New Francois’. It is the joint belief of the Prosecution and the Defense that the legality of this plea was improperly reasoned by involved parties, and highlight that the ruling made in that particular case was explicitly intended for use in that case and that case alone, making no further judgements on the issue as it pertains to any future cases.
Nowhere in the constitution or legal code does it relate a particular plea to a particular state of guilt or innocence. All that is required is the ‘fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer.’ The defendant entered this plea as part of a deal with the prosecution, absent of any coercion, in conjunction with the legal guidance provided to them by their counsel. The plea functions so as to not expressly admit guilt, while acknowledging that a criminal act as described by the indictment did occur in line with the facts and evidence presented, and thus that acknowledgement allowing the court to proceed to sentencing for the criminal act as presented by the Prosecution.
While the Defense has elected to not admit guilt, in line with their submitted plea, they have acknowledged that a criminal act did occur and thus the court may continue to sentencing as per Chapter 2.1 of the Legal Code, “Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.”
It should be noted that, for the exclusive purpose of sentencing, the plea’s interaction with Clause 7 of The Bill of Rights, “...a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence...”, is to acknowledge the criminal act and allow the court to ascertain guilt given the combination of the plea, mutually submitted statement of facts, and evidence before them.
With this submission, both parties are ready to schedule sentencing and to submit their arguments on mitigating and aggravating sentencing.
No other person in TNP history has ever faced the same circumstances, nor had the moral and ethical need to break the law. No other person faced stiffer consequences for not breaking the law.
Mitigating Circumstances:
The mitigating circumstances in this case is overpowering and should be given great weight by the court in their deliberations. This was not a case of a Defendant acting for personal gain, to harm a person or the region, or a misuse of power. The Defendant was placed in an impossible situation. He faced sanction and loss of his citizenship in TRR if he failed to act. He would violate a treaty that, as a citizen of TRR, was required to follow. Within the North Pacific, the Unicorn Star Treaty, required the disclosure of this information he is alleged to have released. To date, the Delegate has not stated publicly if he has followed the treaty as required. In the Delegate’s response to a Freedom of Information request, he stated that he wanted to avoid a diplomatic spat with Europiea. Furthermore, the Delegate sought to act on this clandestinely acquired information, by complying with the demands of a foreign region. An act which collapsed the previous administration.
The letter of the law has been served. The Defendant has been tried and convicted. The court needs to turn to the spirit of the law when determining the sentence. Our criminal code is
there to punish abuse of power, to punish a misuse of the trust we place in our citizens. It is not there to force a citizen to choose between which law to break. It is not there to force a citizen to violate the trust and laws of others in which we are allied with. It is there to keep our community functioning and serving the people within.
I ask the court and those who are watching this case to take a moment and reflect on the position St George was in. He was asked to serve as an advisor to the Delegate, and he did. The Delegate knew of his citizenship and dual loyalties. The Delegate, when even present to make decisions, ran a government within a government; excluding his own Ministers. A nominal allied region came and presented St George’s statement. A statement they received unlawfully. A statement from a region the North Pacific is allied with. They then demanded his removal from a joint diplomatic channel. The Delegate caved. Caved knowing the information was illicitly obtained, then dragged his feet on disclosing. St George then faced a choice. He was being removed for speaking as a private citizen in a private area of another region. He was being told that the region in which the North Pacific was legally obligated to disclose the information to, was being held from them. A region that he had the legal obligation, by its own laws in which he agreed to follow, to disclose the information. He was effectively becoming a party to an act of Espionage after the fact.
As the appointed prosecutor representing the people of The North Pacific, I present the following for consideration in sentencing:
The defendant has pleaded No Contest to the charge of Gross Misconduct as part of a plea deal made with the prosecution, detailed above.
The offense carries the following sentencing guideline:
Comparable Cases:
This case is particularly unique in many ways and thus does not lend well to being compared to many other cases ever tried by this court.
Mitigating Statement:
St. George has served as a valuable member of this community for a significant portion of time, serving in a litany of high profile positions demanding significant trust from the community. Despite previous run-ins with the law, they served their time amicably and continued to be a productive member of our community. These factors obviously do not alter the letter of the law, nor allow for wanton acts of criminality.
Statement from the Prosecution:
The role of Prosecutor is inherently apolitical, however one would be remiss to not recognize that criminal cases can have political and diplomatic implications, whether intentional or not. My primary objective as prosecutor is to remain above these distractions and stick to the facts of the case as they present themselves before myself and the court.
The facts of this case are quite simple. The defendant, in their capacity as Advisor to the Delegate, had access and actively participated in high level, private discussions regarding the conversation Delegate Gorundu had with one Rand from Europeia. Regardless of the content of this conversation, nor any political or diplomatic implications, the defendant was never authorized to share any of this private information in any capacity. Despite this lack of authorization, the defendant took the contents of these private discussions and rendered them into a dispatch which they posted publicly on-site and actively promoted their illegally created dispatch in multiple high-visibility areas as indicated by the submitted evidence.
Given this unfortunate and fundamentally blatant act of criminality, an indictment was the obvious conclusion. Thanks to productive discussions and diligent work by the Defense and Prosecution, we have arrived where we are today.
Sentencing Recommendation:
The Prosecution reiterates the sentencing recommendation shown in the plea deal of 3 months suspension of voting rights.
The Prosecution thanks the court for their time and consideration.
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clause 23, The Court sees fit that Bobberino will be punished for Gross Misconduct removal from office and suspension of voting rights for a period of five months.
Bobberino has a history of good conduct in this region. However, the message in question was an abuse of power that could disrupt the Delegate election and call the result into question. Further, the defendant does not appear remorseful or to regret their actions. Not contesting the verdict is not of itself an acknowledgement of fault, regret, or remorse.
The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Bobberino.
Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific In the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Order drafted by Bootsie, joined by Eluvatar and SillyString
The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses 12, 22, and 23 of the North Pacific Criminal Code Code (Legal Code, Chapter 2):
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Under The North Pacific Legal Code Chapter 1, Clauses 12, 22, and 23, The Court sees fit that Madjack will be punished for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct and Conspiracy to commit Fraud with a suspension of voting rights for a period of three months.
Additionally, Madjack will be unable to run as a candidate in any election, through February 1st, 2020.
Madjack has no criminal history and has positively contributed to our region. The Court sees no reason to place long-term impediments on his ability to participate as a citizen and make his voice heard by the various government bodies. As such, we felt a minimal voting rights restriction is appropriate given the facts of the case. However, the Court cannot ignore the nature of the attempted crime: If carried out, it would have been a subversion of our democratic elections and an unfounded smear against another citizen's good name. And even if not seriously attempted, the defendant would have been vulnerable to blackmail had the NPO members he contacted not informed the authorities. Given this, a longer restriction on running for elected office is warranted.
The Speaker of the RA and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to make appropriate requests of forum administration.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. Madjack
Under the TNP Legal Code Chapter 2, Section 8, The Court sees fit that The Democratic Republic of Tomb will have their voting rights suspended for three months. The sentencing period will begin today, 1 July until 1 October.
The admins will be informed of this verdict. In the case that the admins fail to impose this sentence before any vote is scheduled, the Court will request that the Speaker of the RA, or any election commissioners, to nullify all votes by the Defendant.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.[/hr]
The facts of this case are quite simple. The defendant, in their capacity as Advisor to the Delegate, had access and actively participated in high level, private discussions regarding the conversation Delegate Gorundu had with one Rand from Europeia. Regardless of the content of this conversation, nor any political or diplomatic implications, the defendant was never authorized to share any of this private information in any capacity. Despite this lack of authorization, the defendant took the contents of these private discussions and rendered them into a dispatch which they posted publicly on-site and actively promoted their illegally created dispatch in multiple high-visibility areas as indicated by the submitted evidence.
It is established that St George does not contest the charge of Gross Misconduct. It is accepted that St George broke his oath as Advisor to the Delegate through an unauthorized leak.
In their sentencing recommendation, the defense says that:
I ask the court and those who are watching this case to take a moment and reflect on the position St George was in. He was asked to serve as an advisor to the Delegate, and he did. The Delegate knew of his citizenship and dual loyalties. The Delegate, when even present to make decisions, ran a government within a government; excluding his own Ministers. A nominal allied region came and presented St George’s statement. A statement they received unlawfully. A statement from a region the North Pacific is allied with. They then demanded his removal from a joint diplomatic channel. The Delegate caved. Caved knowing the information was illicitly obtained, then dragged his feet on disclosing. St George then faced a choice. He was being removed for speaking as a private citizen in a private area of another region. He was being told that the region in which the North Pacific was legally obligated to disclose the information to, was being held from them. A region that he had the legal obligation, by its own laws in which he agreed to follow, to disclose the information. He was effectively becoming a party to an act of Espionage after the fact.
1. The signatories shall provide information to their counterpart's World Assembly Delegate which is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, unless the signatory in possession of such intelligence reasonably believes that doing so would violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or said signatory's forum provider, or when revealing that information would unduly compromise that party's source(s) of information. If this intelligence relates to actions of the other signatory's Delegate, then it will be provided to the Security Council for The North Pacific, or to the Citizenship Council of The Rejected Realms.
2. The signatories will keep confidential all intelligence provided to them under this Article, unless the other signatory consents to the release.
3. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum, without that signatory's knowledge, and at the direction of the other signatory.
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has ratified a treaty of alliance with.
9. The preceding clause also applies to foreign powers that the Regional Assembly has, by treaties other than alliances, agreed to prohibit espionage against.
10. The Regional Assembly has ratified treaties of alliance with Balder, Equilism, Europe, Europeia, Greater Dienstad, International Democratic Union, Lazarus, Stargate, Tajitu, The East Pacific, The Pacific, the Rejected Realms and the West Pacific.
11. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
We find that the treaty makes the Delegate responsible for deciding how and when to share intelligence (responsibility they may delegate, of course). It tasks them with deciding when it would unduly compromise their sources of information, or when sharing would violate our laws or terms of service.
We can review such decisions, of course, but we aren't being asked to. We're being asked to interpret St George's leaking about the secrets as refusal to be party to Espionage, a claim that doesn't hold together in our view: Espionage is sharing, not receiving, information. The receipt of such information is relevant to the Intelligence Sharing article of our treaty with the Rejected Realms, but it does not amount to Espionage or even Conspiracy to Espionage. No argument has been made establishing that there was a crime St George was exposing.
We examine the Penal code clause for Gross Misconduct:
Chapter 2: Penal Code
...
10. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
We are required to remove from office and suspend voting rights for some duration. The removal from office is moot, as St George resigned as Advisor to the Delegate (as well as Minister of Culture) before an indictment was even made. (We are neither required nor allowed to block St George from running for office as a form of removing them from office: in TNP v Madjack they were convicted of Conspiracy to commit Fraud as well as Gross Misconduct, which had (and has) no particular limits on the sentence we can give, and the court chose to include a prohibition from office. In this case, we only have a conviction for Gross Misconduct.) We have the question, then, only of what finite duration to suspend voting rights for.
In terms of past Gross Misconduct convictions, listing just the voting suspensions: 3 months were imposed on Tomb for violating Flemingovia's free speech rights, 4 months were imposed on Bobberino for threatening NPA soldiers with expulsion from the NPA unless they voted for him in an election, and 3 months for Conspiracy to commit Gross Misconduct were imposed on Madjack as part of the aforementioned conviction of asking the NPO to falsify dirt on his opponent, which were described as "minimal."
Given the relative lesser severity of the offense, St George's previous offense, and the joint sentencing recommendation, the Court rules that @St George is to have voting rights suspended in The North Pacific for a period of three months.
The Speaker of the RA (@Skaraborg) and The North Pacific Election Commission will be informed of this verdict and instructed to implement it.
This decision will stand unless overturned by an appeal. The Court hereby closes the case of The North Pacific v. St George.
