Arcacia et. al. v. Nate Saathoff

COMPLAINANTS: Republic of Arcacia, Lycanth Republic, Crowned Republic of Calaré, Royal and Holy Kingdom of Cattala, Office of the President of the Alliance of Independent Nations, Office of the Vice President of the Alliance of Independent Nations.

DEFENDANT: Mr. Nate Saathoff, President of the United Republic of Escambia.

CHARGES: High Treason; Violation of the Constitution of the Alliance of Independent Nations - Constitutional Fraud (Section 9.5) and Election Fraud (Section 3.1); Administerial Misconduct; Abusive Conduct.

DETAILS: It is alleged that the defendant has knowingly committed High Treason, attempting to overthrow the elected government of the Alliance of Independent Nations.

It is alleged that the defendant knowingly changed the constitution without consultation of other members and without due process, in violation of section 9.5 of the Constitution of the Alliance of Independent Nations, for the purpose of securing for himself a position of power without being duly elected, in violation of section 3.1 of the Constitution of the Alliance of Independent Nations.

It is further alleged that he acted outside his jurisdiction as administrator by amending the constitution without due process.

It is further alleged that he has engaged in abusive conduct towards members on an ongoing and frequent basis.

REMEDY: The penalty sought by the complainants is the permanent revocation of the defendants administrator privileges and his permanent demotion to the rank of Junior Member with a lifetime ban on the defendant running for any elected office of the Alliance of Independent Nations.

The complainants also seek the immediate removal of sections 3.5.1.1 and 3.6 of the Constitution of the Alliance of Independent Nations, due to their having been placed there fraudulently and in violation of Section 9.5 of the Constitution of the Alliance of Independent Nations.

RECUSAL: The complainants seek that the Chief Justice, Mr Tyler Dix, recuse himself from the case due to a clear conflict of interest.

ADMINISTERIAL SUSPENSION: The defendant is on administerial suspension until the case is resolved.

I don't mean to be mean to you Daniel but this is very hypocritical....

No, it's not. There is ample evidence to support the charges and changing the constitution without due process is possibly the most egregious dereliction of duty I have ever seen.

Lets see the evidence then....

K50 Dude wrote:I don't mean to be mean to you Daniel but this is very hypocritical....

Thank you K50. Couldn't agree better. What doesn't make me happy is he never talked to every admin to see if they wanted to bring the case to the court. Unlawful.

you're going on a rant about constitutionality as you just unconstitutionally took my admin privileges..

Amen Tyler.

Tyler wrote:you're going on a rant about constitutionality as you just unconstitutionally took my admin privileges..

Thats the hypocritical part. They took your admin privileges away. Now you have them back, not even for a day and then you downgrade Tyler and Nate.

I don't agree with the court case either. This is pretty much the same with two different people, which means I don't agree with this one either. Look what happened to the other court case, Nate was attacked. Unless you want to be attacked like he was you might want to revert the "deadmining" and end the court case. Soon.

I condemn this case.

The evidence will be tabled when the trial starts. It is not the same case with two different people - it is a case of constitutional fraud. The charges relate to an entire section of the constitution that was added without due process. That very section was used to justify the case against be and Thomas. This amounts to high treason.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not the only complainant.

The case is going ahead.

who is the other one? Thomas? Oh wait, of course he is as you two are the ones that are keeping my admin rights..

Oh I guess you better take all of k50s rights too since he is disagreeing with you point of view.

K50 isn't an admin, Tyler. And this has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me or not. It's a straight up conflict of interest. You are too close to the defendant.

Still gives you no right to take his admin status away! Thats unacceptable

conflict of interest = disagreeing!

Conflict of interest actually means that you will be unable to remain impartial as you and the defendant are close friends.

They dropped the charges against you, even though they could've continued. Why be spiteful?

You know this was going to cause arguments and controversy...so why start it at a time like this?

Despite what Nate believes, I don't think that this will cause the end of the AIN. However, we can't have a rogue element making changes to the document which is the very foundation of the Alliance without due process. Otherwise, we may as well throw the whole thing out.

It is not a matter of revenge, nor it is a matter of spite. It is a matter of law. Admins cannot take it upon themselves to rewrite the constitution. If they had gone ahead with their case, that would have been my argument - that the whole thing is based on a fraudulent section of the constitution.

I again reiterate - it's not just me bringing the case. It's not just a he-said, she-said beat up. There is evidence. It is not appropriate to table the evidence before the trial starts. The trial cannot start until we find a neutral party to act as judge.

I have no doubt that this will cause arguments. However, I'm not about to place it in the too-hard basket because of that. To dismiss the case would be to send a message that it is okay to re-write the constitution, to usurp power and attempt to overthrow the government less than a week into its tenure, and to be abusive to other members.

Nate has been throwing his weight around for far too long and it is high time he is taken to task. To delay the case would be to provide an opportunity to destroy evidence. In the real world, cases are brought to trial as quickly as possible. The prosecution doesn't um and ah over a decision to charge someone with a crime for fear it may hurt their feelings.

The case will be heard as soon as possible. I don't want this to drag on anymore than anyone else does. I certainly don't want to see Nate leave the AIN. However, I can't sit idly by and allow him to get away with something that can only be described as gross misconduct.

Let's get the facts straight here. The position of Head of the Department of Admins does not exist. The claims that Peter passed it onto Nate are false, because Peter cannot have had the role according to the Constitution that was recently, against the AIN law, edited. Peter cannot have been both Vice President and Head of Admins at the same time. The position simply, didn't exist until it was illegally added into the Constitution.

Now I am sick and tired of this constant bickering. I'm not going to go on and say how sorry I feel and oh it's so sad. Because we found this evidence whilst trying to defend our memberships. If we really wanted Nate and Tyler to leave, then we would ask that they permanently be banned. But we didn't. But the fact is, Nate Saathoff edited the Constitution to give him a position of power. Full stop. If you all wish to rally around somebody who basically, gave himself a position to remove me from power, then so be it.

You can expect my resignation as President this evening, unless anyone wishes to change my mind. I'm sure that will solve your 18-hour strike...

Thomas Simpson