Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Opinion: Yarl Berg Entitled to Morovian Due Process...
The Hon. Sir Adam Graham has introduced the following resolution in HM Royal Assembly:
The Telegraph, while having no sympathy with treason, finds this troubling.
The resolution's wording, "did commit treason", leads one to believe that Yarl Berg has been given due process and found guilty of the crime of treason.
He has not.
Morovia's People's Constitution gives a number of protections to citizens accused of crimes.
According to the The Criminal Code Act (which was enacted less than two weeks ago), the following judicial procedures hold:
According to The People's Constitution's Chapter Three:
And, again in the People's Constitution, Chapter Five:
And, yet again from the People's Constitution, Chapter Six:
There are a number of oddities, idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in these laws...
The Editors first note that "2.3 No punishment may take place prior to indictment except in cases of clear and obvious danger." in the Criminal Code actually allows punishment to take place before indictment (let alone before trial and conviction - what's up with THAT?!)
A case could probably be made that inciting citizens to leave the Kingdom of Morovia for the Republic of Morovia is such a "clear and obvious danger", but is it really?
How many readers thought seriously about migrating to the Republic, or taking up Yarl Berg's 'generous' offer of amnesty?
Seriously now, has Yarl Berg's single post in our nation (and about 2 - 3 posts on the Republic website) rocked our nation's security?
Been more like a combination of pain-in-the-butt and temporary-relief-from-summer-doldrums if you ask the Editors.
However one reads 2.3 and the rest of the Criminal Code, it is trumped by the People's Constitution which guarantees the accused recourse to the courts, legal representation and a public trial - the public nature of the trial being especially guaranteed in cases involving "political offenses" (and if treason doesn't qualify as a political offense, this Editor is not sure what would).
Now, oddly enough, Chapter Six, Article 42 on Expulsion doesn't say anything about violations of the Criminal Code - it seems to be based on nothing more profound than "we voted you in, we can vote you out" (albeit with a supermajority in a national referendum).
If this is the road down which the Royal Assembly seeks to travel, we believe the resolution that should be passed should simply be, Resolved: That Mr. Yarl Berg be removed from the citizenship rolls without implying (as the current resolution implies) that Mr. Berg has been found guilty of violating the Criminal Code's statute regarding the crime of treason as the result of the due process of a legal proceeding.
Whether or not His Majesty's Royal Assembly would choose to use Article 42 in such a disconnected way from the Criminal Code is a matter of great import.
The Editors believe that such disconnected usage to solve a "problem" basically turns Morovia into a membership-based club in which there is no appeal against the crime of being disliked by a majority of the Assembly and a supermajority of the citizenry (however justifiable the dislike may be in this particular case).
In a micronation (as distinguished from an online club), one should lose citizenship as a result of violations of the Criminal Code following a due process in which the accused citizen's rights are upheld and the facts are open to the general public.
Yarl Berg may have had his credentials compromised. Or, conversely, he may be having a bit of casual fun blowing wind up Morovia's skirts (he has only posted 2 - 3 times on this whereas a cottage industry on the Berg issues has been spawned in Morovia).
In any event, he is not a serious threat and Morovia may, indeed, never hear from him again.
This issue is about Morovia and its identity, which is far more subverted by setting a precedent of citizen expulsion without due process than by anything Mr. Berg's paper armada may accomplish.
Bill Bekkenhuis
Editor-in-Chief
The Morovian Telegraph
bekkenhuis@fast.net
Whereas, Yarl Berg, did commit treason against the realm.
Whereas, Yarl Berg is now in continued rebellion against the throne and seeks to overthrow the legitimate government of Morovia.
Whereas, Berg has shown contempt for the throne and the people of Morovia.
Whereas, He has tried the patience of the people of Morovia long enough.
Therefore be it resolved,
That at the time of the Special Referendum scheduled for August 27th-August 29th the People of Morovia shall vote on the expulsion of Yarl Berg from the Kingdom of Morovia under Article 42 of the Constitution if he has not accepted His Majesty’s gracious offer of Amnesty.
The Telegraph, while having no sympathy with treason, finds this troubling.
The resolution's wording, "did commit treason", leads one to believe that Yarl Berg has been given due process and found guilty of the crime of treason.
He has not.
Morovia's People's Constitution gives a number of protections to citizens accused of crimes.
According to the The Criminal Code Act (which was enacted less than two weeks ago), the following judicial procedures hold:
TITLE 2 Criminal Procedure
2.1 Anyone convicted of a crime shall have a right to appeal.
2.2 Once suspension of a citizen is revoked or expired, His Royal Majesty shall inform the convict that they have their citizenship back, and renew their citizenship accordingly.
2.3 No punishment may take place prior to indictment except in cases of clear and obvious danger.
2.4 Legal proceedings must be carried out in a way open to the general public unless the judge or jurists decide that a matter of national security is being discussed.
2.5.1 Criminal proceedings under this Code must be by information filed before a court.
2.5.2 The Court shall enquire into the information at a preliminary hearing and must, if it finds on the preponderance of evidence that a reasonable jury would be likely to convict on the evidence presented at the hearing, commit the accused for trial.
2.5.2.1 The Court at a preliminary hearing shall inquire only into the evidence presented by the prosecution.
2.6 Criminal proceedings must take place on a just and speedy basis.
2.7 Questions of fact must be decided by unanimous verdict of a jury of 3 or more disinterested citizens selected at random by the Chief Justice.
2.8 Questions of law must be decided by the presiding judge.
2.9 If no judge is available and willing to try the matter the Chief Justice must appoint a competent and disinterested citizen as an acting judge to preside at trial.
2.10 A criminal prosecution may only be instituted under this Code by the Minister of Justice or a federal prosecutor, save that offenses against the Electoral Code must be prosecuted by the Electoral Commissioner or a federal prosecutor.
2.10.11 Federal prosecutors are appointed and dismissed by the Minister of Justice with the consent of the President.
According to The People's Constitution's Chapter Three:
Article 19 - Recourse to the Courts
No person shall be denied the right of access to the courts.
Article 20 - Trial
In all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal. He shall be permitted full opportunity to examine all witnesses, and he shall have the right of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses on his behalf at public expenses. At all times the accused shall have the assistance of competent counsel who shall, if the accused is unable to secure the same by his own efforts, be assigned to his use by the State.
And, again in the People's Constitution, Chapter Five:
Article 40 - Public Trials
Trials shall be conducted and judgment declared publicly. Where a court unanimously determines publicity to be dangerous to public order or morals, a trial may be conducted privately, but trials of political offenses, offenses involving the press or cases wherein the rights of people are in question shall be always conducted in public.
And, yet again from the People's Constitution, Chapter Six:
Article 42 - Expulsion
The rights and citizenship of a citizen shall be revoked according to the results of a public referendum in which the general public votes yes or no as to if the citizen in question should lose his citizenship. If two-thirds of the public feel that the citizen should lose his citizenship, and the King consents, then that individual shall no longer be a citizen.
There are a number of oddities, idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in these laws...
The Editors first note that "2.3 No punishment may take place prior to indictment except in cases of clear and obvious danger." in the Criminal Code actually allows punishment to take place before indictment (let alone before trial and conviction - what's up with THAT?!)
A case could probably be made that inciting citizens to leave the Kingdom of Morovia for the Republic of Morovia is such a "clear and obvious danger", but is it really?
How many readers thought seriously about migrating to the Republic, or taking up Yarl Berg's 'generous' offer of amnesty?
Seriously now, has Yarl Berg's single post in our nation (and about 2 - 3 posts on the Republic website) rocked our nation's security?
Been more like a combination of pain-in-the-butt and temporary-relief-from-summer-doldrums if you ask the Editors.
However one reads 2.3 and the rest of the Criminal Code, it is trumped by the People's Constitution which guarantees the accused recourse to the courts, legal representation and a public trial - the public nature of the trial being especially guaranteed in cases involving "political offenses" (and if treason doesn't qualify as a political offense, this Editor is not sure what would).
Now, oddly enough, Chapter Six, Article 42 on Expulsion doesn't say anything about violations of the Criminal Code - it seems to be based on nothing more profound than "we voted you in, we can vote you out" (albeit with a supermajority in a national referendum).
If this is the road down which the Royal Assembly seeks to travel, we believe the resolution that should be passed should simply be, Resolved: That Mr. Yarl Berg be removed from the citizenship rolls without implying (as the current resolution implies) that Mr. Berg has been found guilty of violating the Criminal Code's statute regarding the crime of treason as the result of the due process of a legal proceeding.
Whether or not His Majesty's Royal Assembly would choose to use Article 42 in such a disconnected way from the Criminal Code is a matter of great import.
The Editors believe that such disconnected usage to solve a "problem" basically turns Morovia into a membership-based club in which there is no appeal against the crime of being disliked by a majority of the Assembly and a supermajority of the citizenry (however justifiable the dislike may be in this particular case).
In a micronation (as distinguished from an online club), one should lose citizenship as a result of violations of the Criminal Code following a due process in which the accused citizen's rights are upheld and the facts are open to the general public.
Yarl Berg may have had his credentials compromised. Or, conversely, he may be having a bit of casual fun blowing wind up Morovia's skirts (he has only posted 2 - 3 times on this whereas a cottage industry on the Berg issues has been spawned in Morovia).
In any event, he is not a serious threat and Morovia may, indeed, never hear from him again.
This issue is about Morovia and its identity, which is far more subverted by setting a precedent of citizen expulsion without due process than by anything Mr. Berg's paper armada may accomplish.
Bill Bekkenhuis
Editor-in-Chief
The Morovian Telegraph
bekkenhuis@fast.net
