| [ Criminal Charges] |
|
First off. Belschaft didn't ask me. He asked of ANYONE would file charges for him since he can't. Second. I didn't realize he doesn't have a nation in TSP anymore, but I'm assuming that will be fixed shortly. #rd. There was NO subversion or plot here, The conversation happened in a public IRC channel, not privately. No hidden messages, No hidden agendas.
Personally I would like this to happen and get settled once and for all. Tired of the people that can;t move on from it and one of two things would happen. Belschaft would be found guilty and banished forever or Belschaft will be found innocent at which point the people that can't move on will leave. Wither way it ends
(04-08-2015, 01:33 AM)QuietDad Wrote: at which point the people that can't move on will leave. Um...excuse me? 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 thread is only to determine whether sufficient preliminary evidence exists to warrant a trial, and is not the place to discuss any alleged ulterior motives. Any further comments not related to that purpose will be removed from the court's record.
As the court as acknowledged this case we are currently discussing whether or not to hear it and will respond as soon as possible. However due to the brief remaining time in this term and that any trial will extend past the end of this term, I ask whether the complaint wishes for the current court to handle this case past the end of its term if necessary, or if they wish to delay this case until the new court begins its term.
I would like to move for the immediate dismissal of all charges with prejudice, on the basis of actual innocence. No actions taken by myself or others could be possibly construed as treason. The definition of treason is as follows;
"Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with." This can be broken into four sections; 1. "plotting against the Coalition" 2. "seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent" 3. "breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning" 4. "aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with" Of these sections, based upon the evidence provided, only section one could possibly apply. In regards to section one, no evidence has been submitted to suggest any form of plot against the Coalition, rather than the publicly acknowledged and admitted political plot against an internal political faction. A distinction must be made between The Coalition and individual governments or politicians, lest an organised political party established with the intent to oppose a cabinet and seek it's defeat at scheduled elections would meet the criteria for treason. As such, and in the absence of any of evidence of a plot against The Coalition itself, these charges cannot be sustained. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Determination of innocence or guilt requires a full trial.
Sufficient preliminary evidence must be presented to justify proceeding to trial. As no evidence suggesting that an act of treason has been presented, the court should dismiss the charges.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Dismiss the charges? Yes, obviously. Declare innocence? Absolutely not. It would be a mockery of our judicial system to allow you to get a friend to press charges without any intention of genuinely prosecuting the case, and then declare you innocent by virtue of your friend's failure to deliver a meaningful prosecution.
Such dismissal would indicate that the petitioner has simply not submitted enough evidence to warrant a trial. It is not a determination on your innocence or guilt. You have never been officially named guilty of treason. What has been said is that you have engaged in deeply questionable actions that make you untrustworthy as a citizen.
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
In the absence of any evidence that I have committed treason, we can conclude that I have not committed treason. The preliminary evidence submitted constitutes the totality of the evidence; it thus follows that if such evidence is deemed insufficient to warrant trial then I am innocent. In situations were a court deems that there is insufficient evidence to proceed to trial this is itself a declaration of innocence, via the basic legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
The "lack of evidence" comes from a lack of any serious and genuine attempt to prosecute.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |