[2210.HC] Kris Kringle v. Curlyhoward

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION

I respectfully submit this case for the consideration of the High Court, and in so doing state that the information contained within it is true to the best of my knowledge, and I further make myself available to answer any questions that the Court may have.

Reference Name
Kris Kringle v. Curlyhoward

Request
Corruption

Description
I contend that Curlyhoward has committed the crime of corruption by misusing their powers as a regional officer in the interest of seeking reelection to the office of Local Councillor.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Criminal Code defines corruption as “the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage”. I intend to show with this case submission that Curlyhoward has committed this crime by misusing their powers as a regional officer more than once in the interest of seeking reelection to the office of Local Councillor.

The first instance took place on 01 Nov 2022, when I noticed that Curlyhoward had pinned to the World Factbook Entry a dispatch containing their reelection campaign. I promptly unpinned the dispatch, in my capacity as Election Commissioner, but did not take further action, assuming that this would have been an isolated incident. You may find below a screenshot of the referred case:

The second instance took place on 03 Nov 2022, when Curlyhoward sent a mass telegram to the region asking for their vote in the ongoing Local Council election. I freely admit that I have no way of knowing, at this time, whether Curlyhoward made use of the mass telegram option available to regional officers or if they made use of telegram stamps; that would be a matter in need of clarification. However, the fact that there was a prior instance of misusing their powers, and that the mass telegram option is freely available to them already, makes this second instance at best a dubious case in need of clarification. You may find below a screenshot of the referred case:

I hope the information within this submission will be sufficient for the Court to determine that there is enough probable cause to proceed with an indictment, and I make myself available to the Court for any questions that it may have.

1 Like

Your Honors,

Regarding the following point:

I would like to testify that as someone who currently holds Communication powers in the South Pacific, I cannot find an option to send a telegram to all TSP residents with stamps instead of RO powers. I believe that it is impossible to do so, therefore we can be confident that this telegram was sent with the Communications power.

(Don’t know if I am supposed to post here.)

I am witnessing something interesting. I guess there might not be Curly allowed to run for LC possibly. Pretty interesting turn of events.

Your Honour, with CurlyHoward be able to continue to run for the position of Local Councillor after this incident, or will he still be able to run for the office after his clear abuse of power?

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2210.HC] KRIS KRINGLE V. CURLYHOWARD
SUBMISSION 03 NOVEMBER 2022


Notice is given that this question has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows:

DOCKET NUMBER
2210.HC

REFERENCE NAME
Kris Kringle V. Curlyhoward

CHARGE
Corruption

The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the existence or lack of probable cause for the charges no later than 07 November 2022 12:00 UTC, but the Court reserves the right to make a determination after the accused party has exercised their right to dispute the charge. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time.


2210.HC.NR | Issued 03 November 2022

1 Like

I hereby plead guilty to both charges, with explanation. I truly did not know that I was breaking any rules. I truly believed that everyone had the ability to send mass telegrams or to pin a campaign dispatch as I did. I just discovered, as an example, the ability to generate polls just 5 days ago, and thought anyone had that ability as well. I did not know that only local councilors had these abilities. I stress, in all truthfulness that I did not maliciously break or flaunt the rules.

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2210.HC] KRIS KRINGLE V. CURLYHOWARD
SUBMISSION 03 NOVEMBER 2022 | PROBABLE CAUSE 05 NOVEMBER 2022


Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows:

FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE
This case is found to have probable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2210.HC.NR.

INDICTMENT
Curlyhoward is indicted on the charge of Corruption and is invited to present a defense no later than 12 November 2022 12:00 UTC either on their own or through an attorney of their choosing.

SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE
Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than 12 November 2022 12:00 UTC, and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief.

SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL
Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 08 November 2022 12:00 UTC. Any such request should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse.

RETENTION OF RIGHTS
The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case.

It is so ordered.


2210.HC.PC | Issued 05 November 2022

The Court accepts the Guilty plea and defense provided by the defendant.

Further testimony or Amicus briefs shall also be accepted.

1 Like
Your Honours,

Given the guilty plea entered by the defendant, I would request that the Court issue a verdict to that effect with promptitude, so that this proceeding may advance to the sentencing phase.

I agree. I hope that my explanation can be taken into account and be considered as part of your verdict. I simply love the South Pacific. Thank you for your consideration.

The Court accepts the petitioner’s motion for an expedited case and the timeline will change as follows:

  • The period for the submission of amicus curiae briefs will now end on 09 November 2022 at 12:00 UTC.

  • The period for the submission of recusal requests will now end on 07 November 2022 at 12:00 UTC.


The Court would like to ask the defendant, @mightyjoeyoung1 (Curlyhoward), the following questions:

  • Why did you disregard the prompts the game provided you when you sent the regional TG and pinned the dispatch of the WFE?

  • What made you think that after several years of being in the region that anyone could send mass Telegrams without spending money or pin dispatches to the World Factbook Entry despite no other citizen being able to do so?

  • Have you read any of the laws of the region, particularly the Criminal Code, which past Local Councilors have violated to ensure you didn’t cross the same lines?

The Court thanks you for taking the time to answer these questions.

I saw no prompts or warnings.
I did not know that mass t.g.s or the ability to pin dispatches were abilities that only local councilors possessed.
I did not read the criminal codes, nor was I aware of any location where these or other regional laws are described.

Your Honors,

I request that Kris Kringle formally recuse himself from this case.

The Court thanks you for your answers to its questions.

Your request for Chief Justice Kris Kringle to be recused from the case has been accepted.

On a procedural note, Kris had recused himself the moment he submitted this case to the Court for consideration.

To clarify, I am the Presiding Justice in this case, and Belschaft is the Secondary Justice.

I would like to clarify that, even had the Court not disposed my recusal, there would not be any scenario where I would have had a hand in the conduction of this case. The whole point of having presiding and secondary justices is that they manage the case, and the uninvolved justice has no role whatsoever in those cases: not to give ideas, provide advice, draft opinions, or sign off any documents.

I thank the Court for their clarification.

Your honor,

I would like to note that the region control page includes a description of which nations can send official regional telegrams. Below is a screenshot of this part of the page from a nation of mine which holds communications authority in another region:

As is shown in the screenshot, this page states that only (certain) nations with Communications authority can send regional telegrams at no cost.

The Court thanks you for your amicus brief

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2210.HC] KRIS KRINGLE V. CURLYHOWARD
SUBMISSION 03 NOVEMBER 2022 | PROBABLE CAUSE 05 NOVEMBER 2022 | VERDICT 10 NOVEMBER 2022


Charges:

Curlyhoward - Corruption


Summary of the Verdict:

It is the finding of the Court that Curlyhoward’s use of their regional officer permissions to 1) pin a dispatch to the World Factbook Entry and 2) subsequently sending a regional telegram to all residents of the South Pacific fulfills the definition of corruption as defined by Article 1, Section 7 of the Criminal Code. Curlyhoward’s actions intended to influence the citizens of the South Pacific to vote for their reelection to the Local Council. By using their ability to communicate with the region at large via the appearance and communication powers given to an incumbent Local Councilor, they had undue influence and access to the citizens of the region that their fellow candidates did not possess. Therefore, for the aforementioned reason above, the Court finds Curlyhoward guilty of Corruption.


Justice Griffindor delivered the verdict, signed also by Justice Belschaft.


Background:

On 01 November 2022, the South Pacific began the process of electing the next Local Council for the upcoming term. Several candidates emerged, of which Curlyhoward was one of them. Within a few hours of the election process beginning, Curlyhoward pinned their reelection dispatch to the World Factbook Entry (WFE), using their Regional Officer authority granted to them by virtue of their Local Councilor position, which was promptly taken down by the Election Commissioner, Kris Kringle [1]. The Election Commissioner, believing that this event was isolated, did not pursue the violation of the law further. However, two days later, Curlyhoward once again violated regional law by sending a mass, region-wide telegram to the citizens of the South Pacific asking them to vote for their reelection [2], again using the powers of their Regional Officer position in an unlawful manner. It was at this point that the Election Commissioner brought this second violation of the law, in addition to the first violation, to the attention of the High Court for consideration. Shortly thereafter, the Cabinet, operating under the authority granted to it by Article 4, Section 3 of the Regional Communications Act [3], then revoked Curlyhowards regional officer status, citing their use of their powers to engage in political debate (campaigning) [4].

Corruption:

Various members of the region, from the Election Commissioner to a member of the Cabinet, from a legislator to the defendant themself, all provided evidence of corruption having taken place or corroborated the evidence. The Election Commissioner provided evidence of the initial unlawful acts taking place [5] (the pinning of a dispatch to the WFE and the content of the region-wide telegram), and Purple Hyacinth, the incumbent Prime Minister, corroborated and confirmed what the Election Commissioner believed to be the facts regarding the use of regional officer powers. Article 1, Section 7 of the Criminal Code defines corruption as “the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage” [6]. Looking first at the dispatch that Curlyhoward pinned to the WFE, it is clear that by using their regional officer permissions to place their campaign in a prominent spot within the visibility of anyone viewing the main page of the region Curlyhoward, intentionally or not, likely would have been able to gain support for their reelection bid as no other candidate possessed the ability to pin their campaign to the WFE for equal viewing. Similarly, by sending a region-wide telegram to all the members of the region using the powers of their office, Curlyhoward was able to bring his campaign to the attention of all the potential voters in the region. Intentional or not, the use of their regional officer powers constituted an undue influence on the electorate that would present a clear personal advantage in achieving reelection to the Local Council, thus fulfilling the definition of corruption under the Criminal Code.

Mitigating Factors:

The argument has also been made that Curlyhoward could have used stamps, and thus paid actual (real-life) currency for the ability to send mass telegrams outside of their regional officer powers, to send out the mass telegram. It is important to note that the Court decided in [2001.HQ]: Application of the Regional Communication Act that the use of stamps to engage in mass communication with members of the region falls outside the scope of the Regional Communication Act’s aim of providing a standard by which regional officers should abide with regard to the use of their privileged status [7], which, as noted by [1817.HC]: New Haudenosaunee Confederacy V. Concrete Slab is “a privilege and an opportunity that few ever receive” in their time in NationStates [8]. Unfortunately for an incumbent regional officer, the ability to use stamps in favor of their regional officer position is not possible, but perhaps sending a mass telegram through a second non-regional officer nation or using an alternative legal way to spread their message could have yielded better effects with less of a legal issue.

In their defense, Curlyhoward contended that they were not aware that only Local Councilors possessed the ability to pin dispatches, run polls, or send mass telegrams. While this may or may not be truthful, the Court has no way of knowing whether or not this is how they truly thought at the time. However, the Court must admit that it seems incredibly unlikely that the defendant could not have known that only regional officers possessed the powers they are accused of abusing. Curlyhoward is among this region’s longest extant nations and would thus undoubtedly have been able to notice over the years that only members of the government (regional officers) possess the ability to communicate at large with the region, alter the region’s WFE, or create and administer polls. Similarly, when the Court asked Curlyhoward if they had read the Criminal Code, among other laws (such as the Regional Communication Act or the Charter), they revealed that they had not. The Court is understanding that being unaware of the existence of a law can happen, but ignorance of the law, particularly ignorance of law relevant to an incumbent officeholder, is not justifiable in any circumstance. The region rightly holds officeholders to a higher standard of expectation and performance, and this expectation is rooted in their ability to discharge the laws of the region and fulfill the mandate that their position entails.

Summary:

In summary, the Court finds that by pinning a dispatch to the WFE and sending a mass regional telegram to the residents of the South Pacific using regional officer powers, Curlyhoward gained a personal advantage in their reelection bid for the Local Council, which fulfills the definition of corruption under the laws of the South Pacific. Therefore, the Court finds Curlyhoward guilty of corruption under Article 1, Section 7 of the Criminal Code.

It is so ordered.


Footnotes:

[1] Evidence 1 Submitted by the Petitioner. Retrieved from: [2210.HC] Kris Kringle v. Curlyhoward

[2] Evidence 2 Submitted by the Petitioner. Retrieved from: [2210.HC] Kris Kringle v. Curlyhoward

[3] Regional Officer Act; Article 4, Section 3 (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive

[4] Executive Order of the Cabinet Revoking Curlyhowards Regional Officer Powers. Retrieved from: Cabinet orders - #23 by flowerpetal

[5] The Election Commissioners’ initial evidence. Retrieved from: [2210.HC] Kris Kringle v. Curlyhoward

[6] Criminal Code; Article 1, Section 7 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive

[7] [2001.HQ]: Application of the Regional Communication Act. Retrieved from ORCS.

[8] [1817.HC]: New Haudenosaunee Confederacy V. Concrete Slab. Retrieved from ORCS.


2 Likes