Honorable Justices,

I hereby submit a formal criminal complaint against New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (NHC)  for submitting vexatious charges. 


Section 9 of the Criminal Code states, 

(9) Vexatious Charges shall be defined as the filing of criminal charges against another player despite the filing party’s knowledge that, that said charges were meritless, frivolous, repetitive, and/or burdensome.

 

Abbreviation
CC = Criminal Complaint
CS = Concrete Slab
LC = Local Council
LCR = Local Councilor  
NHC = New Haudenosaunee Confederacy 
RMB = Regional Message Board 
TSP = The South Pacific

NHC has an established history of levying allegations of corruption against members of the LC. 

The justification of these CCs are frivolous in nature as they involve the suppression of NHC’s posts by LCRs that he does not agree with. Two of the three CCs filed by NHC are repetitive in nature due to the fact that NHC targeted former LCR Auphelia during the June 2018 LC elections.

 Furthermore circumstantial evidence shows that NHCs criminal complaints occur during or shortly after an LC election. This is cause for concern since the criminal complaints are being used as a political weapon against LCRs that NHC has disagreements with, lead trials. 

LC Elections and NHC Criminal Complaint 1

NHC CC 3 and November LC Election End

Proving Repetition
During the first criminal complaint, The Court denied justiciability stating,

"It is not deemed justiciable, on account that the preliminary evidence presented does not constitute probable cause that [the LC] obtains a benefit through the misuse of communication powers."

In his second Criminal complaint, NHC acknowledged the repetition of his claim when accusing Auphelia of corruption again by stating his intention of using identical evidence in his opening statement:

I've already attempted to explain why I believe Auphelia is corrupt, yet I attempted that in a rather contemporary way. While I will also attempt to rephrase to make more sense with the same evidence while also presenting new evidence to further prove Auphelia's corruption.

Repetitive Accusation Exhibit A

The Complainant also falsely accused LCR Auphelia of violating LC laws by alleging that she violated LC election laws by failing to disclose her positions in 4 RMBs when in reality Auphelia moderated 3 RMBs (TSP, Knowhere and Psomewhere) that are controlled by TSP .

false accusation

However, you're probably also wondering why I didn't just call this thread "Auphelia is Corrupt {2}". Well, here's why: She also might be breaking the Local Council Laws. I don't have much evidence to back this up, though. If we take a look at this quote from Auphelia:

I have NS 8 tabs open, have 3 RMB's ongoing, and am managing 4 different RP's and you don't see me double posting now, do you?

From this statement alone we can tell that Auphelia is moderating 4 other RMBs, meaning she might (theoretically) have positions in other regions which aren't stated in her conflict of interest in Tsunamy's LC election dispatch. This breaks the law:

- Any nation running must be a resident of The South Pacific, and all candidates must file a Conflict of Interest disclosure, detailing their positions in other regions.

which can be found in the Local Council Laws dispatch.     

NHC has issued a criminal complaint against another member of the LC with whom NHC has tense relations with about a week after the November 2018 LC elections. This hostility is on display in HCCC 1802 where both complainant and accused devolved into incessant bickering, screenshot provided below.

devolving into bickering

 

Your Honorable Justices will no doubt be concerned that the High Court’s time is being wasted on time consuming and frivolous criminal complaints. 

I respectfully ask the Honorable Justices to find NHC guilty of Vexatious Charges under the Criminal Code and that a suitable punishment is provided at your discretion.

(This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 06:08 PM by Imperial Frost Federation.)

Reply

(9) Vexatious Charges shall be defined as the filing of criminal charges against another player despite the filing party’s knowledge that, that said charges were meritless, frivolous, repetitive, and/or burdensome.

Let me prove everything about this wrong: Google defines meritless as "lacking some or all of the legal or substantive elements required to have a prospect of success" (or at least in this context). This is not true because I use evidence and I explain all of my thoughts. I would not know of what more would be required for it to not be meritless. Frivolous is "not having any serious purpose or value", which is blatantly untrue, as I'm very serious. It's not repetitive, which I will explain in a later part of this reply, and I don't understand why it would be any more burdensome than anything else here, or even this post, for example.
quote]NHC has an established history of levying allegations of corruption against members of the LC. [/quote]
Perhaps because the LC is what I notice a lot about? I'm a very active member of the RMB, and I read (quite literally) everything. Not everybody reads literally every post (which is the reason why RMB summaries exist), therefore not everybody notices everything that I do.

Furthermore circumstantial evidence shows that NHCs criminal complaints occur during or shortly after an LC election. This is cause for concern since the criminal complaints are being used as a political weapon against LCRs that NHC has disagreements with, lead trials.

The complaint against Auphelia was because that's quite simply when I had realized I could do that (I was still new to TSP at the time and learning about the government). The most recent one was something I even expected myself to be doing before Slab was even elected. I basically knew that Slab would be like that, and I thought correctly. I do that because it's what I believe: because I believe they're getting personal benefit.

In his second Criminal complaint, NHC acknowledged the repetition of his claim when accusing Auphelia of corruption again by stating his intention of using identical evidence in his opening statement:

Quite simple: I believed the issue was the way I was using it and how I was explaining it. I am not good at explaining my thoughts and am still not very good at that, but I was even worse then. Not to mention this quote from Kringle:

This determination does not preclude the future filing of charges with additional evidence that would address the concerns expressed herewith.

I was using additional evidence, as well.

The Complainant also falsely accused LCR Auphelia of violating LC laws by alleging that she violated LC election laws by failing to disclose her positions in 4 RMBs when in reality Auphelia moderated 3 RMBs (TSP, Knowhere and Psomewhere) that are controlled by TSP .

I don't believe Psomewhere existed by that time. If we use the NationStates API to get information about that post, from this link, we can find that the post was posted on 4:33pm (in UTC time) on the 16th of May. We can also use the NS API to find when Psomewhere was founded, with this link. Psomewhere was founded on June 3rd. Therefore, Psomewhere was founded after Auphelia had said this.

NHC has issued a criminal complaint against another member of the LC with whom NHC has tense relations with about a week after the November 2018 LC elections. This hostility is on display in HCCC 1802 where both complainant and accused devolved into incessant bickering, screenshot provided below.

If you were to notice what I'm actually trying to prove with what you describe as "bickering", then you would find that it's actually not bickering, which is something I could further explain.

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

(This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 06:37 PM by New Haudenosaunee Confederacy.)

Reply

NHC testimony

I was using additional evidence, as well.

The Complainant also falsely accused LCR Auphelia of violating LC laws by alleging that she violated LC election laws by failing to disclose her positions in 4 RMBs when in reality Auphelia moderated 3 RMBs (TSP, Knowhere and Psomewhere) that are controlled by TSP .

I don't believe Psomewhere existed by that time. If we use the NationStates API to get information about that post, from this link, we can find that the post was posted on 4:33pm (in UTC time) on the 16th of May. We can also use the NS API to find when Psomewhere was founded, with this link. Psomewhere was founded on June 3rd. Therefore, Psomewhere was founded after Auphelia had said this. 

Your Honorable Justices,

NHC has used faulty evidence in their attempt to disprove that NHC had indeed falsely accused then LCR Auphelia of violating LC laws by doubling down on their assertion. However, Evidence has shown the opposite of what NHC states as seen by the screen shot below which illustrates the beginnings and end of the first Psomewhere and not the current incarnation of Psomewhere that was refounded June 3. The first incarnation of Psomewhere was mentioned 229 days ago and lasted until 182 days when it was briefly closed down.

Psomewhere 1

(This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 07:32 PM by Imperial Frost Federation.)

Reply

Your Honorable Justices,

NHC has used faulty evidence in their attempt to disprove that NHC had indeed falsely accused then LCR Auphelia of violating LC laws by doubling down on their assertion. However, Evidence has shown the opposite of what NHC states as seen by the screen shot below which illustrates the beginnings and end of the first Psomewhere and not the current incarnation of Psomewhere that was refounded June 3. The first incarnation of Psomewhere was mentioned 229 days ago and lasted until 182 days when it was briefly closed down.

Psomewhere 1

Actually, it would make no logical sense that Auphelia would be moderating the Psomewhere RMB, because Auphelia wasn't a moderator. The moderators in Psomewhere at the time were Midand and Malayan Singapura, but not Auphelia, as proven by the Psomewhere moderators being pinged in this post. While this was 7 days before the post of Auphelia saying they were moderating 3 RMBs, this doesn't prove that Auphelia wasn't appointed by the time of the post. However, she couldn't have been, not only because I remember but also because Psomeone, the executive (founder) of Psomewhere was inactive, as seen in this post by Malayan Singapura as well as likely many others. If the only person with executive authority was inactive, then Auphelia could not have been appointed.

...Okay, I just typed that entire thing and now I'm noticing this post which also proves Auphelia wasn't appointed as a mod. Why can't I be better at noticing things.
EDIT: The quoted post in that also proves that there were only 2 moderators, obviously Midand and Malayan Singapura.

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

(This post was last modified: 12-02-2018, 09:06 PM by New Haudenosaunee Confederacy.)

Reply

Until such a time as the Court may indict New Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the courtroom will not be open for public testimony. Members of the public are asked to refrain from posting for the time being.

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

Reply

Finding of Probable Cause

Whereas Imperial Frost Federation has requested this Court to indict New Haudenosaunee Confederacy through the following request:

I hereby submit a formal criminal complaint against New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (NHC) for submitting vexatious charges.

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article V, Section 1 of the Judicial Act to indict individuals when it finds probable cause that they may have committed a crime, as codified in the Criminal Code.

It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:

1. The Court does not find probable cause that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy may have engaged in the submission of Vexatious Charges.
   
2. The Court may provide an opinion on its reasons for issuing this determination, at the request of the complainant, or any party so authorised by him.

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

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

Reply

Your honor,
I would like to ask the court to provide an opinion on its reasons for issuing this determination.

(This post was last modified: 12-30-2018, 11:05 AM by Imperial Frost Federation.)

Reply

In-Chambers Opinion

In its determination related to the present criminal charge, this Court ruled that it had found no probable cause that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (hereafter "NHC") had filed vexatious charges, an action that is codified in the Criminal Code. In so ruling, the Court considered two issues: the definition provided by the Criminal Code, and the nature of the preliminary evidence presented.

Article 1, Section 12 of the Criminal Code defines vexatious charges as "the filing of criminal charges against another player despite the filing party's knowledge that said charges were meritless, frivolous, repetitive, and/or burdensome". This definition provides the Court with two elements to consider: the charges must be "meritless, frivolous, repetitive, and/or burdensome", and the party who files those charges must be aware of that fact. Obviously, the ultimate determination of facts and law must come as a result of holding a full criminal proceeding, but before an individual is indicted, there must be some degree of evidence that the charges would be based on a reasonable interpretation of the initial facts.

Imperial Frost Federation contended that NHC had filed vexatious charges, but the vexatious nature of the charges was not only doubtful, but clearly so. There were three charges submitted for consideration: two charges of corruption against Auphelia, and one charge of corruption against Concrete Slab. In the first place, since the charge against Concrete Slab resulted in an indictment and a subsequent conviction, it was in no way vexatious. Even if the charge had been submitted out of misguided intentions, the charge itself was neither meritless nor frivolous, repetitive or budensome: Concrete Slab had indeed abused their power in a corrupt manner, and was duly convicted of the charge.

In the case of the charges against Auphelia, the first charge was dismissed, and the second one, while never fully addressed, consisted of additional evidence and arguments that had no been brought up in the first charge. To the extent that NHC did not merely file the same charge, but sought to provide additional context, arguments and evidence, as expressly permitted by Court protocol, this was not a waste of the Court's time, but a valid attempt to explain why a charge had enough probable cause to proceed to the next stage.

There is no clear rule for how an already-dismissed charge should be brought to the Court's attention for a second time. In some cases, it would be evident that the charge is being brought in bad faith, and its vexatious nature would be clear. In other cases, particularly those where new arguments and explanations are being presented in apparent good faith, it is more convenient to err on the side of caution. In addition, it is important to see whether the charges themselves are vexatious: an accusation of corruption, where the arguments, even if not sufficient for probable cause, are minimally reasonable or filed in apparent good faith, would likely not be considered vexatious. In this case, considering the full context provided at the time, the Court did not find probable cause that the charges brought forth by NHC were truly vexatious in such a way that they merited a full criminal proceeding.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

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

Reply