Osiris Fraternal Order

Council of Priests

---

Presiding Priest: Tim Montresor-Stark

---

July 9th, 2016

Osiris Fraternal Order vs Petar Winter

---

[/center]

Charge: Citizenship Fraud
Defendant: Petar Winter
Chief Advocate: Fedele

Applicable Law: Legal Code of the OFO Article II Section 1.5 and Article II Section 5.3

"Citizenship Fraud is defined as any attempt to provide false or misleading answers on one's application for citizenship in the Osiris Fraternal Order or any attempt to conceal alternate NationStates aliases during the citizenship application process."

"High crimes will carry a maximum sentence of permanent regional and/or forum ban, revocation of citizenship, and/or permanent prohibition of future citizenship."

---

Timeline:

Plea -> Evidence Submission / Amicus Curiae Briefs / Arguments -> Any Additional Comments -> Verdict and Sentencing

---

We will now enter a 48 hour period in which the Defendant may enter a plea as well as announce Council for themselves if they wish. If there is no plea at the end of 48 hours, Petar Winter will be tried in absentia.

Also, given the nature of the evidence involving this trial, I will accept any IP-based evidence submission to myself via Private Message. To clarify, any and all IP-based evidence should be submitted over Private Message to myself so as to avoid violating the Zetaboards Terms of Service which prohibit posting IPs within the forum itself. Any other non-IP evidence may be presented in this thread. The Chief Advocate should post here when they've sent the evidence, which will then be verified by myself.

Based on the post by the Pharaoh here, Petar Winter is no longer a citizen. However, we can still proceed with the trial and assuming the Chief Advocate is intent on doing such a thing, I do intend to still see this trial out as justice waits for nobody.

The 48 hours is still ticking on the plea from Petar Winter, and if no plea is entered then we shall proceed after that.

The first piece of evidence has been provided to Tim Stark by private message. If this evidence is insufficient, please advise and more evidence will be provided.

Thank you Chief Advocate. As that appears to be the only evidence, the Priests will now convene on the matter and prepare a ruling. I will however accept evidence submission for a further 24 hours if you feel there's anything else relevant you could provide. More is better, afterall.

Well, there's still this. My intention was to answer any questions arising from the first piece of evidence before moving on to what I considered to be the slightly more subjective evidence. The Priests are obviously perfectly competent in interpreting the evidence, though. The Chief Advocate is happy to make himself available in the event any questions or concerns are raised with the evidence provided.

Understandable. We'll work to interpret it as we can. Thank you Chief Advocate.

Are we ready to move forward with any amicus curiae briefs or, if there are none submitted, hearing the arguments?

Ah, apologies Chief Advocate. Yes, if you would like to present an argument feel free to. The Council of Priests, given the lack of a defense from the defendant, is ready to proceed straight to a verdict, but we would welcome an argument from the Prosecution if it deems one worth giving. We will also be accepting Amicus Curiae briefs.

Since there's no established legal procedure yet, let's set the starting precedent at 48 hours for this phase?

Tim Stark wrote:Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:26 pmSince there's no established legal procedure yet, let's set the starting precedent at 48 hours for this phase?

In as much as my opinion matters, that seems fair.

---

The argument from the Chief Advocate: There is no intention on my part to hunt for witches in these halls. The only crime the defendant is here being accused of is falsifying his citizenship application and failing to divulge his other identities. He is not accused of attempting to subvert the Order, steal important classified information, or otherwise harm the government in any way. He is accused, simply, of having knowingly submitted an inaccurate citizenship application. He is not accused of anything more or anything less.

The evidence, as supplied, makes it clear that he did, in fact, submit a false citizenship application. Thus, the Chief Advocate would advocate, in this circumstance, for a sentence declaring that the defendant's citizenship is revoked or annulled, whichever may be most appropriate. The Chief Advocate would not here push for more extreme measures such as a formal ban or exile of any kind as there is no indication that this falsification was carried out with malice toward the Order. Indeed, the defendant has been an active member, contributing to the region.

If more serious charges are brought later, of course, those should be addressed accordingly.

As it stands, the defendant is accused of submitting an inaccurate citizenship application and the Chief Advocate pushes for the proportionate and relevant sentence of removing the defendant's citizenship.