| [PRE-TRIAL] Roavin v. Cormac |
The Court thanks the Prosecution for its response. The Defence may offer a reply to the response from the Prosecution, should it so desire.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honour,
The Defence does not disagree with the Prosecutions conclusions, but we believe that they err in applying them to the case of the Defendant. Whilst HCLQ1708 established that "membership cannot be forfeited once gained" we believe that it is evident, and the intent of the High Court, that this refers to the involuntarily removal of such by a third party, nor voluntary renunciation. The alternative to this is clearly absurd; our we to consider those players of NationStates who have in the past resided peacefully inside The South Pacific but long since departed present members? To give a simple example; Evil Wolf has, on several separate occasions, been a member of this region and it's forums, but is no longer resident or involved in the region and engaged in active hostilities with it in Lazarus. Should renunciation of membership be impossible then Evil Wolf must still be a member, and as such subject to all our laws and in possession of all the rights and privileges of a member. Comparisons with examples such as Milograd are not relevant, as in this matter the defendant did not renounce their membership of the South Pacific or absent themselves from it whilst committing those acts they were prosecuted for. Considering that it is self evident that it is the case that membership of The Coalition can be renounced or lost by the voluntary actions of a member, we must then consider the second part of the Prosecution's argument. In this the Prosecution errs again, in that they misunderstand the precedent established in HCLQ1404; it does not matter where an action occurs, for a crime committed against The South Pacific can occur anywhere. What matters is that the individual committing it exists within the legal jurisdiction of The South Pacific as a member of The Coalition, and is thus subject to our laws; should a nation enter The South Pacific with the clear and immediate intent to seize the Delegacy - "plotting against the Coalition" and thus treason - they are not considered members, and are thus not subject to the procedures of the criminal process and may be summarily removed from the region. Jurisdiction does not exist over them as they are not members. It does not matter whether or not an action occurs in a physical locality under The Coalitions sovereignty, what matters is whether the individual committing it is part of our sovereignty. Thus, your honour, the Defence believes it to be self-evident that as the Defendant is not a member of The South Pacific - having renounced such - and as such cannot be considered part of our sovereignty. As such this Court does not posses jurisdiction in this matter, the Defendant not being subject to it. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
The Court will give due consideration to the arguments presented by the Defence and the Prosecution, and present its own opinion on the merits of the motion to dismiss this evening.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
On September 06, the Defence submitted a motion for the dismissal of the charges filed against Cormac, hereafter referred to as the Defendant, on the grounds that this Court has no jurisdiction over him. In particular, the Defence cited previous opinions of this Court to make the argument that jurisdiction is based on the relationship between the Defendant and the Coalition, rather than the venue in which the alleged crime was committed. In the words of the Defence, since the Defendant could not be considered a member of the Coalition, "this Court [does not] possess jurisdiction and the charges must be summarily dismissed".
This premise was rejected by the Prosecution, which cited Members of the Coalition [HCLQ1708] and Coalition v. Milograd to make the alternative case that membership may not be renounced, nor used as a pretext to avoid facing criminal charges under the authority of the Coalition. Citing TSP's Jurisdiction [HCLQ1404], the Prosecution insisted that any crime committed in any venue under the jurisdiction of the Coalition must necessarily lead to criminal liability, lest an individual like Milograd avoid prosecution, claiming that they are no longer members, despite the gravity of the alleged crime. In making a determination on the merits of the motion to dismiss, the Court has given due consideration to the arguments and precedent presented by both parties, but it has also referred to what the law says on the matter. Chapter 4, Article 1 of the Court Procedures Act indicates that any past or present member may file criminal charges "against another individual within the jurisdiction of the South Pacific". This is further supported by the precedent of TSP's Jurisdiction, where the Court indicated that any individual with "an account on our forums (...) falls within the legal jurisdiction of The Coalition". Irrespective of the membership status of the Defendant, or the ability of any member to renounce such membership, which is not the subject of this proceeding, the Defendant does have an account of the regional forum, a condition that places him well within the jurisdiction of the Coalition. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that it has jurisdiction, as supported by the law and precedent, to admit criminal charges against the Defendant, and to perform all the actions, requirements and responsibilities afforded by the Charter and the Court Procedures Act. For the above reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied. It is so ordered. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
The Court invites the Prosecution and Defence to state if either will submit any additional motions to be considered.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honor,
the prosecution does not wish to file any pre-trial motions. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
Your honour,
The Defence has no further motions at this time, but reserves the right to submit extraordinary motions at a later date in case of matters arising. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Since neither the Prosecution nor the Defence have stated their intention to file further motions, the Court will close the period for the consideration of ordinary motions. Both parties will now have seven calendar days for the compilation and submission of the following:
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honour,
Defence has no witnesses or evidence to submit at this time. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Your honor,
The prosecution submits as evidence:
The prosecution calls for these witnesses:
The prosecution requests that the Court include these facts via judicial notice:
Furthermore, the prosecution is still involved in an investigation which may bring to light further evidence or witnesses at a later date. This is also why this submission took the full length of the submission phase. We ask kindly that the Court briefly explain how it wishes to handle belated evidence submissions going forward.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |