| Belschaft Criminal Case |
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, preparing for our first legal case since Milograd.
Let me first make it clear I'm taking a zero tolerance policy on Conflicts of Interest here. I don't care what you think, this is a court of law and I intend to make this a fair trial. If I find you have a CoI and refuse to recluse yourself I will personally make sure you are driven frifrom this court if it means defending the court's integrity in this trial. Do not state your opinions on this matter or the private discussions of this court, be it on the forums, IRC or any other medium. Watch your conversations in general as well, do not indicate any bias in this case. I don't care if you're a full justice or join this trial as an acting justice, I intend to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of this court. That aside, let's review some key facts and evidence so far. I will update this as necessary. •Belschaft's case is effectively based on two foundations: 1. The claims made against Belschaft are false (If they are true it is not necessarily the same as him being guilty of any crime, and do not indicate such at any point even after the trial unless it has been proven.) 2. The defendants have made such false claims in an attempt to damage the reputation of the plantiff. The plantiff has currently provided the following screenshot as evidence: http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo202...%20gun.png Said screenshot is of an easily modifiable text file and even if taken as fact proves only that the plantiff did not access #the_south_pacific on mIRC between August 12th and January 24th. This break still begins weeks after "Operation Brave Toaster" has been proven to begin, and thus along with its unreliable nature abd limited scope does not provide sufficient evidence. Unless more evidence is provided at this point I would move to dismiss this case pending further evidence. A few further notes: •On the topic of Belschaft's "confession", review of the text shows he makes no confessions other than having considered the idea before allegedly dropping the idea, and thus is not evidence of his guilt. •Please remember to review the exact words in evidence. Just because Person A states Person B is involved doesn't mean that it is true. I have to review the evidence of Brave Toaster later if necessary to see if it contains any direct evidence of the plantiff's involvement, since I suspect it will be used by the defense.
Due to my inherent personal bias against the plaintiff, I officially recuse myself from this case, and will stay recused if Escade were to countersue as well. This would mean that the Chief Justice should seek the advice of the Assembly in appointing an Acting Justice for the purposes of this trial.
However, as I will still be privy to the discussions in this Office, I shall hold myself to the same standards as the other Presiding and Acting Justices and be sworn to confidentiality with regards to the deliberations that may occur in this Office. I am also aware that my personal opinion does not represent that of the Court's and that I should be mindful when stating my opinions, given that I still am a sitting Justice of this Court.
However Belschaft's confession does contain evidence that he was considered the plot, and our criminal code merely requires plotting to commit treason, so it can be considered valid.
Furthermore as also required by our criminal code, he does not seem to indicate the offending statement and thus would qualify as further grounds for dismissal.
Thank you for setting out your views Farengeto. As the new girl it's always good to know the views of the boss!
In terms of CoI, as stated previously I do not believe I have one. Although I was nominated by one of the defendants in the defamation case I should state for clarity that (a) this nomination was a surprise to me; (b) that it was four days prior to the defamation complaint being lodged; and © I have had no interactions with Kris outside of the public forum posts. I have also declined an offer from Punchwood to become involved in the work of the MoRA preferring to focus on my newly elected position as Justice and avoid any perception of bias. If further justification was needed Belschaft also posted in his Belfesto thread that he had considerable respect for Aram and myself and didn't consider us political opponents. In terms of the court discussions obviously what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas! I've taken the time over the last few days to review the case brought by Belschaft. My thoughts at this point are, like your own, that the case from Belschaft lacks sufficient evidence to move to trial. The CoL requires him to "express the offense to the Court in order for the charge to be considered" and I do not see this as having been done. It would seem to me to be reasonable that in bringing a defamation case the accused have the right to know what exactly it is that they have said that is defamatory in the charges, not at the evidence stage as Belschaft was proposing. It would strike me as putting the defendants at a distinct disadvantage in preparing their defences otherwise. I would also have some concerns about hearing a group defamation case. Each defendant may well have different motives, different levels of involvement and different defences in what it is that they have said / not said. I personally would prefer to hear each case separately but concurrently with verdicts given at the same time. Absolutely agree that a decision in respect of a defamation case - either way - does not equate to a finding of guilt or innocence in respect of any other crime. We would need separate charges for any other offence to be found. I wholeheartedly agree that we should not forget that at this point Belschaft - regardless of any statement he may or may not have made - is innocent of all crimes against TSP. The only thing we can say with a fact is that he was the subject of recall elections. I can see no evidence of him confessing to anything except undefined actions he felt 'were reprehensible' an even if he had we would still need charges to be brought against him with a finding of the court against him before he could be considered anything other than innocent. In terms of the screenshot, I don't see it as having any material value as evidence at this stage. A defamation case in most jurisdictions requires the defendants to prove what they said was true not for Belschaft to disprove what they have allegedly said. However, and this is an important however, unless I'm missing case law somewhere has TSP ever actually ruled or legislated that this is the case? If a defamation case were to come to trial I would be of the opinion we would need to provide clarity at the start of the trial as to where the burden of proof lay. In terms of BLT and Belschaft's statements, he seems to me to be running a King Henry II 'Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' style defence. Not so much denying he said or did certain things but rather his motivation, the circumstances and the interpretation of them. As you say given that our CoL define Treason as 'plotting against the Coalition', conspiracy to commit treason could theoretically be considered as treason. Do we need in future to tweak the CoL to create a conspiracy to commit treason offence? Just a thought for another day. We actually don't have many laws and those we do have might stand for a little improvement in future for clarity. For example, we have no statute of limitations (not that you would in treason cases but it might be applicable for defamation for example). So, in long winded conclusion, I would support a move to dismiss but in that decision inform Belschaft that the court would give fresh consideration to any defamation case(s) he wished to bring that "express the offense to the Court in order for the charge to be considered".
Thank you for the warm welcome. I would state that I have no CoI in this case and see no reason why I would be biased in anyway. I have held no positions of power in TSP or any other region in NS. Please let me know if you have any questions.
There isnt much more that i could add to the points that Hopo and Farengeto have posted. I am in full agreement with the both of you with regards to the lack of evidence to support Bels' case. I would support dismissing the case along with a statement to Bels along the lines that Hopo mentioned.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
I've drafted the following response:
HCCC102
- 23.02.15 -
Complainant
Belschaft
Defendants
Cormac Stark, Escade, Glen-Rhodes, Unibot Presiding Justices
Apad, Farengeto, Hopolis
Your honours, Starting upon Saturday the 18th of October 2014 but continuing to this present day a number of individuals have publicized allegations that the plaintiff, myself, and others were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit electoral fraud and in doing so committed treason against The Coalition of The South Pacific. These individuals have been given every opportunity to substantiate their allegations and bring the appropriate criminal charges against myself but have to this date refused to do so. The Code of Laws defines defamation as "communication of a statement which makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, in an attempt to harm the reputation of another user or group of users on the forum." There are thus four clear elements to a defamation charge; 1. Communication; that a statement is made 2. False claim; that the statement is false 3. Stated or implied to be factual; that the statement is claimed to be true 4. Attempt to harm the reputation; that the statement, if believed, would cause harm to the reputation of others Your honours, there can be no question that the requirements of a defamation charge are met in this matter. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the statements made since the 18th of October 2014 are false, and this question can only be addressed during trial. It is the contention of the plaintiff that during trial not only will the accused be unable to substantiate the various accusations and claims they have made since this date, but that the plaintiff will be able to actively disprove many if not all of them. At trial will present a comprehensive list of such accusations and claims, and will systematically demonstrate the false and malicious nature of them. We will present evidence that shows not only that the plaintiff did not commit such acts that have been alleged, but will demonstrate that the plaintiff was physically incapable of committing many of such acts. In doing so we will go well beyond the standard requirements of defamation cases, in which the burden of proof lies with the defendants to substantiate their claims. As such, the plaintiff hereby formally files defamation charges against the following individuals; Cormac Stark Kringalia Glen Rhodes Unibot Escade Due to the fact that the plaintiffs case against each individual will be substantively identical to that against all other individuals, with only the precise nature of the defamatory statements varying, we request that this matter be conducted via a single trial. Majority Opinion
Apad, Farengeto, Hopolis
After deliberation the Court has found insufficient evidence for a trial and has chosen to dismiss this case on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence and the lack of the offending statement(s) as required by Article 5.2 of the Code of Laws. The Court has agreed to leave this case open for 72 hours to allow the Complainant to provide the offending statements for further review by the court following which the Court will review whether sufficient evidence exists for a trial. As Article 4.2 does not provide procedure for filing charges against non-citizens the Court finds Cormac Stark ineligible to be a defendant.
I can get behind this. My only question would be if 72 hours is, or will be seen as, enough time for the complainant to gather the evidence he will need to present to this court? I personally believe its sufficient time but I wonder if those assembly members who support Bels will cry foul. Any thoughts?
Apad
King of Haldilwe (02-23-2015, 09:03 PM)Apad Wrote: I can get behind this. My only question would be if 72 hours is, or will be seen as, enough time for the complainant to gather the evidence he will need to present to this court? I personally believe its sufficient time but I wonder if those assembly members who support Bels will cry foul. Any thoughts? 72 hours is a standard time with the court. All he needs to do is provide quotes from the accused that demonstrate facts that are both defamatory and allegedly false, which I believe he already has. We do have a fairly ambiguous case regarding Cormac though. It's been previously established the forum is court jurisdiction, while as I said Article 4.2 only describes citizens in regard to criminal cases. Do we want to assume the same procedures for non-citizens, or declare his charges invalid? We're setting precedent either way and I'm starting to lean towards allowing it.
I would lean towards declaring his charges invalid. If Cormac was a citizen then yes or if he wasnt a citizen and made these comments on the forum then yes, but seeing as neither was true, I dont see the court having jurisdiction to carry these charges. I dont have a problem with a non citizen being tried if the crime occurred on our "territory" but otherwise I hesitate to set that precedent. Thoughts?
Apad
King of Haldilwe
It would be a significant precedent either way and clearly we have conflicting statements. My personal view is that given in Article 1 of the Charter it makes a distinction between non-citizens and citizens, the reference to 'Citizens' in Article 4 should be considered to exclude non-citizens (as per the definition applied in Article 1). I think it's wrong and it should apply to all nations in TSP that act in our jurisdiction but I can't see given the framing of the Charter we could overcome Article 1's definitions.
On that basis I'm happy with the current draft response. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |