For the Sunshine Act:

   

N.B. Two telegrams have been sent to both Shangyuen and Philippinia; the text of the first was agreed with Justice Griffindor earlier in this thread; the text of the second is the same as the second message I sent Philippinia via Discord (the substance, but not the text itself, was agreed to by Justice Griffindor)

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

Reply

That screenshot gives me some concern.. It appears that Philippinia has left TSP servers and does not intend to finish the trial. Have you tried adding him as a friend so you can PM him again? Regardless, the deadline for evidence is tonight and neither of them appears to intend to meet it. I would probably recommend moving forward with the drafting of the verdict.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Yes, both Philippinia and Shangyuen are no longer in the South Pacific. I have not added either as a friend on Discord but have instead telegrammed their NS nations. I will start drafting the verdict.

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

Reply

Sorry for the delay; I have been waiting for a response to the Contempt thread but that has not been forthcoming (the draft below has been written in such a way that Contempt can be added easily at the end). I will format the below draft better in future (and write a summary); I just wanted to get it to you for your review. As you can tell I have not yet made up my mind on Organised Crime. I think it is more likely than not that it occurred but I am currently in a hang up on whether it is substantially more likely than not. Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

During the recent Local Council election campaign, Philippinia sent telegrams campaigning for the election of Shangyuen. As can be readily appreciated from the screenshots linked in the footnotes,[1] Philippinia offered voters endorsements and trading cards in exchange for voting for Shangyuen.[2] 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.’[3] 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.’[4] The Court therefore finds Philippinia guilty of the crime of Bribery; a crime which he pled guilty to.[5]

Having now 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.’[6] The question the Court must decide is whether Shangyuen had involvement with Philippinia’s plan to bribe voters. At this juncture it is important to note that the Court only has access to the telegrams furnished by the Election Commissioner and the comments made by Philippinia in the case thread. While the Court should be wary of taking a defendant’s testimony at face value, there are no other sources of information made available to it and, as such, there exists no real ability to challenge the veracity of Philippinia’s claims. The order to produce further evidence remains unanswered;[7] therefore the Court, like MacGyver, must make do with the little it has.

The evidence the Court does have access to makes it likely that Shangyuen closely cooperated with Philippinia on the latter’s attempts to campaign for him. Philippinia stated that ‘incentivising voters with trading cards was Shangyuen’s idea.’[8] This implies that Shangyuen was discussing campaign strategy with Philippinia. In addition, the widespread campaign telegram Philippinia sent out included a message from Shangyuen himself,[9] which implies Shangyuen was cooperating closely enough with Philippinia to write a message for the telegram. However, if Philippinia’s testimony is taken to be accurate, then it must be conceded that the coordination between him and Shangyuen was not absolute since the former told the Court: ‘I acted without his [Shangyuen’s] knowledge when I sent the telegram offering trading cards to a voter.’[8] In addition, Philippinia stated that ‘the endorsements thing was a last minute line I added,’[3] implying that Shangyuen was unaware of it beforehand. As such, even though the two worked closely on the campaign, the Court must conclude that Shangyuen was not directly involved in the decision of Philippinia to bribe voters with endorsements or trading cards because he was apparently unaware of those decisions being made.

OPTION 1
Direct involvement, however, is not an element of the Organised Crime offence. Rather, if Shangyuen and Philippinia were working together and both intended for voters to be bribed then that would be sufficient to prove the crime had occurred. The very fact that Shangyuen had been the first to bring up bribing voters is suspicious.[10] Without any evidence to the contrary, it is most reasonable to assume someone who raises the possibility of a crime intends for it to be carried out, especially if the offence actually occurs soon thereafter. As such, it is highly probable that Shangyuen and Philippinia’s partnership aimed to bribe voters in order to elect Shangyuen. This makes it substantially more likely than not that there was organise crime: ‘involvement in a group  or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in the South Pacific.’[6] The Court therefore finds both Philippinia and Shangyuen guilty of the offence of Organised Crime.

OPTION 2
One may object to the conclusion that Shangyuen was uninvolved in the bribery because Philippinia stated that ‘incentivising voters with trading cards was Shangyuen’s idea.’[8] However, the testimony available does not allow the Court to conclude how Shangyuen supposedly raised this concept. The most unsympathetic reading would paint Shangyuen as pressuring a reluctant Philippinia to ditch his moral compass and bribe voters; the most sympathetic reading would portray Shangyuen as sharing an off-colour, misunderstood joke that bribing voters would be his best chance for winning. As can be seen, without access to the messages between Philippinia and Shangyuen, the Court is left to guess at what actually was said. With such a broad spectrum of possibility, it would not be fair to say that there is clear and convincing evidence that Shangyuen intended to bribe voters and as, such, the crime was not organised between Shangyuen and Philippinia. The criteria for the offence, intent to commit a crime,[6] has not been proven to be substantially more likely than not.[11] The Court therefore finds both Philippinia and Shangyuen not guilty of the charge of Organised Crime.

FOOTNOTES
[1] Link to all TGs
[2] Specifically, Philippinia wrote ‘As a bonus, If you VOTE for Shangyuen, I will endorse you, and he will endorse you too!’ (LINK TO MASS 2) 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 TO INDIVIDUAL).
[3] https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid211825
[4] Criminal Code 1.11
[5] https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid211634
[6] Criminal Code 1.6
[7] https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid211946
[8] https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8999-post-2...#pid211631 
[9] LINK TO MASS 1 AND 2
[10] Recall that Philippinia stated that ‘incentivising voters with trading cards was Shangyuen’s idea.’[7]
[11] Article 5, Section 3 of the Judicial Act requires that: ‘The verdict shall be guilty if and only […] the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.’

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

Reply

Overall, this is a good draft. Now that we have cleared the way for contempt charges, please add that part in when ready.

I think it would be beneficial to explain how and why this case arose in a paragraph (or so) to provide a better segway into the evidence presented in the first paragraph.

Specifically relating to the organized crime charge, I would personally side with option one. I don't think it is the Court's job to guess what was being thought or said behind closed doors (or, in this case, private conversations). The Court's job is to interpret the evidence presented to it in reaching a verdict. The evidence presented points to bribery and collusion. Laws were broken as a result of this attempted bribery, and both the accused members were a part of the wrongdoing.

I do like the MacGyver reference, and as much as it pains me to say, I think it might need to be left out to keep the verdict formal. Perhaps just a simple statement like "we don't have much evidence due to non-participation of the involved parties" would suffice.

Overall, I would focus on getting it more cleaned up and "final draft" looking, add the contempt charge, and provide some introductory explanations on how the case arose.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Thanks for your feedback. I have considered it and have provided some responses below. I will remove the MacGyver reference. I will format the ruling properly once we have gone through the items below.

Do you think that the following would be appropriate as an opening paragraph to provide further context?

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.

FOOTNOTES
[1] Pencil Sharpener's post
[2] Initial indictment
[3] Amended indictment

 

How do you find the following initial draft paragraph for the Contempt of Court charge?

As can be readily appreciated in this ruling, the work of the Court has been frustrated by the fact that Philippinia and Shangyuen did not provide the information requested. This request was made in the form of an order signed by two members of the bench,[1] and thus both Philippinia and Shangyuen were legally ‘compelled to answer such a request.’[2] Both defendants were telegrammed twice about this order and yet the case thread demonstrates their failure to comply with it.[3] Philippinia indicated that he was wanting Shangyuen’s permission before releasing the screenshots.[4] However, this is not an excuse found anywhere within the law and the stance itself is rather absurd if taken to the extreme, for the Court would be unable to compel evidence from any person (except that which is already publicly available and therefore already at the Court’s fingertips). To make privacy king would render the Court impotent. Despite being warned that his reason was not sufficient to excuse his non-compliance and being given the opportunity to send the information confidentially,[5] Philippinia failed to provide the evidence requested by Court. Shangyuen has as well. As discussed above, the failure of both defendants to furnish the Court with the appropriate evidence means that the Court has been prevented from ensuring its verdicts in this case are based on the best evidence, and instead must rely on the uncorroborated testimony of one of the defendants. As such, both Philippinia and Shangyuen’s non-compliance with the evidence order meets the threshold for Contempt of Court: ‘deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the Judiciary from reaching a true and just result.’[6] The Court therefore finds both Philippinia and Shangyuen guilty of the crime of Contempt of Court.

FOOTNOTES
[1] Evidence order
[2] Judicial Act 3.5
[3] I will upload screenshots of the telegrams I sent to Philippinia & Shangyuen
[4] Post where Philippinia said this
[5] Post where I responded to [4]
[6] Criminal Code 1.5

Now for the big one, the Organised Crime charge...

My intention with discussing what Shangyuen could have meant was not to arrive at what he did mean but to show that we just can't know (hence the two wildly different possibilities I proposed). I agree that I should have made that point in a better way. Perhaps this is a better explanation (not as a draft, but so you can understand where my mind is at):

If we look at the Criminal Code (1.6): 'Organised crime shall be defined as involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in the South Pacific.' Or, to break it down into the elements of the offence:

1. Involvement in a group or association
   
2. Where such involvement occurs with the intent of committing an act
   
3. Where such an act is unlawful in the South Pacific
   

As I see it, these are the three things which we must find to be proven 'substantially more likely than not' (Judicial Act 5.3) in order to convict. Now, the only evidence we have available for this charge is what Philippinia wrote: ‘incentivising voters with trading cards was Shangyuen’s idea.’ The rest of his testimony distances Shangyuen from the decision to bribe voters. So where does this leave us with the three elements of the offence?

1. Involvement in a group or association - if Philippinia's statement is true, it did involve some level of association between Shangyuen and Philippinia
   
2. Where such involvement has the intent of committing an act - we have no direct evidence which speaks to intent
   
3. Where such an act is unlawful in the South Pacific - if Philippinia's statement is true, it did involve discussion of an unlawful act (even if they didn't think it was unlawful, bribery is still an unlawful act)
   

So, assuming Philippinia did not lie, only 1 and 3 are directly proven. Number 2 produces an issue for the Court, as it must determine if Shangyuen possessed an intent to actually have bribery carried out. In the draft I sent you, Option 1 (for conviction) asserts that it is fair for the Court to assume that someone mentioning a criminal act which is then committed actually intended for that to be the case (i.e. it is the burden of the defence to prove that this assumption is incorrect). On the other hand, Option 2 (for acquittal) points out that it is impossible for the Court to know Shangyuen's intent based on the scant testimony we have and, therefore, this element of the offence is not met (hence, acquittal).

My key hang up is that standard is substantially more likely than not; which is intended as a synonym of clear and convincing evidence (see here). Do I think that Shangyuen's reason for bringing up the "incentives" idea was to bribe people? It is the most reasonable explanation. But has it been proven to be sufficiently likely? That is what I am struggling with. The path to conviction is to say that the Court can base conviction off a reasonable assumption (where the evidence to prove or disprove that assumption is unavailable). The path to acquittal is to say that the Court should not be convicting people based off of unproven assumptions (despite the fact that the actual evidence is unavailable). To me, neither is the ideal answer. As such, I would greatly appreciate your insight into this matter.

P.S. Hopefully I have explained both sides of my thinking a bit better this time so the key issue in my mind is more front and centre, but if not please feel free to let me know.

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

Reply

Starting first with your explanation of your thinking in regards to organized crime, I went back to read through that specific crime shortly after I posted my original response, and you are most definitely correct that there are three criteria that must be met. Upon further reflection, we are indeed missing the intent portion of the criteria needed. If we take Philippinia at their word (when saying he didn't know it was a crime [as we seem to be doing with his other testimony]) he specifically lacks intent and actually admits to a mistake in his understanding of what he would/did do.

Since we are missing intent, it makes it hazy to definitively say whether we can prove that charge. I personally believe that there is just enough evidence and other factors that could render a guilty verdict on that, but I perfectly see your argument as valid too. I also lean toward conviction on that charge because had Philippinia (and Shangyuen) responded and participated in the trial, we would likely have a definitive answer, so the failure for them to provide proof of their innocence (or guilt) on that charge is, frankly, their own fault. That means the Court must make certain assumptions if it is to be able to conclude a case.

Overall, I will differ to you as the presiding justice on the charge, and it's an aye either way from me either way you decide.




*chefs kiss*
The summary and contempt drafts are good.

P.S. On the organized crime part, if you do decide to render a not guilty verdict, I would heavily recommend including the way you wrote it (breaking down the charge itself) into the verdict itself. That really helped me understand your thinking, and would definitely help the public understand your reasoning.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Thanks for your feedback. I will aim to write up a properly-formatted draft in the next 24 hours and get it to you (not 100% sure if it will happen, but that is my aim).

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

Reply

Take your time, we have plenty of it with the new charges delaying things.

In fact, you even have time to take a few days off for Christmas.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

(This post was last modified: 12-21-2020, 01:20 PM by Griffindor.)

Reply

Below is a more formal draft (sorry I didn't get it to you when I expected to). You will notice I took a different line yet again to the Organised Crime charge (namely Philippinia's lone statement is too flimsy); I am happy to rework it if you wish. I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions you may have. Thanks in advance!

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 XX 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. 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 (see spoiler entitled Attachment at the end of the footnotes). [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). Attachment     2012.HC.V | Issued XX December 2020

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

Reply