Users browsing this thread:

Philippinia · 12-13-2020, 01:35 PM

Since it’s a private conversation between two people, I will only release the screenshots once Shangyuen has allowed me to.

Nat · 12-14-2020, 01:56 AM

I wish to make it clear that you are required by this region's law to hand over a screenshot of every single message between you and Shangyuen which contains any reference whatsoever (direct or indirect) to the use of endorsements or trading cards to incentivise voters. This is your obligation under this region's law, for which you have been given three days to fulfil. There are no stated exemptions to this requirement. In the absence of an alternate arrangement being agreed to with the Court, you risk being charged with Contempt of Court (Criminal Code 1.5) if you refuse to comply with this order (including if you choose not to release the messages because Shangyuen is witholding permission for you). Thus, you may refuse to comply with the Court's order at your own risk.

The Judicial Act (8.3) allows you to provide personal information to the Court confidentially. If you so choose, you may provide the screenshots privately to myself (and I will make them privately available to the other Justices). However, the Court is likely obligated to eventually publish those screenshots publicly under the Judicial Act and the Sunshine Act. Redactions would be made so that any irrelevant information of a personal nature is not provided publicly. Nonetheless, if you give information to the Court then at least some of it will be published. I am telling you this so you can know how the Court will treat any screenshots you send confidentially. Whether you wish to send the requested information in a confidential manner or post it publicly on this forum is up to your discretion.

N.B. The same goes for Shangyuen, but this is written in response to Philippinia's statement.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Nat · 12-20-2020, 09:19 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2012.HC] PENCIL SHARPENERS V. PHILIPPINIA
SUBMISSION 07 DEC 2020 | PROBABLE CAUSE 10 DEC 2020 | INDICTMENT AMENDED 21 DEC 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:

ADDITIONAL INDICTMENT
Alongside the indictment on the charges Bribery and Organised Crime, Philippinia is indicted on the additional charge of Contempt of Court and is invited to present a defence no later than 28 December 2020 2:00 am UTC¹ either on their own or through an attorney of their choosing.

Alongside the indictment on the charge of Organised Crime, Shangyuen is indicted on the additional charge of Contempt of Court and is invited to present a defence no later than 28 December 2020 2:00 am UTC¹ either on their own or through an attorney of their choosing.

SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE
Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than 28 December 2020 2:00 am UTC,¹ and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief.

SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL
Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 24 December 2020 2:00 am UTC.² Any such request should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse.

RETENTION OF RIGHTS
The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIMES ACT

[1] Timer; 27 December 9:00 pm (New York), 28 December 2:00 am (London), and 28 December 1:00 pm (Sydney).
[2] Timer; 23 December 9:00 pm (New York), 24 December 2:00 am (London), and 24 December 1:00 pm (Sydney).

It is so ordered.

2012.HC.PC (Amended) | Issued 21 December 2020

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Nat · 12-27-2020, 10:02 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2012.HC] PENCIL SHARPENERS V. PHILIPPINIA
SUBMISSION 07 DEC 2020 | PROBABLE CAUSE 10 DEC 2020 | INDICTMENT AMENDED 21 DEC 2020 | VERDICT 28 DEC 2020

CHARGES
Philippinia - Bribery, Organised Crime, and Contempt of Court
Shangyuen - Organised Crime and Contempt of Court

SUMMARY OF THE VERDICT
It is the finding of the Court that Philippinia sent telegrams offering inducements to anyone who would vote for Shangyuen and that Shangyuen's involvement cannot be proven to the standard required at a criminal trial due to Philippinia and Shangyuen both failing to comply with an order to produce evidence. Therefore, the Court finds Philippinia guilty of the crimes of Bribery and Contempt of Court, but not guilty of Organised Crime; and finds Shangyuen guilty of the crime Contempt of Court, but not guilty of Organised Crime.

JUSTICE NAT DELIVERED THE VERDICT, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR.

BACKGROUND
During the recent Local Council election campaign, Philippinia sent telegrams campaigning for the election of Shangyuen. As shall be shown below, these telegrams offered inducements to anyone who voted for Shangyuen. The Election Commissioner became aware of this and asked the Court to bring criminal charges.¹ The Court accepted the case, initially indicting Philippinia on the charges of Bribery and Organised Crime and Shangyuen on the charge of Organised Crime.² As discussed below, both Philippinia and Shangyuen did not give requested evidence to the Court and so the indictment was amended to add the charge of Contempt of Court against both defendants.³ The Court must now consider the merits of each charge the defendants have been indicted on.

BRIBERY
According to the Election Commissioner, Philippinia telegrammed a number of eligible voters for the Local Council election.¹ As can be readily appreciated from the screenshots the Election Commissioner provided,⁴ Philippinia offered voters endorsements and trading cards in exchange for voting for Shangyuen.⁵ Philippinia did not contest these facts but instead argued that he did not intend to break the law because he 'thought of endorsements and trading cards as incentives and not as bribes.'⁶ There is no reasonable basis for doubt that Philippinia offered inducements to voters with the intent of persuading them to vote for Shanyuen if they otherwise were not going to. This meets the definition of the crime of Bribery: 'offering undue support […] to any individual in order to influence behaviour a recipient would not otherwise alter.'⁷ The Court, therefore, finds Philippinia guilty of the crime of Bribery; a crime which he pled guilty to.⁸

ORGANISED CRIME
Having established that a crime was committed, the Court may now turn its attention to whether the said offence meets the definition of an Organised Crime: 'involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in the South Pacific.'⁹ The only evidence the Court has of any supposed criminal cooperation between Philippinia and Shangyuen is the former's comments to the Court, namely that: 'incentivising voters with trading cards was Shangyuen's idea but I [Philippinia] acted without his knowledge when I sent the telegram offering trading cards to a voter.'¹⁰ Since there is no corroborating evidence available, the extent of the evidence is that the already-accused Philippinia believes that Shangyuen brought up the idea to bribe voters. With nothing to back that claim up, the Court is not prepared to determine that Philippinia's assertion is 'substantially more likely than not' to be true (which is the legal requirement for a criminal trial in this region).¹¹ Therefore, it has not been proven that Organised Crime has occurred and, consequently, both Philippinia and Shangyuen are acquitted of this charge.

CONTEMPT OF COURT
Having demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence to support Philippinia’s assertion of Shangyuen's involvement in his actions, the Court may now turn its attention to why that was the case. Namely, Philippinia and Shangyuen defied an order of this Court to provide screenshots of their supposed conversations on incentivising voters.¹² This request was made in the form of an order signed by two members of the bench,¹² and thus both Philippinia and Shangyuen were legally 'compelled to answer such a request.'¹³ Both defendants were telegrammed twice about this order and yet the case thread demonstrates their failure to comply with it.¹⁴ Philippinia indicated that he wanted Shangyuen's permission before releasing the screenshots.¹⁵ However, this is not an excuse found anywhere within the law. Despite being warned his reason was not a sufficient excuse,¹⁶ Philippinia failed to provide the evidence requested by Court. Shangyuen did as well. This failure of both defendants to release the appropriate evidence means the Court was unable to verify or refute Philippinia's assertions on the involvement of Shangyuen in his crimes, which led to it having to dismiss the charges of Organised Crime.¹⁷ The Court, therefore, finds both Philippinia and Shangyuen guilty of the crime of Contempt of Court: 'deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the Judiciary from reaching a true and just result.'¹⁸

SUMMARY
In summary, the Court finds that Philippinia sent the telegrams offering inducements in exchange for votes; therefore, Philippinia is found guilty of Bribery. The Court also finds that, due to Philippinia and Shangyuen's non-compliance with a Court order, it is not sufficiently proven that Shangyuen conspired with Philippinia to illegally influence voters; therefore, both Philippinia and Shangyuen are found not guilty of Organised Crime but guilty of Contempt of Court. The Court shall begin sentencing hearings for both defendants shortly. Let this serve as a warning to all that illegal bids to frustrate the electoral or justice systems are not tolerated in the South Pacific.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES

[01] Pencil Sharpener's case submission (link).
[02] The Court's initial indictment (link).
[03] The Court's amended indictment (link).
[04] A mass telegram (link 1, 2, 3) and an individual telegram (link).
[05] Specifically, Philippinia wrote 'As a bonus, If you VOTE for Shangyuen, I will endorse you, and he will endorse you too!' (link) and 'I will endorse you and you can choose any one of my trading cards as a bonus if you vote for him [Shangyuen]' (link).
[06] Philippinia's third response in the case thread (link).
[07] Article 1, Section 11 of the Criminal Code (link).
[08] Philippinia's second response in the case thread (link).
[09] Article 1, Section 6 of the Criminal Code (link).
[10] Philippinia's first response in the case thread (link).
[11] Article 5, Section 3 of the Judicial Act (link).
[12] The Court's evidence order (link).
[13] Article 3, Section 5 of the Judicial Act (link).
[14] Screenshots taken by Justice Nat on 21 December 2020 (link).
[15] Philippinia's fifth response in the case thread (link).
[16] Justice Nat's clarification of the Court's evidence order (link).
[17] See the section Organised Crime above.
[18] Article 1, Section 5 of the Criminal Code (link).

2012.HC.V | Issued 28 December 2020

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

(This post was last modified: 12-27-2020, 11:18 PM by Nat. Edit Reason: Fixed link to Footnote 14 )

Nat · 12-27-2020, 10:02 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2012.HC] PENCIL SHARPENERS V. PHILIPPINIA
SUBMISSION 07 DEC 2020 | PROBABLE CAUSE 10 DEC 2020 | INDICTMENT AMENDED 21 DEC 2020 | VERDICT 28 DEC 2020

PROPOSED SENTENCE FOR PHILIPPINIA
Whereas this Court has found Philippinia guilty of the crimes of Bribery and Contempt of Court, and must now be given a sentence proportionate to the severity of the crimes, this Court finds that the said sentence should be as follows:

Philippinia is banned from the South Pacific for a period of twelve months, served from the date the sentence is officially declared by this Court. This ban encompasses all jurisdictions under the control of the South Pacific including in-game NationStates regions, off-site forums, and Discord channels.

Four months of this ban relates to the conviction for Bribery: Philippinia sought to manipulate an election through offering inducements, which he has later shown remorse for. Eight months of this ban relates to the conviction for Contempt of Court: Philippinia refused to hand over evidence which may have lead to his own conviction on the charge of Organised Crime and, therefore, the sentence should be heavier than for the charge he may have avoided.

The Court invites Philippinia to produce satisfactory evidence that he had requested Shangyuen's permission to release their conversations of incentivising voters. Should this be done by the deadline for submissions below, the Court is favourably disposed to reducing Philippinia's ban by two months, for a new total ban of ten months. This is because such evidence would paint Philippinia's actions as principled, rather than self-protective and, therefore, the sentence should be reduced accordingly.

Should Philippinia or any other party know of any reason why this sentence should not be given as initially found, they are invited to present their reasons before this Court no later than 4 January 2021 3:00 am UTC.¹

PROPOSED SENTENCE FOR SHANGYUEN
Whereas this Court has found Shangyuen guilty of the crime of Contempt of Court, and he must now be given a sentence proportionate to the severity of the crime, this Court finds that the said sentence should be as follows:

Shangyuen is banned from the South Pacific for a period of eight months, served from the date the sentence is officially declared by this Court. This ban encompasses all jurisdictions under the control of the South Pacific including in-game NationStates regions, off-site forums, and Discord channels.

All eight months of this ban relates to the conviction for Contempt of Court: Shangyuen refused to hand over evidence which may have lead to his own conviction on the charge of Organised Crime and, therefore, the sentence should be heavier than for the charge he may have avoided.

Should Shangyuen or any other party know of any reason why this sentence should not be given as initially found, they are invited to present their reasons before this Court no later than 4 January 2021 3:00 am UTC.¹

COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIMES ACT
[1] Timer; 3 January 2021 10:00 pm (New York), 4 January 2021 3:00 am (London), and 4 January 2021 2:00 pm (Sydney).

It is so ordered.

2012.HC.SH | Issued 28 December 2020

P.S. For the avoidance of any doubt, this is a proposed sentence; it will not be carried out until it is finalised in seven days' time.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Nat · 12-27-2020, 11:18 PM

I have been alerted that the screenshot for Footnote 14 of the Verdict is not publicly accessible. I apologise for this. The link in the ruling has been updated and the evidence has also been reproduced below:

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***Roavin*** · 01-03-2021, 10:30 PM

Your honors,

the Legislator Committee has submitted case 2015.HC regarding Shangyuen; that case is ostensibly related to this one and may inform the sentencing for that individual.

Nat · 01-03-2021, 11:17 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2012.HC] PENCIL SHARPENERS V. PHILIPPINIA
SUBMISSION 07 DEC 2020 | PROBABLE CAUSE 10 DEC 2020 | INDICTMENT AMENDED 21 DEC 2020 | VERDICT 28 DEC 2020

JUSTICE NAT DELIVERED THE SENTENCE, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR

SENTENCE FOR PHILIPPINIA IMPOSED
Whereas the Court found Philippinia guilty of the crimes of Bribery and Contempt of Court, received no mitigating evidence after the conviction, and must now give a sentence proportionate to the severity of the crimes, the Court finds that:

Philippinia is banned from the South Pacific for a period of twelve months from 4 January 2021. This ban encompasses all jurisdictions under the control of the South Pacific including in-game NationStates regions, off-site forums, and Discord servers.

The Court has notified relevant administrators and officers so that this sentence will be effected as soon as possible.

SENTENCE FOR SHANGYUEN DELAYED
Whereas the Court has found Shangyuen guilty of the crime of Contempt of Court and is currently deliberating the allegation of Identity Fraud made against him, the Court resolves that:

Shangyuen shall not be sentenced until [2015.HC] Legislator Committee v. Schweizer Reich is concluded. Any sentence imposed for the Contempt of Court conviction is for deterrence (rather than preserving public safety) and, therefore, the Court is satisfied that sentencing can wait. This is so any proven alias of Shangyuen may be listed in the sentence.

The Court has notified relevant administrators and officers so that they will not inadvertently impose a ban on Shangyuen at this time.

It is so ordered.

2012.HC.S | Issued 4 January 2021

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

(This post was last modified: 02-04-2021, 03:52 AM by Nat. Edit Reason: Tried to fix glitch which made the page run long; no change to the Court document )