Request for an Advisory Opinion on Concordat Article F, Section 8

The Conclave
1

— Begin quote from ____

Each nation that is a citizen shall be free to serve in any office in the East Pacific but no nation shall be granted a title of nobility by the government of the East Pacific and no citizen shall accept a title of nobility from a foreign government.

— End quote

While it is quite clear that the Concordat prohibits the granting of noble titles by the government of the East Pacific, and does not permit citizens to accept titles of nobility from a foreign government, I would like to ask the Conclave for a legal opinion on various matters pertaining to this subject that derive from the wording of the aforementioned section:

Firstly, what precisely constitutes a “title of nobility”? Are titles of nobility only titles that grant an individual noble status or all honorary titles legally considered to be such, or is there some kind of distinction made?

Secondly, Section 8 discusses that “no nation shall be granted a title of nobility”. Could this, in following its wording, be construed to mean that titles of nobility could be granted to an individual outside the context of their nation (ie their persona in and of itself)?

Thirdly, Section 8 also says specifically that titles of nobility may not be granted by “the government of the East Pacific”. Since this is worded to speak of the government, rather than the region or even the state, would this therefore mean that aspects of the region other than the government could grant titles? Also, what is the government precisely defined as (as in, what positions and organizations are considered “governmental” (I can guess at most, but clarification on this for certainty is my reason for asking))?

Fourthly, with respect to “no citizen shall accept a title of nobility from a foreign government”, what is defined as acceptance? In many instances people are simply granted a title and are given no official request to accept or deny it (in the case of unofficially accepting it, would that be classed as accepting a title of nobility from a foreign government?). Thus, is acceptance defined as solely the act of accepting a title, or instead, more broadly, also the lack of denying a title granted by a foreign government?

Fifthly, also with respect to the same part of Section 8 discussed in my fourth question, what is a “foreign government” defined as? If in another region something other than the region’s government grants the titles, or if a non-regional organization grants the title, would they be exempt from Section 8’s prohibitions?

Sixthly, what is the penalty for citizens who accept titles of nobility from “foreign governments”?

2

This seems a very odd and archaic portion of the Concordat to me and should be removed or modernized, in my opinion.

Unrelated to the request for judicial review; carry on.

3

Addendum: One other question; is there a distinction made between RP and gameplay titles of nobility?

4

Under most advisory opinions, there is a true and sustainable reason for asking for the opinion.

For instance, The Provost asked the Court if also being Chancellor at the University is conflicting of the Concordat. He had a real pressure as to why he needed to find out what the law is.

What is your reason for asking these questions? If I may inquire.

5

Your Honor, I made this request to the Conclave for an advisory opinion on this matter as, when I was applying for citizenship and read Section 8 of Article F in the Concordat, several of these questions came to mind as I have previously been in regions wherein systems of titles existed and am aware that such systems are quite common in some circles these days, so I figured that the issue would be pertinent to enough people for the question to be asked (I even received a PM from a citizen of TEP here shortly after I posted my initial questions asking me to ask my further question over RP vs Gameplay titles) as said individuals may find themselves in a position wherein the precise meaning of Section 8 is relevant to their acceptance of a foreign title/honor. I can also attribute my request as one stemming from the desire for a better understanding of this section and clarification on the definitions and nuances of terms and so forth so that I do not find myself in violation of Article F, Section 8 at any point in the future. If it adds any further justification for asking this question, I also have a (largely inactive but still extant) region of my own with a system of titles and would like to know if I would be breaking the laws of TEP by granting any titles to myself or one of my friends who has also applied for citizenship in TEP and been provisionally approved by your honor.

6

I think he ought to be free from self-incrimination. Don’t you, Juris? Therefore, I suggest the information he volunteered be disallowed in any proceedings regarding his citizenship.

7

I would like to put forward a motion of my own for the review of the section stated above by Heptimus. I would like a judicial opinion on the enforcability of that section and whether it can be truly utilized in a court of law to convict a citizen (and of what crime, exactly).

This opinion shall be brought to the Magisterium to be used as it sees fit while looking at a possible amendment to the Concordat. Thank you your honour.

8

— Begin quote from ____

I think he ought to be free from self-incrimination. Don’t you, Juris? Therefore, I suggest the information he volunteered be disallowed in any proceedings regarding his citizenship.

— End quote

Although I am not against the specific case, OF- I do believe the principle of what you suggest is, when applied elsewhere in case law, ridiculous.

Allowing people pardon for information they willfully divulge sounds nice, but this would also mean any one who admits they have been a murder or thief or what have you, is acquitted simply because they volunteered the information. I would suggest not allowing this simply because he offered the information up himself; but because that portion of the Concordat is defunct and nonsensical; and generally unenforcable in most senses of the law.

I only say this because that is a dangerous precedence to set in our Conclave.

9

For the RP related question… RP is a standalone entity from the Concordat. Forum administration governs RP.

From my view, that section of the Concordat was added in the aftermath of The Empire. Nowadays it would seem outdated. It should be fixed to only reflect that the government can’t give out titles of nobility.

10

— Begin quote from ____

From my view, that section of the Concordat was added in the aftermath of The Empire. Nowadays it would seem outdated. It should be fixed to only reflect that the government can’t give out titles of nobility.

— End quote

My memory is in concurrence with EM. We had boatloads of Lords and Ladies running around TEP telling us to bow down to them, when the empire was in town. If people want to propose amendments to that section, I think it is a reasonable request.

Just don’t turn TEP back into that nightmare.

11

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I think he ought to be free from self-incrimination. Don’t you, Juris? Therefore, I suggest the information he volunteered be disallowed in any proceedings regarding his citizenship.

— End quote

Although I am not against the specific case, OF- I do believe the principle of what you suggest is, when applied elsewhere in case law, ridiculous.

Allowing people pardon for information they willfully divulge sounds nice, but this would also mean any one who admits they have been a murder or thief or what have you, is acquitted simply because they volunteered the information. I would suggest not allowing this simply because he offered the information up himself; but because that portion of the Concordat is defunct and nonsensical; and generally unenforcable in most senses of the law.

I only say this because that is a dangerous precedence to set in our Conclave.

— End quote

Precedent?

How about Article F, Sections 5 and 6?

— Begin quote from ____

Section 5) No nation shall be forced to incriminate itself.

Section 6) Each nation shall have the right to legal counsel in a trial before the Conclave.

— End quote

Heptimus joined the region less than a week ago. I have merely taken it upon myself to stand up for him. If Heptimus had been in this region longer, then I might agree that the information he volunteered should be allowed.

Regardless, I doubt anything will come of this inquiry besides an amendment (which I’m against).

(EDIT: You reading this AMOM? :stuck_out_tongue: :wink: )

12

— Begin quote from ____

How about Article F, Sections 5 and 6?

— Begin quote from ____

Section 5) No nation shall be forced to incriminate itself.

Section 6) Each nation shall have the right to legal counsel in a trial before the Conclave.

— End quote

Heptimus joined the region less than a week ago. I have merely taken it upon myself to stand up for him. If Heptimus had been in this region longer, then I might agree that the information he volunteered should be allowed.

Regardless, I doubt anything will come of this inquiry besides an amendment (which I’m against).

— End quote

While we are arguing simply the same thing here, I will counter you. (remember, I agree that he should not be charged or this information used against him- but not for the reason you put forward)

Regarding Section 5- he was not forced to incriminate himself, as he willfully divulged the information.

Regarding Section 6) Heptimus is not on trial, and this is therefore not relevant.

The volunteered information shall not be used against him; because we do not enforce that portion of the Concordat and many people believe it should be changed. Regardless of how long he has been in the region, he is entitled to the same rights as citizen and that makes the time span immaterial.

Why would you be against amending the Concordat to something like “The government, or any other body, of TEP shall not grant titles of nobility by any means; and shall not officially recognize any titles of nobility from any other region.” That removes any action which may be taken against someone like Heptimus under the current concordat.

13

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I think he ought to be free from self-incrimination. Don’t you, Juris? Therefore, I suggest the information he volunteered be disallowed in any proceedings regarding his citizenship.

— End quote

Although I am not against the specific case, OF- I do believe the principle of what you suggest is, when applied elsewhere in case law, ridiculous.

Allowing people pardon for information they willfully divulge sounds nice, but this would also mean any one who admits they have been a murder or thief or what have you, is acquitted simply because they volunteered the information. I would suggest not allowing this simply because he offered the information up himself; but because that portion of the Concordat is defunct and nonsensical; and generally unenforcable in most senses of the law.

I only say this because that is a dangerous precedence to set in our Conclave.

— End quote

I would like to start off by thanking Old Federalia for being willing to advocate for a new member like myself, it is something I have not come to expect kindness of that sort in many places in NationStates, so your doing so speaks volumes about yourself and likely TEP as a whole.

With respect to the request made about the information I volunteered being disallowed, while I did not make the request so my opinion on it is not pertinent to its validity, and while I am not even a citizen, let alone an Arbiter (or versed in TEP law), I would say that should I have been unfairly made to self-incriminate myself, were charges or any other legal actions taken, I could dispute them at that point on that basis rather than at this juncture (though this is something of a hypothetical point in all likelihood as I do not believe I volunteered any self-incriminating information). Additionally, and I say this freely and willingly knowing that it could be used against me were I in fact in violation of some law and had self-incriminated, I would say that I was not forced to self-incriminate, or, better put, forced to do anything that would risk self incrimination as the Honorable Jurisprudence did not order me to inform him of my reasons for requesting an advisory opinion, his honor merely asked me for them, thus allowing me the hypothetical right to refuse supplying such information if I am not mistaken (as said, I am not well versed in TEP laws and judicial practices yet so I could be way off the ball) and meaning that anything I said (be it self-incriminating or not) was said freely and voluntarily.

— Begin quote from ____

From my view, that section of the Concordat was added in the aftermath of The Empire. Nowadays it would seem outdated. It should be fixed to only reflect that the government can’t give out titles of nobility.

— End quote

While my intention was not to try and provoke an amendment to the section, I am hopeful that a review of this section, if granted, will allow for clarification of terms in the Section so that any hypothetical amendment made may be more clear to ensure that it is precise in its meaning.

14

— Begin quote from ____

While we are arguing simply the same thing here, I will counter you.

— End quote

Aelitia, just a second ago you were arguing against precedence, now you are arguing against the application of someone’s rights. Are you going to keep arguing with me no matter what?

— Begin quote from ____

(remember, I agree that he should not be charged or this information used against him- but not for the reason you put forward

— End quote

No, actually you are not arguing that this information should not be used against him, you are simply arguing he shouldn’t be charged. Regardless of what you apparently think, the difference is more than semantics.

I’ll give you credit for being able to read the wording of the rights I pointed out to you :stuck_out_tongue:

Unfortunately, you haven’t noticed who asked the question or where this thread is located. The viceroy asked a new member, albeit politely, why he’s asking the Conclave about titles of nobility. In my opinion, if the Conclave required Heptimus to establish a “true and sustainable reason for asking,” then it cannot turn around and then use that divulged reason against him since the whole point of asking is so Heptimus WON’T get in trouble. Otherwise, he’s damned if he does and he’s damned if he doesn’t.

Oh, and something about the Conclave being impartial? I think that’s important as well.

EDIT: Let’ me clarify. I’m not saying Heptimus shouldn’t be charged if he doesn’t fix his situation though, if it is found to be in contravention of the Concordat. I’m simply saying he needn’t have said anything and what he said should not be held against him, as long as he puts the advice the Conclave gives him to good use.

15

Federalia, I would like to let you know I highly respect you and your many opinions given around TEP and everything I have said previously is not to simply argue, but only because of my interpretation of the rule of law and application of TEP laws. When I counter an argument, I rarely do so with the intention of it being personal and I hope you can understand that :slight_smile:

To consolidate all of my points here in a few sentences- I believe Heptimus was not forced by Juris to give up the information (which Heptimus also pointed out above), and is thereby not protected by the section against self-incrimination. Heptimus, in my opinion, shall not be charged in this manner because the Concordat is in need of modernization; NOT because he simply gave up the information himself (the semantics, as you pointed out, is very important here- I say he shouldn’t be charged because of an odd law; you say the information shan’t be used against him in a trial, which would essentially mean a trial with no evidence and therefore cannot be charged… In my eyes those are different routes to the same end).

Also, the difference in argument you pointed out is not so much a difference, as one leads to another. The precedence set would be in the application of rights under the sections you pointed out (F, 5&6) seeing as allowing the information to be dismissed would be tantamount to discrediting any evidence in a trial that the accused willfully admitted to.
While I could argue the wording of the concordat day in and out, I will leave that here.

(Lastly; apparently Heptimus is not a citizen yet? He has the masking of member)

16

— Begin quote from ____

(Lastly; apparently Heptimus is not a citizen yet? He has the masking of member)

— End quote

I have not yet been formally approved for (or denied) citizenship, though a “Provisional Approval” was granted by the Honorable Jurisprudence for myself and two other applicants.

— Begin quote from ____

All current applications will hold “Provisional Approval” until I can choose the three members to form the Citizenship Commission.

These Provisional Approval Citizens will hold the rights and powers of citizens until the Commission is formed, which will not be too long from now.

Again sorry for the Jam, the July 4th week has been hetic for me.

— End quote

17

I myself have more of a curiosity question than anything: If a term of nobility is given, but it is an actual position in government, not just a title, would that be considered a violation of this section?

Also, give me about 30 minutes to read through all your posts, then I’ll give my 2 cents. :stuck_out_tongue:

18

— Begin quote from ____

Federalia, I would like to let you know I highly respect you and your many opinions given around TEP…

— End quote

Is that so? I have plenty of opinion, so feel free to ask for them whenever you want, though I doubt you’ll have to :wink:

— Begin quote from ____

While I could argue the wording of the concordat day in and out, I will leave that here.

— End quote

Yes, you better run away!!! Haha just kidding. I hugely disagree with everything you have said in your last post, but I will leave our discussion be, as well.

19

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

(Lastly; apparently Heptimus is not a citizen yet? He has the masking of member)

— End quote

I have not yet been formally approved for (or denied) citizenship, though a “Provisional Approval” was granted by the Honorable Jurisprudence for myself and two other applicants.

— Begin quote from ____

All current applications will hold “Provisional Approval” until I can choose the three members to form the Citizenship Commission.

These Provisional Approval Citizens will hold the rights and powers of citizens until the Commission is formed, which will not be too long from now.

Again sorry for the Jam, the July 4th week has been hetic for me.

— End quote

— End quote

Thank you for the clarification, Heptimus. I would like to clarify to you that I am not against you or your actions; and I too am defending you against persecution. Also, I believe you mean Jurisdictions :stuck_out_tongue: or “Juris” for short :slight_smile:

20

Oh, I didn’t think you were against me either. This has proven to be a far more interesting thread than I anticipated it would be XD