In the matter of The North Pacific v. St George, the indictment is accepted by the Court. The Court is now in session.
@Eluvatar will serve as Moderating Justice, @Oracle will serve as Standby Hearing Officer. As Pallaith is recused in the matter and @Sanctaria resigned as Temporary Hearing Officer (THO), @Simone_Republic will serve as THO. As Attempted Socialism is recused in this matter, @Great Bights Mum will serve as THO.
Defendant @St George is accused of espionage as spelt out in the indictment:
While serving as an Advisor to the Delegate, MadJack was privy to information that was not made available to the public or to other members of the government. Specifically, by virtue of his access to the Office of the Delegate channel on TNP’s executive Discord server, which is limited strictly to the Delegate and Advisors to the Delegate, he was made aware that the president of Europeia, Rand, had reached out to Delegate Gorundu for clarification on TNP’s position regarding remarks that MadJack made in a citizen-only space in The Rejected Realms forum. These remarks were considered to be inflammatory toward Europeia and caused their government concern, but they were also made in an area where Europeia’s president should not have been aware of them, meaning that a TRR citizen leaked the remarks to Europeia. Consequently, Delegate Gorundu began discussion with President Rand not only about Europeia’s concerns, but the prospect of informing TRR of this breach. Shortly after confirming that TRR had not yet been informed by Delegate Gorundu, and based on his knowledge that Europeia possessed information it did not receive through official or public channels, MadJack leveled accusations of espionage against the president of Europeia in several places in the wider NationStates space, including offsite Discord servers and most significantly in a dispatch, spreading the information as far and wide as possible.
Note 2: Redactions were made under Section 7.4 of the Legal Code due to presence of information that may be harmful to the diplomatic interests of the region upon being made public
The Defense wishes to inform the Court that Freedom of Information requests have been made for records related to the ongoing matter here and here, in the event that such may impact the Court's timetable.
Additionally, the Defense requests that @Attempted Socialism recuse themselves from this case due to a potential conflict of interest stemming from their position as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Under Section 3.2 of the Legal Code, "Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest." Attempted Socialism serving as a Deputy Minister under Delegate Gorundu, who brought forward the indictment, and particularly a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, which is a position concerned with Foreign Affairs matters such as the one that led to this case, at the very least constitutes a potential conflict and could impede their ability to oversee this case in a fair and unbiased manner.
As the Defense has asked for my recusal due to a potential conflict of interest, I hereby recuse myself in the trial.
Please have patience while the paperwork is sorted.
While we wait for the Standby Hearing Officer appointment to come down, I note that I have reached out to defense and prosecution regarding scheduling the phases of the trial.
As Chief Justice it is my duty to appoint a Standby Hearing Officer. As I am recused in the case, I rely absolutely on the recommendation from the moderating Justice and the Temporary Hearing Officers, to avoid any undue influence over the case.
The Moderating Justice has recommended appointing @Oracle, and I shall follow that recommendation.
@Attempted Socialism recused themselves from this case here, as required by law (emphasis added):
Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers 4. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a vested interest in a matter before the Court, or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.
5. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest.
6. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
7. If all Justices are vacant, absent, or have recused themselves, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed Hearing Officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.
8. Any recusal or absence of a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote.
10. The Court must hold a vote on whether to recuse a Justice or Hearing Officer when publicly requested by the prosecution, defense, or petitioner in any matter before the Court.
Recusal means recusal. A recused justice continuing to involve themselves in the Court matter from which they recused, even for procedural purposes, by definition continues to impact the matter in question in which they have an actual or potential conflict of interest, regardless of any statement that said justice makes regarding under whose recommendation they're operating, especially when they are appointing a Standby Hearing Officer who may take over administration of the case. In fact, such a statement by definition means that said justice is continuing to privately communicate with the Court regarding the case. This is not only a probable violation of the Legal Code, but violates @St George's rights under the Bill of Rights:
The Bill of Rights:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific and its territories shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
The Bill of Rights could not be more clear. A trial which a recused justice, especially a Chief Justice, continues to involve themselves in and privately communicate with the Moderating Justice about is a clear violation of the defendant's rights.Even should @Oracle be removed as Standby Hearing Officer, Attempted Socialism's continued involvement and evident private communication in this matter despite their recusal has left an irrevocable mark on the fairness and impartiality of this trial.
Attempted Socialism is presumably referring to the following clause of the Court Rules and Procedures when saying that it is their duty to appoint a Standby Hearing Officer:
Court Rules and Procedures:
When an indictment is accepted, the Chief Justice will promptly appoint a Moderating Justice and a Standby Hearing Officer.
This clause is not only subservient to the region's actual laws, meaning the Legal Code, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, but does not even apply in this situation. The clause clearly refers to appointment of a Standby Hearing Officer when the "indictment is accepted," not when another justice has taken over the case due to a recusal and requires another Standby Hearing Officer. Indeed, the Constitution specifically empowers the Chief Justice to use their discretion in matters such as this:
Constitution of The North Pacific:
4. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
The Court has communicated with and made decisions about this trial with and to a citizen who legally cannot be involved in this matter. The Court also implicitly permitted this same citizen to make a legal decision and announcement within the courtroom; a decision which could have an immense impact on this case. In The North Pacific v. Pigeonstan, the court's extralegal communication with the Defense Counsel similarly compromised the fairness and impartiality which all citizens of this region are legally entitled to.
A fair and impartial trial, as @St George is legally entitled to, is clearly impossible under these conditions.
Not necessarily. We're alleging that Attempted Socialism continued to be involved in the case despite being recused from it and their involvement not being necessary. Even if all they did was take your recommendation and act on it, they still directly impacted a matter they're recused from. To be clear, we don't doubt your or Attempted Socialism's good intentions. Perhaps @Oracle would've been appointed Standby Hearing Officer without Attempted Socialism's involvement. Perhaps you would've even made the same post verbatim. However, without Attempted Socialism's involvement, perhaps a SHO would've been appointed on a different timetable. Perhaps you would've changed your recommendation, or made a different recommendation entirely with this different timetable, or if you, for example, were making the appointment yourself. It's impossible to know, and that's the issue. The mere fact that Attempted Socialism obviously remains involved with this case even while recused, when they don't need to be involved, undermines the fairness and impartiality of this case.
To try and be more concise (I do get too long-winded), how can we the Defense (or anyone else) trust this trial to be fair and impartial when a recused justice continues to be directly involved with it?
Not seeing a refusal, I will allow a few more hours for the Prosecution to respond. If the Prosecution has not responded or asked for time to respond in the next thirteen hours, I will make a decision on the motion without such response.
Your Honor, it is the opinion of the Prosecution that by simply passing on a clerical note from the moderating justice for appointing a SHO, the to-be-recused Chief Justice has not in any way violated a recusal or negatively impacted the fairness of this (yet to even begin) trial. It should be noted the court rules are quite clear, a chief justice has the obligation to promptly assign a moderating justice and SHO. The Chief Justice may only use their discretion in situations where the rules do not cover the situation they find themselves in - the prompt appointment of the Moderating Justice and SHO not being one of those uncovered situations. Should the moderating justice have taken over the decision to appoint an SHO in the assumed recusal of the Chief Justice, the defense could have just as easily filed a motion for a mistrial citing the court rules were not properly followed.
As for potential communications between court justices - unless the defense is privy to the private discussions of the court, we have no way of knowing what specifically was discussed and to what extent. The defense attempts to paint this as damaging to the impartiality of the court, when the only indication we have of any communication is that the moderating justice told the chief justice to appoint a particular SHO in an attempt to follow the currently established and respected court rules.
Furthermore, I do not believe a motion for a mistrial at this time is valid as the period where the court may accept and rule on motions has not begun, much less even been scheduled. I acknowledge the court possesses some level discretion here as the rules for mistrials are not explicitly outlined, however I would ask of the court what exactly is being ruled a mistrial here given we are effectively in the equivalent of a 'voir dire' stage/pre-trial activities.
The Prosecution thanks the court for allowing the time to respond.
In my assessment I do not believe that we are unable to hold a fair trial for MadJack. @Attempted Socialism did not influence the selection of the Standby Hearing Officer, that selection was made through consultations @Sanctaria and I carried out, the same consulations that led to the appointment of @Great Bights Mum as Temporary Hearing Officer. As I believe @Sanctaria, @Great Bights Mum and I are capable of judging this case fairly, and I similarly believe @Oracle can, I do not find that this panel and backup are incapable of judging @St George and decline your motion.
As your motion has highlighted a flaw of the court procedures, I thank you for that. However I must also remind you that frivolous motions are not allowed and can lead to sanctions. I ask you to consider how to show your client in the best light and seek a favorable outcome for them, and to be careful of any strategy which would merely delay the case.
I should have included above that in my view @Attempted Socialism used the discretion allowed to him to the extent be believed it existed, by effectively delegating the selection of a Standby Hearing Officer to the unrecused justice (me) in consultation with the available temporary hearing officer. I find that interpretation appropriate in this circumstance.
As your motion has highlighted a flaw of the court procedures, I thank you for that. However I must also remind you that frivolous motions are not allowed and can lead to sanctions. I ask you to consider how to show your client in the best light and seek a favorable outcome for them, and to be careful of any strategy which would merely delay the case.
Always a pleasure to assist with patching procedural deficiencies for future cases. To be clear, I dislike wasting people's time, and I certainly dislike wasting my own. If I thought that the motion was frivolous and did not highlight an issue related to the Court procedures that could impact the integrity of this case, I would not have brought it before the Court.
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.
I do not understand the delay for a "third." THe current bench is @Eluvatar and GBM. Oracle is the standby officer who should be moving into the THO position. What needs to be filled that is causing the delay?
To clarify, in this post I indicated that as Moderating Justice I was accepting the plea.
Here's a tentative timetable.
(Verdict) Deliberation
July 3 to July 7
Sentencing Argumentation
July 7 to July 11
Sentencing Deliberation
July 7 to July 11
Sentence Announced
July 12
This timetable is not final, but it is the one I expect to pursue, with the possibility of ending the deliberation phases early if the rest of the judicial panel moves quickly.
