---

High Court of the South Pacific
Case Submission

---

 

Your Honours,

I, Whole India, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true, to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered.

Nation: Whole India

Reference Name: Whole India vs Acting Regional Affairs Minister Penguin

Description: Your Honor,

I Whole India, accuse Acting Regional Affairs Minister Penguin for Corruption. I have strong evidence in regards to this. The Evidence I present are from The South Pacific Regional Affairs server, The South Pacific Server and Discord Private Messages. I was removed from RA for my OOC opinions.

Evidence

And many more evidence

Question: N/A

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 11:24 AM by Kris Kringle. Edit Reason: [Chief Justice Edit] Updated the title of the thread with the DFN. )

Reply

What kind of evidence is that? Where does it show corruption? Just accept that you have been relieved of your position. As far as I know, being a MoRA fellow is a privilege and not a right. Take time to reflect and learn from your mistakes. Don't go around making a fuss about you getting kicked from the ministry as a result of your own doing and incompetence. Deal with it maturely and quit crying over it.

Reply

Stop digging that huge hole you're in. Seriously, this is the most absurd case with the most flimsly evidence I have ever seen in my entire life.

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Reply

You have no viable evidence. Therefore, you don't really have a case.

Also, if you have "many more evidence", you should probably include it.

Reply

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court,
I would ask the Court rule this to be out of order and nonjusticiable as no evidence presented here comes close to the standard of Corruption set out in the Criminal Code, Article 1, Section 7. Additonaly, I would submit it may be in order for the Court to consider proceedings against Whole India for Vexatious Charges as defined by Article 1, Section 12 of the Criminal Code.
Thank you.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 10:56 AM by Omega.)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2007] WHOLE INDIA V. PENGUINPIES SUBMISSION 18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Notice is given that this question has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET FILE NUMBER 2007 REFERENCE NAME Whole India v. PenguinPies CHARGE Corruption The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter over the next 24 hours. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2007.NR | Issued 18 September 2020

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

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 11:24 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2007] WHOLE INDIA V. PENGUINPIES SUBMISSION 18 SEPTEMBER 2020 | PROBABLE CAUSE 18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE This case is not found to have probable cause. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR AN IN-CHAMBERS OPINION Interested parties may request the Chief Justice to provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this finding no later than 7 calendar days from now. It is so ordered. 2007.PC | Issued 18 September 2020

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

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 03:52 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Your honors,

While Corruption is a crime under the Criminal Code and it falls under the sole remit of the Court to process crimes (c.f. Charter VIII.1 "The High Court [...] will hold exclusive judicial authority in the Coalition"), petitioner failed to present a valid allegation of that crime. There are two tests for Corruption - the charge must be against an official misusing powers granted to them as an official, and it must result in a clearly identifyable advantage to themselves or somebody else (c.f. Criminal Code 1.7 "[...] the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage" as well as HCCC1802 "New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Concrete Slab" I.B). Petitioner's allegation fails on the second test, as they presented no identifyable advantage.

Furthermore, I must break character for the remainder of this paragraph and address this charge on a meta level. If the reason was "OOC views", then this is not in the remit of the High Court, but rather of the moderation/administration teams, as governed by the Community Standards. Policing the meta ("OOC") in the lore of the game we are building ("IC") risks conflating the two, which has become widely recognized to be dangerous across the nearly two decades of this game's existance. Technically, Whole India did implicitly state an "advantage", in that somebody that's annoyed by somebody else's RL views would have an advantage for purging somebody for these IRL views by virtue of not being annoyed by them anymore, but I did not consider that in the above paragraph because such otherwordly things should not enter the lore of the game.

Given the above two points, I do not see the petition to be justiciable.

Reply