We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Criminal Complaint against Wolf
#1

Unibot had just launched a Criminal Complaint against Wolf.

Personally, I'm inclined to dismiss it as a result of insufficient evidence, and frivolous charges (this happened 3-4 years ago), which would not have given us the context or adequate terms of reference for the incident.




#2

I had a bit of a look and I am inclined to agree in a way. It is a bit unclear based on the current "evidence" in the initial post anyway. It does seem odd bringing this up so long after the event. It would be awkward to rule on based on what is presented and I'm not sure what it will achieve (except satisfying Unibot).

That said, I did only look at the logs briefly, didn't check the forum links posted by Wolf. Might be more to it there, but don't have time right now to check them.
#3

I'll leave this here for context.




#4

I think this just underlines a need for some sort of statute of limitations given we're dragging stuff up from 2011. I'm not sure if the charges are frivolous in of themselves but certainly having read through the evidence submitted by unibot (which I guess I'm assuming is true as I have no reason at this point to doubt) and looked at the off-site forum I'm struggling to see sufficient evidence to bring forward a case. I'd want to see some more concrete proof before charges of such a serious nature are accepted by the Court.

Was TSP always this litigious or is just now because we've got a working court?
#5

I swear by my Book of Laws that TSP only became this litigious during this term. I also think we've gotten the most Legal Questions.




#6

Also, the Court can request that the Complaint submit more evidence for the Court's consideration.




#7

(03-08-2015, 11:25 AM)Awe Wrote: Also, the Court can request that the Complaint submit more evidence for the Court's consideration.

I think I'd support that. Something along the lines of what we said for the Belschaft defamation ruling perhaps?
#8




HCCC103

- 09.03.15 -


Complainant
Unibot

Defendants
Wolf


Presiding Justices
Awe, Aramanchovia, Hopolis 




On August 26, 2011, Evil Wolf approached the delegate of TSP, Belschaft, with logs that exposed Frak's plan to coup The South Pacific - appearing as though to have ratted out Frak. Evil Wolf and his invader organisation, Lone Wolves United were praised for their cooperation.


Here are those logs -


[Image: collapse_collapsed.png]Spoiler

During the past year, however, it has become public knowledge that at the time of this happening, Frak was an agent of the Lone Wolves United - under the name "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," to the extent even that Lone Wolves United was fully aware that Frak = Haxstree (something that was not proven until much later). While the operation itself was conducted in such a way to protect Evil Wolf, considered an asset, the plan involved LWU leaking information on their own couper, such to gain the confidence and praise of the local government in TSP. Evil Wolf was chosen to distribute the logs - and we are expected to believe that at no time was Evil Wolf aware that this distribution was apart of a plan on the part of Lone Wolves United, despite the fact that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, a member of his organisation, was clearly Frak/Haxstree.

On Oct 19, 2014 - Frak contacted me on IRC and provided some testimony with regards to this -


[Image: collapse_collapsed.png]Spoiler

With this knowledge in mind, I propose that Evil Wolf be held under trial for crimes of Treason, Identity fraud, Espionage, Organised crime and Electoral Fraud.



Thank you Justices.



Majority Opinion
Awe, Aramanchovia, Hopolis 



After deliberation, it is in the opinion of the Court that there is insufficient evidence for a trial and has chosen to dismiss this case on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence as required by Article 2, Section 1.4 of the Rules and Procedures of the High Court of the South Pacific. 


Furthermore, despite the presentation of new evidence dated 19 October 2014, the Court sees little merit in revisiting an incident that originally occurred 4 years ago, in 2011. 


The Court has agreed to leave this case open for 72 hours to allow the Complainant to provide further evidence and justification for a trial for further review by the Court, following which the Court will review whether sufficient grounds exists for a trial.




#9

Sounds good to me.
#10

And me.




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .