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 (charge someone with a crime under the Criminal Code) [1902] Nakari v. North Prarie and Concrete Slab
#1

Your honours,

I have recently received evidence of bribery occurring between North Prarie and Concrete Slab. Concrete Slab initially voted for Glen-Rhodes in the Minister of Foreign Affairs election, but a few minutes later (at 10:11 PM GMT), deleted his initial post. At 10:12 PM GMT, he changed his vote to North Prarie alone (I only have my memory to support that it was North Prarie alone, but the change itself was noted in legislators-lounge.)


Roavin questioned Concrete Slab on his change of vote, and the following was said (timestamps are GMT +1);
Quote:[11:49 PM] Concrete Slab: Well, we talked, and I found his case satisfactory
[11:49 PM] Roavin: May I convince you otherwise then? :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:50 PM] Concrete Slab: Idk man... he did something good for me
[11:50 PM] Concrete Slab: You can try tho! :smile:
[11:50 PM] Roavin: what'd he do o.O
[11:50 PM] Concrete Slab: He gonna help me
[11:51 PM] Concrete Slab: Here's what happened
[11:52 PM] Concrete Slab: I was mad at him for testifying against me for my criminal case. He apologized and said he wouldn't do it, so I voted for him
[11:52 PM] Concrete Slab: shrug

After this conversation, Concrete Slab edited his vote at 10:54 PM GMT to include Glen-Rhodes as his second choice - perhaps thinking that adding Glen-Rhodes to his vote would make the sudden change less suspicious.

Concrete Slab confessed that North Prarie offered to not give testimony against Concrete Slab in the criminal case NHC had filed, in exchange for Concrete Slab's vote in the Minister of Foreign Affairs election, which Concrete Slab accepted, and changed his vote.

Roavin did not want to bring this to the Court without Concrete Slab's permission. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of showing me the evidence, and I have far less moral scruples about this kind of thing. I recommend that the Court approach Roavin for screenshots, since he did not provide me with any.

I thank the Court for hearing this Criminal Complaint.


Slight edit: I'd accidentally said NP filed the court case, when it was actually NHC. All the Ns are confusing...
[-] The following 3 users Like Nakari's post:
  • Amerion, Felis Silvestris Grampia, Poppy
Reply
#2

I encourage Legislators to read the Legislators Lounge for details regarding this case.
Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
[-] The following 1 user Likes North Prarie's post:
  • Poppy
Reply
#3

[Image: Screen_Shot_2019-02-12_at_10.50.13_AM.png]
This screenshot was posted by Concrete Slab in #legislators-lounge.

It shows North Prarie asking if there is anything he can do to win Concrete Slab's vote. Concrete Slab's response, "You know I'm not "corrupt" right?" is a clear reference to the court case against Concrete Slab for corruption. The implication seems clear that North Prarie agreed to not say Concrete Slab was corrupt in exchange for the vote (an implication which Concrete Slab made clear in his conversation with Roavin.)
[-] The following 2 users Like Nakari's post:
  • Amerion, Poppy
Reply
#4

(02-12-2019, 11:54 AM)Nakari Wrote: [Image: Screen_Shot_2019-02-12_at_10.50.13_AM.png]
This screenshot was posted by Concrete Slab in #legislators-lounge.

It shows North Prarie asking if there is anything he can do to win Concrete Slab's vote. Concrete Slab's response, "You know I'm not "corrupt" right?" is a clear reference to the court case against Concrete Slab for corruption. The implication seems clear that North Prarie agreed to not say Concrete Slab was corrupt in exchange for the vote (an implication which Concrete Slab made clear in his conversation with Roavin.)
Under my impression, that question was totally unrelated to my question asked before. I responded truthfully. Since the first case, my opinions have changed. I fully believe Concrete Slab isn't corrupt. I never offered a bribe. CS wanted to know if I thought he was corrupt. I didn't and don't think he is corrupt. I didn't do anything publicly to make Slab change his vote
Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
[-] The following 2 users Like North Prarie's post:
  • Amerion, Poppy
Reply
#5

(02-12-2019, 01:05 PM)North Prarie Wrote: I didn't and don't think he is corrupt.
erm... are you sure about that?
Why would you write the linked post if you didn't believe that? Specifically, this:
Quote:This is a clear conflict of interest and a singling out of one of the RMB's most valuable community members, and shows that NHC's claims of corruption are valid.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
[-] The following 2 users Like New Haudenosaunee Confederacy's post:
  • Amerion, Poppy
Reply
#6

[Image: BYEo2lg.png]

Indictment

Whereas Nakari has requested this Court to indict North Prairie and Concrete Slab through the following request:

I have recently received evidence of bribery occurring between North Prarie and Concrete Slab.

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 Criminal Complaint as follows:
  1. The Court finds probable cause that North Prairie and Concrete Slab may have engaged in Bribery, a crime codified under Article I, Section 11 of the Criminal Code.
  2. The Court further finds probable cause that North Prairie and Concrete Slab may have engaged in Contempt of Court, a crime codified under Article I, Section 5 of the Criminal Code.
  3. This case shall be assigned the case number HCCC1902 and be referred to in full as Nakari v. North Prairie and Concrete Slab.
  4. North Prairie and Concrete Slab shall be contacted through telegram and given until 19 February 2019 to respond to the charge levied against them.
  5. The Court invites all able and willing members to submit any evidence or testimony relevant to this criminal case, no later than 19 February 2019.
  6. The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request evidence and private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
  7. Chief Justice Kringle and Justice Belschaft shall be the presiding justices of this Criminal Case.
  8. The Court, in compliance with the Charter and the Judicial Act, retains the sole right to issue a verdict on this Criminal Case.
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
[-] The following 4 users Like Kris Kringle's post:
  • Amerion, Nakari, Poppy, Rebeltopia
Reply
#7

May it Please the Court, your Honors,I present the following as a defense in the current case entitled Nakari v North Prarie and Concrete Slab,  I submit that, once the court considers all the evidence in this matter, that it will find that the prosecution cannot sustain its burden and that I will be found not guilty of the charges levied.
This matter arises out of the voting for the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs, and subsequent allegations of bribery and a quid pro quo as presented by Nakari.  The entire basis of the allegations involves the following conversation between myself and
Concrete Slab.
Quote:[3:57 PM] Prarie: Hi CS, is there anything I said or did that made you change your vote?
[4:00 PM] Concrete Slab: Well yeah
[4:01 PM] Concrete Slab: You testified against me... :frowning:
[4:04 PM] Prarie: I'm sorry if this comes off as rude, but I had your vote a week ago, and you were aware of it then.
[4:05 PM] Prarie: And i've criticized NHC's new case.
[4:06 PM] Concrete Slab: :frowning:
[4:08 PM] Prarie: Is there any way I can flip your vote?
[4:09 PM] Prarie: I should've been more public about me supporting you earlier...
[4:09 PM] Concrete Slab: Well... you have a second chance...
[4:09 PM] Concrete Slab: You know I'm not "corrupt" right?
[4:10 PM] Prarie: Yes!
[4:10 PM] Concrete Slab: :smiley:
[4:10 PM] Concrete Slab: All right... I got you
[4:10 PM] Prarie: :smile:
I suggest that above-referenced evidence suggests an alternative and more plausible explanation for the evidence presented.  Originally, Concrete Slab had indicated to me his intent to vote for me in the upcoming election. On February 11, 2019, when I discovered that he had not voted for me, I asked him if there was anything I could do to convince him to change his vote.  This is similar to Roavin’s request in the conversation with CS to “convince him otherwise.” My conversation beginning was not one of bribery but, merely, a request by me to engage in dialogue in an effort to convince Concrete Slab to change his vote.  I also indicated regret for not publicly supporting CS in the case of HCCC1901. I have always held and continue to hold this position.  While it was my belief that in the case of HCCC1802, that CS was, in fact, corrupt, I believe that in the case of HCCC1901, the evidence is not as persuasive and does not rise to the level of deserving punishment.  As the evidence above indicates, CS then indicates that I have a second chance, asking if I know he is not corrupt, of which I respond in the affirmative.  Nowhere in the exchange above is there an agreement, express or implied, that I have, or have ever had, evidence of corruption on the part of CS and that I was willing to not present it in exchange for CS’s vote, as implied by the individual presenting the charges.  Instead, at best, is an agreement by me that I will continue in my belief that in the case of HCCC1901, that CS is not corrupt.  At my indication that I believed that CS was not corrupt, CS indicates that he agrees to change his vote.  Nowhere in that exchange to that point is the promise, express or implied, that I will testify in any way.  Indeed, the entirety of the evidence presented shows a request to engage in a dialogue between myself and CS, my stating my belief that CS is not corrupt, and CS’s indication that “he’s got me.”  This conversation, which is the entirety of the direct evidence against me, makes clear that I had no mens rea, or intent, to commit the crime. 

Your honors, I submit that the evidence as presented fails to present demonstrate that it is substantially more likely than not that the crimes alleged have been committed.  The state has not, and cannot, prove that I offered
support that I otherwise would not have offered. (See Criminal Code Sec. 1 (11) (emphasis added).  Moreover, the state cannot meet its burden of establishing that I, in any way, engaged in a deliberate perversion of justice or in any way impeded the court from reaching a true and just result. (See, Id. Sec. 1 (5)).  Accordingly, I ask that the court find me not guilty of the charges as presented.

In closing, I would also place myself upon the mercy of this court in the alternative event that a finding of guilty is rendered.  While I truly believe that a crime was not committed in this case, I also present that, any unintentional violation of the criminal code stems entirely from my youth.  You see, your honors, I am in middle school.  I joined NationStates and this region due to my extreme interest in gameplay and, specifically strategy and geopolitical issues.  I have endeavored to work as hard as I can to become an asset to this region and believe I have done so.  Perhaps, in my youthful exuberance, I may have made statements, while not reflecting an intent for a crime, which could have been construed improperly and for that I am sorry.  I see this case as a learning experience and will strive to always make sure that I always appear, and always be, below the law, in whatever region it may be. I ask the court’s mercy in any punishment, should it deem the same worthy.
Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
[-] The following 2 users Like North Prarie's post:
  • Amerion, Poppy
Reply
#8

Questions for @North Prarie:
  • Do you have a screenshot of that exchange?
  • What was your intention when asking Concrete Slab if there was any way to gain your vote? What kind of answer did you expect?
  • What impression did you have when you finished your conversation with Concrete Slab?
Questions for @Concrete Slab:
  • Have you read the Criminal Code?
  • What intention did you have when mentioning your corruption charge right after saying that North Prarie had a "second chance" to obtain your vote?
  • When you told North Prarie "I got you", did you have the impression that they were going to testify in your favour, or at least not against you? If you had that impression, was that a reason for you to change your vote in the Foreign Minister election?
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 following 2 users Like Kris Kringle's post:
  • Nakari, Poppy
Reply
#9

@Kris Kringle 

Your honor:

1.) Yes, I have read the criminal code extensively.

2.) To clarify, when I said "second chance" I was not referring to my vote. I was referring to his involvement in my corruption cases. I mentioned the corruption charge because I was saying he had a second chance to testify in my cases.

3.) I did have an impression he was going to testify for me, but this was the not the reason I changed my vote in the MoFA election. I had, in that time, reviewed both candidate's campaigns. I was grateful for his apology and his willingness to directly contact me, as well as the content of his campaign, so I switched my vote for him.
Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member
5x Local Councillor 
TSP Legislator and Citizen
Ambassador to the League 
Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271
Co-author of SCR #300
Founded 1/25/18
[-] The following 1 user Likes Concrete Slab's post:
  • The Sakhalinsk Empire
Reply
#10

Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into with the High Court of the South Pacific, I hereby plead guilty to the offense of Contempt of Court. 

I apologize and am sincerely sorry for my actions.
Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
[-] The following 2 users Like North Prarie's post:
  • Belschaft, Divine Owl
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .