There was no case. The administrative team banned him, without trial or due process.

Ok, so perhaps then what we do need are consequences for specific kinds of actions such as treason or electoral fraud that are agreed upon and in the legislation.

That also means we will have to revisit some of these older instances of there being no law followed.

Code of Laws Wrote:Article 6: Penal Code

1. If found guilty of an act of treason, the offending nation will be immediately banned from the in-game region and offsite forums.
2. If found guilty of defamation, the offending nation must issue a public apology to the nation in which the offense was committed against. Further punishment may be determined by the Judiciary.
3. If found guilty of fraud, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense.
4. If found guilty of espionage, the offending nation may be banned from the in-game region and expelled from the offsite forums. The Judiciary may determine a lesser sentence in order to keep proportionality with the offense.
5. Conduct violations are punishable by immediate ejection and banishment from the region, albeit punished parties may appeal this decision to the court. In most cases, nations that appeal the decision and apologize should expect to have their ban lifted.

Kris You know you were my go-to person for this kind of thing but its good to see its in the legal code as I forgot the specifics of Nathan's case.

"1. If found guilty of an act of treason, the offending nation will be immediately banned from the in-game region and offsite forums."

This is what happened to Nathan because he, I believe, created a second account to be able to vote for himself as he was running for office. There was no investigation and no court hearing because it was clearly treason.

My thoughts are that disrupting the democratic electoral process is an act of treason. It betrays the citizens and office holders and candidates alike. Then the added and unproven accusation that the CSS was involved in treason is also just a mind-boggling attack meant to sow suspicion about the people who hold a lot of power in the region as they are trusted with protecting the security of the region and particularly elections.

Therefore, is there something that is holding back from pressing this charge and its immediate consequences?

(02-06-2015, 12:14 AM)Escade Wrote: Therefore, is there something that is holding back from pressing this charge and its immediate consequences?

We don't have a Court yet.

(02-06-2015, 12:28 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(02-06-2015, 12:14 AM)Escade Wrote: Therefore, is there something that is holding back from pressing this charge and its immediate consequences?

We don't have a Court yet.

And no, do not blame the Court for this. It's not my fault half the court went inactive without notice.

EDIT: Just to clarify, that's not directed at Kris.

1 or 5 apply very clearly in the case of Belschaft but does the court need to make this decision? It's a bit unclear since it specifies the Judiciary in certain numbered sections but it doesn't in others. I know that in terms of Nathan's case, the administration handled it. There is also the fact that the administration has the powers to immediately ban.

What I'm asking is based on the transcript provided by Cormac, the acceptance of the crime by Belschaft in the original post, and then his subsequent adding onto that in the other linked thread by alleging that CSS was involved in electoral fraud...why is he not banned or ejected or otherwise prevented from, for example, running for office?

Criminals or people under trial or who should be under trial are not allowed to prance about and run for office, or at least they shouldn't be.

Farengeto, no one is blaming the court because we don't even have a prosecutor role to pursue cases on behalf of the region. It's a bit bizarre. We don't have a precedent for the court responding to this kind of situation. In the last two situations (Nathan and Bundes..), the administration handled the issue. So what I'm asking is why we 1) aren't following precedent or 2) acting as if there is nothing that can be done in the interim while the next court members are elected.

I'm pretty sure that when Milograd ran his coup he was banned form the forums, let back on in limited ways to post his apology and to be tried in the courts (although he trolled) and then even with his apology was kept banned.

(02-06-2015, 12:34 AM)Escade Wrote: why is he not banned or ejected or otherwise prevented from, for example, running for office?

Because we have laws.

(02-06-2015, 12:34 AM)Escade Wrote: 1 or 5 apply very clearly in the case of Belschaft but does the court need to make this decision? It's a bit unclear since it specifies the Judiciary in certain numbered sections but it doesn't in others. I know that in terms of Nathan's case, the administration handled it. There is also the fact that the administration has the powers to immediately ban.

What I'm asking is based on the transcript provided by Cormac, the acceptance of the crime by Belschaft in the original post, and then his subsequent adding onto that in the other linked thread by alleging that CSS was involved in electoral fraud...why is he not banned or ejected or otherwise prevented from, for example, running for office?

Criminals or people under trial or who should be under trial are not allowed to prance about and run for office, or at least they shouldn't be.

Nathan's case was an example of the administration bypassing the legal system.

The court can't do anything unless:

1. Charges are filed against someone, and enough evidence exists to justify a trial
   
2. We have a full court
   

Neither of these are true at the moment. And even if they were we can't just arbitrarily skip to sentencing, Court procedures require a fair trial.

I find this attempt to have the assembly circumvent our legal system and have the assembly overstep it legal authority both an insult to the court and offence t everything the Coalition stands for.