I don’t know why you didn’t receive the correct information. Apparently, there are no clear arrangements between the Conclave and the Foreign Affairs Ministry as to who should inform diplomats who now reside outside of TEP. Allow me to correct that and supply you the right information. You’re not actually completely banned, and your trial has not been continued.
As you will remember, you did not follow through with your trial, after which the Conclave was so kind as not to continue it in your absence, to allow you to mount a proper defence should you choose to return in the future. However, for leaving the region, they issued an arrest warrant for you to come back and face your trial. You’ve also seen this warrant.
The last month, the Conclave has reviewed, upon request, a question of law regarding the Concordat, Citizenship and the jurisdiction of the law over non-Citizens. As a result of it’s verdict, your legal situation as a non-Citizen refusing trial has been further defined and the court rendered a decision, separate from your actual trial, based on your non-compliance with the Warrant. This decision recognizes your position as Diplomat, but restricts any other access to TEP as long as you don’t comply with the Warrant.
You can find the necessary documents below:
[spoiler].
http://z1.ifrm.com/1250/87/0/p408691/New_Conclave_Seal_Small.jpg
THE CONFEDERATED EAST PACIFIC
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CONCLAVE
Capital District, Christie Island
PEOPLE OF THE EAST PACIFIC,
THE EAST PACIFIC
Plaintiffs[right]CRIM. CASE [/right]
Unibot
Accused.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
[size=150]WARRANT OF ARREST
TO ANY OFFICER OF THE LAW:
GREETINGS:
You are hereby commanded to arrest Unibot (the accused), in the above captioned case and who is charged with:
[ul]
[li]Infringing on the right of free speech, outlined in Article F Section 1.
[li]Severely harassing or teasing, expressing prejudice against, or acting with intent to harm members or citizens, outlined in Section V Point 1 of the SOC.
[li]Creating a disturbance that is distressing to other members or citizens, or the government of The East Pacific, as outlined in Section V Point 2 of the SOC.
[li]Committing sedition, defined as teaching or advocating, or publishing or circulating any writing that advocates action to produce an unlawful governmental change within the East Pacific, as outlined in the Treason Act.
[/li][/ul] - and to bring said accused before this Court as soon as possible to be dealt with in accordance with law.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS COURT; this 26th day of March, 2014, at Capital District, Christie Island.
THE EAST PACIFIC v. UNIBOT
Viceroy Designee
Jurisdictions
FIRST ENDORSEMENT
Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of the East Pacific Police Service, Prussia; The District Attorney, Aelitia; and the Delegate of the Region for execution of the Warrant, after which the accused has returned as a citizen.
Viceroy Designee
Jurisdictions
.[/size][/spoiler]
[spoiler][center]
In the matter of the Inquiry, “Question of Jurisdiction”, the Conclave,
THROUGH A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THREE ARBITERS, finds the following:.[/center]
…In the matter of this Inquiry, Unibot was a citizen when he was accused with a crime, thus, according to the principle of non ex post facto law that is the bedrock of a region dedicated to a rule of law and the Concordat, he was (and, thus, still is) entitled to a trial. However, when faced with the trial’s proceedings he fled from the region. The Court proceedings halted due to this absence, not due to the accused’s citizenship status, of which the Court had previously concluded in error.
…Therefore, according to the principles below, should Unibot return to the Jurisdiction of The East Pacific, he shall still be subject to the proceedings of this Conclave with all the rights and defenses that he had while a citizen, at the time of being accused. Should Unibot “fail to appear” before the Court upon his return to any place of The East Pacific’s jurisdiction against the current warrant issued for his “arrest and appearance” before this Conclave, Unibot shall be barred from obtaining future citizenship, and shall be subject to the possible lawful banishment by the Delegate considering the unusual nature and circumstances of this case.
…The specifics of the case due to Unibot’s personal status concerning Foreign Diplomacy will be specified following the statement of the principles of the findings.
The fundamental principles are as follows:
- If a Citizen flees the region in face of criminal proceedings, is the accused still entitled to a trial?
YES: If a Citizen flees when faced with a trial, becoming a non-citizen does not exempt them from being tried. When events occur like this, the accused shall retain the right to trial since they were charged for a crime as a Citizen. This in a summary, is the principle of non ex post facto law at work. Citizens have a right to be free from fear of the law changing to make a previous action illegal. In this case, any citizen accused of a crime should not fear that they lose their right to trial or to dispute their charges should they leave the region.
- Does the lack of a defense by the accused, support a guilty conviction to be applied by the Conclave?
NO: The burden of proof rests upon the petitioning party, and this party must reasonably demonstrate the guilt of the accused. The lack of a defense does not itself constitute a guilty plea, but inherently constrains the Court to the evidence presented by the petitioning party.
HOWEVER: If the defense neglects or refuses to appear, an Arrest Warrant compelling the attendance of the accused may be issued. Failing the Warrant, the Court may issue an Order to ban the accused for “Failure to Appear”.
- Do non-citizens have a right to trial?
NO: Non-Citizens do not have a right to trial. If the Delegate has ‘reasonable grounds’ to find that a non-citizen has violated the law, then the Delegate has the authority to banish them from the Region.
Concordat, Article A, Section 4
[spoiler]Section 4) The Delegate shall eject and/or banish nations from the region members who have committed a summary offense or have been convicted of an indictable offense by the Conclave, for a prescribed period of time. [2014 Am 2, §1] [/spoiler]
FURTHER: This requires an in-reading of the Concordat Article E, which states the right to a trial is afforded to a “Nation”. It is listed under the heading “Rights of Citizens”, therefore it is concluded that the word ‘nation’ is meant as ‘citizen’ in this Article.
FURTHER CONCLUDING: This general rule applies to official off-site services as well, with the ‘Owner’ or ‘Administration’ taking the place of Delegate. Service Operators may issue banishment from their particular service for violation of local rules, as those violations are considered summary offenses. – However, gross abuse of authority by service operators should be brought to the Conclave, and if confirmed, referred to the Delegate or Magisterium to determine if such an off-site service shall continue under its designation as an official service.
- Do non-citizens have to conform to TEP law?
YES: Historically, the RMB Act has been enforced against non-citizens for advertisements placed on the Regional Message Board. With this, it is concluded that all laws of The East Pacific apply to non-citizens as well as the citizens when such actions are taking place within its jurisdiction.
FURTHER: To become a citizen of The East Pacific is to ensure judicial consideration or redress for actions taken against you under our laws or jurisdiction. If a non-citizen is charged or found in contravention of these, they are subject to punishment without trial or appeal, as stated earlier.
- Does the Jurisdiction Act apply the laws of the region onto off-site services that use the name of TEP?
YES: The Jurisdiction Act explicitly states that if an off-site service wishes to carry the name of The East Pacific, it agrees and subjects itself to our Concordat, jurisdiction, and laws. This designation comes with the responsibility to assist, cooperate, and comply with an order or punishment issued by the Regional Government.
[spoiler] (e) The laws of The East Pacific shall have jurisdiction over any offsite service listed in the World Factbook Entry or used for official business.
(f)(i) Only with the consent of its adminstrator(s)/owner(s) may an offsite service be listed on the World Factbook entry or used for official business.
(ii) By consenting, the administrator(s)/owner(s) agree to apply the jurisdiction of the law to their offsite service.
(iii) Such jurisdiction only includes the power to restrict free speech and banish users, which shall also remain powers of the administrator(s)/owner(s). [/spoiler]
[hr][hr][hr]
BY THE ORDER OF CONCLAVE:
Following and including the findings for the Inquiry on Jurisdiction above, the Conclave determines:
Due to Unibot’s presence in The East Pacific’s jurisdiction while an Arrest Warrant in his name was in force, and his failure to be present and stand trial, he is hereby banned, excluding exceptions, from the totality of The East Pacific for “FAILURE TO APPEAR” before Conclave. Therefore, Unibot is barred from future claims to citizenship by virtue that he may not legally be a resident of The East Pacific, as outlined in Article E, Section 1 of the Concordat, and shall be subject to the lawful banishment by the Delegate as stated within this order.
Arbiters of the Conclave of the East Pacific,
as Represented by the Viceroy [/small][/spoiler]
[spoiler]
[size=150]ORDER OF CONCLAVE:
For reasons of violating an Arrest Warrant duly ordered by this Court, Conclave hereby issues an Order regarding
Failure to Appear in the matter “The East Pacific v. Unibot”.
Due to Unibot’s presence in The East Pacific’s jurisdiction while an Arrest Warrant in his name was in force, and his failure to be present and stand trial, he is hereby banned, excluding exceptions, from the totality of The East Pacific for “FAILURE TO APPEAR” before Conclave. Therefore, Unibot is barred from future claims to citizenship by virtue that he may not legally be a resident of The East Pacific, as outlined in Article E, Section 1 of the Concordat, and shall be subject to the lawful banishment by the Delegate as stated within this order.
The ban shall be enforced until such a time that any one of the following are fulfilled:
[ul][li]The accused makes it known to the Viceroy that he will stand trial,
[li]Two years have elapsed since the issuing of the ban. [/li][/ul]
Should the ban be allowed to expire, the Arrest Warrant shall be re-issued and re-instated.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DUE TO FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC POSITION[ul]
An exception to this ban shall be made if all the following are fulfilled:
[li]Unibot is occupying the position of a Foreign Dignitary
[li]This position is considered to be acting in the capacity of a Diplomat
[li]The home Region of this position is in good standing with the East Pacific
[li]Any communication from Unibot in The East Pacific’s jurisdiction is considered to be officially and strictly diplomatic
[li]Any communication from Unibot is restricted to officially designated diplomatic areas (ie: an Embassy)[/li][/ul]
If any of the above are not fulfilled, the ban shall be enacted despite dignitary status.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Arbiters of the Conclave of the East Pacific,
as Represented by the Viceroy [/size][/spoiler]
I will confer with my Ministry and the Conclave to avoid this lack of communication in the future, and make sure that verdicts are send to all parties involved.
Bachtendekuppen,
Delegate of TEP.
