Your Honourable Justices,

According to the Criminal Code, making vexatious complaints is a crime:

Quote:(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.

To place a vexatious complaint has a number of detrimental impacts on the Courts, in terms of time and resources: and similarly on Legislators, defendants and other interested parties who must generally maintain assistance for the Courts with similar concern.

Recently a complaint of corruption was made against one government official (an LC) by a Legislator (New Haudenosaunee Confederacy [HNC]).

The Court, has denied justicibility stating

(06-27-2018, 05:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: "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."

Now a second complaint has been lodged by NHC against the same LC with the same information. This is a form of repetition clearly defined in the Criminal Code and Wwhilst not specifically considered by the Courts, the initial complaint can be seen to be meritless, and without question the second must surely be seen as so.

After the first complaint, several attempts were made by other Legislators and Citizens to explain to NHC that the complaints made by NHC were not 'corruption', which is clearly defined in the Criminal Code. Despite acknowledgements by NHC that the elements indicated in the complaint did not constitute corruption, NHC continued to claim the LC Member was corrupt and these comments remain on record despite being unjustified. Such comments strongly suggest that the original corruption complaint was meritless and frivolous, and other motives lay behind the decision to involve the Courts.

Offers of assistance were made to NHC to promote changes to rules, regulations, policy and legislation, in good faith, for the benefit of the Government if NHC considered the existing failed to provide adequate comfort. These offers were not taken up by NHC, which weakens a case of raising concerns of corruption further and heightens the premise that the original claim was frivolous. I'm addition, the second complaint is almost certainly so.

In addition, the timing of the original complaint, being at LC election, can and has been seen as an attempt to undermine the existing LC and sway the vote against the LC, who is running for re-election. Despite a claim by NHC that the timing of the complaint was purely coincidental, this claim is undermined by telegrams sent to the voting citizens in the LC election. This suggests a concerted effort to manipulate an ongoing legitimate election process through a burdensome, meritless and frivolous complaint.

NHC is now showing repetitive behaviours in relation to this request of the Courts, in his statement, NHC acknowledges the repetition of this new claim.

I respectfully ask the Courts as to whether the complaint by NHC meets the requirements of a Vexatious Complaint inline with the Criminal Code .

Respectfully,

Beepee