Appeal: The People v. Stujenske, Feux, Pergamon, Milograd/Yao, and A Mean Old Man

Welcome to the forums of the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features

Appeal: The People v. Stujenske, Feux, Pergamon, Milograd/Yao, and A Mean Old Man; Regarding Charge (6): Forum Destruction
Tweet Topic Started: May 17 2016, 04:59 PM (397 Views)
Greater Moldavi	May 17 2016, 04:59 PM Post #1
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	Your Honors, If it pleases the Court, I would like to submit an appeal regarding charge six of ruling GC 5 2016 entered into the public record on 17 May 2016. The appeal is in accordance with the 72-hour mandate of your Unified Legal Code. My apologies to the Court regarding the format of this appeal, as no template is readily available. I declare my standing as an 'interested party' pursuant to the nature of the charges directly (as leader of the Pacific Order, hereby referred to as NPO) and as an incidental victim of the ruling because of my professional association with one of the accused (Pergamon). I am validating my standing via reference to the Unified Legal Code, specifically Article 6.1, and the definition of 'party' from dictionary.law.com. This appeal is an argument of factual error (ULC 6.4). The Court presented evidence to support its findings in all charges except (6) Forum Destruction. For this charge the Court stated that one of the defendants, Stujenske, edited a part of the forum without political authorization. However, the Court failed to note that other copies of the edited document were available, thereby negating the stated reason that there was a 'substantial loss of information'. There was in fact, no loss of information as the information was available via alternate means. For example, Mandate 8 can be found right here on this very forum. I would also note that the previous Court had opted not to pursue this charge, presumably because there was no actual evidence to support the claim. And yet, this Court decided, without explanation or the submission of supporting evidence, to find the parties guilty of forum destruction. Further, while the argument for collusion and coordination regarding IC activities is generally understood, there should be a different standard of justification before claiming that there was coordination of OOC actions, of which forum destruction is generally considered to be a part. No evidence has been submitted that specifies Stujenske coordinated his editing of Mandate 8 (which again, was not a loss of information) with the other accused parties. No evidence of coordination, discussion, or intent has been provided. As stated, no evidence to support this charge has been submitted at all, even a screenshot of the original Mandate showing the edits is absent. Additionally, in response to my initial query, a Judge stated that Feux turned the forum off for a period of time. Again, this is not stated in the charges, the evidence, or the verdict. Also, the turning off of a forum is not generally considered to be equivalent to the destruction of that forum, especially when it is a temporary measure. Every time an administration closes a forum for maintenance is it now considered by Lazarus to be the work of 'forum destroyers'? To the point, the Court erred in regards to fact in this instance. The evidence presented does not support the conclusions reached. The conclusions reached do not support the verdict given. There was no loss of information when Stujenske edited Mandate 8. There is no evidence that even if this could be defended as 'forum destruction', which I contend it cannot, that the other parties involved in this trial were a party to that decision in any way, shape, or form. Simply deciding that they are accused together and therefore must be tried together seems like a misappropriation of justice, as I know was argued in the discussion of the previous trial. This appeal does not concern itself with the other charges, for which there is no reasonable defense in material or fact, but the idea that the government and Court of Lazarus would seek to impose OOC labels upon players within the game because of an edited post, which was not lost completely and would just be an edited post regardless, is too much. There is a clear and very negative connotation associated with the term 'forum destroyer' that should not have any bearing on the IC activities that most members of this defense panel undertook. Seeking to place such a harsh label on the accused goes beyond retaliation for actions that took place within Lazarus and would haunt the players and their associates potentially for years to come. It is not right or just. If nothing else, the Court should determine, because of the seriousness of this particular label on a player's ability to take part in the wider game of NationStates, that the facts do not support a Guilty verdict, even if it cannot definitively proclaim them to be 'innocent'.



Greater Moldavi	May 17 2016, 05:26 PM Post #2
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	I will also note that this could have been an appeal on the basis of legal error outlining the incorrect application of the definition of 'Forum Destruction' because of the lack of actual 'loss of information' but the ULC states that only one of the two can be utilized in the appeal.



Amerion	May 17 2016, 05:31 PM Post #3
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	This request has been noted by the Court. For reference, Article VI of the Unified Legal Code is the relevant section applicable in these proceedings: Article VI - Appeals (1) Any interested party may appeal the ruling of a Judicial Inquiry in the first 72 hours after it concludes. (2) Appeals must be based upon one of two arguments; legal error or factual error. (3) Arguments of legal error must identify a specific area of the ruling where the Justices made an error in the application of the law. (4) Arguments of factual error must identify a specific area of the ruling where the Justices made an error in regards to the facts of the matter. (5) The Justices will consider their ruling in light of the appeal, and then issue a final ruling. This ruling may not be appealed. Chief Justice Constie will begin an investigation into the matter as soon as possible. I have discussed the possibility of an appeal with Pierconium and provided advice in regards to legal remedies. I do not believe I can impartially rule on this appeal due to a personal conflict of interest. It is my view that should there even be the potential for a biased judgement, it is the obligation of a Justice to excuse him/herself from the bench. As such, I hereby excuse myself from deliberations regarding this appeal with immediate effect. Edited by Amerion, May 17 2016, 05:40 PM.



The Church of Satan	May 17 2016, 06:38 PM Post #4
I HAVE CHORTLES! Posts: 861 Group: Accused Member #7 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Lazarus CoS	If anything, I would recommend reducing the forum destruction charge to Stujenske and maybe Feux . It was after all, Stu himself that halted attempts of a plebiscite vote on the PRL forum by deleting the thread anytime we'd tried. Feux was the root admin and it's not unreasonable to believe he was involved in that, though I admit I am entirely uncertain as to Feux's involvement (or lack thereof) in this regard.



Loftegen	May 17 2016, 06:50 PM Post #5
Supreme Autocrat Posts: 11,070 Group: Members Member #108 Joined: Apr 23, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	I am confident that the Grand Court wil give this appeal from the Emperor of the Pacific the thorough consideration it deserves; I applaud Amerion for his efforts in the pursuit of justice; and I support Grand Judge Constie in the deliberations to come.



Greater Moldavi	Jun 14 2016, 04:10 PM Post #6
Tyrant (Ret.) Posts: 31 Group: Members Member #95 Joined: Apr 22, 2015	I thank the Court for their ruling.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Court Archive · Next Topic »