NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Procedural Rights of Defendants

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

[PASSED] Procedural Rights of Defendants

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Sat Sep 09, 2023 9:30 pm

The Steam-Gardens wrote:
Procedural Rights of Defendants
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Civil Rights — Strength: Strong — Proposed by: The Steam-Gardens




The World Assembly,

Noting that member states undertake criminal proceedings to determine whether someone accused of a crime is guilty of committing it,

Believing that the right of the accused to have and know their procedural entitlements and responsibilities is critical to safeguarding the integrity of such proceedings,

Dismayed that no current World Assembly resolution safeguards several quintessential rights, allowing for unchecked abuse of power and violation of rights by officers and therefore resulting in unfair trials, and

Aiming to guarantee the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings while preventing law enforcement from abusing its authority;

The World Assembly hereby, subject to prior and standing WA legislation,

  1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,
    1. a "defendant" as any person who is suspected of perpetrating a crime and has undertaken or is undertaking any criminal proceedings,
    2. an "officer" as a person who compels observance of or compliance with a World Assembly member nation’s laws, such as judges, police officers, and legal interrogators, and
    3. a "criminal proceeding" as any proceeding in the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of a person charged or to be charged with the commission of a crime, including police questionings and trials in court;
  2. Declares that, in criminal proceedings:
    1. Defendants are entitled to:
      1. Refuse to answer an officer’s questions, without prejudice for any refusal,
      2. Provide an answer to questions they wish to answer, although false answers and answers which are proven to be deliberately incomplete to said questions may result in charges of perjury,
      3. Only be considered guilty of a crime when they have been handed down a guilty verdict by the court in relation to said crime, subject to national appellate proceedings as appropriate under relevant law, and
    2. Officers must not:
      1. Require a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer, although without preclusion of reasonable interrogation tactics,
      2. Punish a defendant for refusing to answer a question; nor
      3. Use lie detectors or other mind-reading technology on any person in their capacity as law enforcement officers;
  3. Requires that officers inform defendants of all the relevant rights and regulations that the legislation of the World Assembly grants to those defendants in a way that the defendant understands; and
  4. States that if a defendant is not informed in the manner required by clause 3, all evidence supplied by the defendant in the instant criminal proceeding up to the point that Article 3 is fulfilled may not be used as proof of the defendant's guilt in both the instant and all future criminal proceedings.
Last edited by The Steam-Gardens on Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:56 pm, edited 65 times in total.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13483
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:41 pm

I may look at this later, but no guarantees. Two things to start:

1. You define "defendant [and any synonyms thereof]" despite not using any synonyms of "defendant" in your text.

2. The CODE, at least, looks plagiarised from the United States police forces' historical list of Miranda rights. (As a less accusatory example, it's probably counterproductive for a judge to tell a defendant who already has an attorney and has just come onto the witness stand to remind him that he is in fact entitled to an attorney.)
Last edited by Tinhampton on Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2351
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:53 pm

Ooc: Welcome to the GA! This is quite well-written for a first draft -- however at a first glance I wonder how this would interact with GA #37?
Factbooks · 42x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · Quincentenary Archive · GA Stat Effects Data

Immigration Officer, Greater Dienstad | Fmr. Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific | GA Secretariat
Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:55 pm

Tinhampton wrote:I may look at this later, but no guarantees. Two things to start:

1. You define "defendant [and any synonyms thereof]" despite not using any synonyms of "defendant" in your text.


Sorry, that was from a draft prior to posting (and I hadn't noticed that)! Fixed.

Tinhampton wrote:2. The CODE, at least, looks plagiarised from the United States police forces' historical list of Miranda rights. (As a less accusatory example, it's probably counterproductive for a judge to tell a defendant who already has an attorney and has just come onto the witness stand to remind him that he is in fact entitled to an attorney.)


I hadn't read that previously. Thanks for telling me, I'll fix that and allow limited variation in the CODE--as well as make rules for what the CODE must and can't include.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:06 am

The Ice States wrote:Ooc: Welcome to the GA! This is quite well-written for a first draft -- however at a first glance I wonder how this would interact with GA #37?


OOC: This serves as a detailed follow-up to GA #37, as it digs deeper into other rights & responsibilities of defendants and officers. It is also more specific with the descriptions of said rights and responsibilities also mentioned in 37, or at least I hope it to be in future drafts if it isn't already. I'll include this info at the bottom of my current draft--thanks for asking! :)
Last edited by The Steam-Gardens on Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:36 pm

/bump

If you have read this message, feedback on the resolution would be much appreciated since we have not received any for the past twenty days. I am not planning on abandoning this resolution any time soon, and feedback from fellow ambassadors like you would only help this stay the same. Thank you for your time!

- Jean-Matteo Bordeaux, Steam Gardener Ambassador to the World Assembly
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
Jebtopia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 194
Founded: Jul 05, 2022
Ex-Nation

Postby Jebtopia » Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:40 pm

The Steam-Gardens wrote:/bump

If you have read this message, feedback on the resolution would be much appreciated since we have not received any for the past twenty days. I am not planning on abandoning this resolution any time soon, and feedback from fellow ambassadors like you would only help this stay the same. Thank you for your time!

- Jean-Matteo Bordeaux, Steam Gardener Ambassador to the World Assembly



2iii is rather vague :

Be informed of their rights prior to questioning;


Which rights are these? Do you mean all of an individual's legal rights?

Forcing a defendant to answer (via the threat of any punishment mentioned in 2biii)

I do not see any 2biii

Using lie-detecting machines on defendants

Typically defendant is not used to refer to someone under interrogation, you would say suspect or detainee.
But I don't see why you cannot eliminate ambiguity and say that this class of people - officers of the law - cannot use lie detector machines against any person in their capacity as officers of the law. Or you could phrase it differently, that lie detector machines cannot be used as part of criminal proceedings.

A member state's national CODE may NOT include information or questions other than those mentioned in clause 7b

I don't see any clause 7b, I regret what happened to your draft
Last edited by Jebtopia on Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You're listening to Resistance Radio, the National Revolutionary Party's public service radio syndicate broadcasting on AM and shortwave to the ends of the earth in the service of our people.
53 killed in Old Regime truck bombing of Lewisburg diner including Colonel Robert Collins, target of the assassination attempt Central Committee to convene in plenary session
over agreement between Ottawa and New York governments
Now for some of the classics of Russian film music:
The announcer audibly clicks on his mouse, playing an audio track of pronunciation of the Russian-language song titles which had been delivered earlier that day from the international shortwave broadcasting office
У природы нет плохой погоды, Никого не будет в доме, Со мною вот что происходит

User avatar
Cessarea
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1156
Founded: Jul 02, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cessarea » Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:38 pm

Jebtopia wrote:
Be informed of their rights prior to questioning;


Which rights are these? Do you mean all of an individual's legal rights?
I concur. Perhaps the author meant the individual's procedural rights (right to representation, to not incriminate oneself, to remain silent etc). This would include the rights guaranteed by this proposal.

Jebtopia wrote:
Using lie-detecting machines on defendants

Typically defendant is not used to refer to someone under interrogation, you would say suspect or detainee.
But I don't see why you cannot eliminate ambiguity and say that this class of people - officers of the law - cannot use lie detector machines against any person in their capacity as officers of the law. Or you could phrase it differently, that lie detector machines cannot be used as part of criminal proceedings.
I think this is not a valid interpretation - the context of the proposal is pretty clear in saying that this applies to officers exercising their duties as LEOs. After all, if they have access to a suspect and are interrogating them, it's very likely they're exercising their power as LEOs. A change can be made, but is not necessary.

Also, the author defines "defendant" as "one suspected of perpetrating a crime by law enforcement, already scheduling to or having undertaken any criminal proceedings after an arrest". This would mean that this resolution does not prohibit the usage of lie detectors on suspects who do not have any legal proceedings scheduled, and are just under preventive arrest. This is a loophole that may need to be addressed, perhaps by introducing and using "suspect" as a separate definition.

Finally, it appears that the draft is disjointed as of now. I concur with Jeb's other notes, and would be interested in seeing a more complete version of this draft. Support in principle, but this needs polishing before getting further feedback.
Completely undecided on everything I guess

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:51 pm

Jebtopia wrote:
Using lie-detecting machines on defendants

Typically defendant is not used to refer to someone under interrogation, you would say suspect or detainee.
But I don't see why you cannot eliminate ambiguity and say that this class of people - officers of the law - cannot use lie detector machines against any person in their capacity as officers of the law. Or you could phrase it differently, that lie detector machines cannot be used as part of criminal proceedings. I think this is not a valid interpretation - the context of the proposal is pretty clear in saying that this applies to officers exercising their duties as LEOs. After all, if they have access to a suspect and are interrogating them, it's very likely they're exercising their power as LEOs. A change can be made, but is not necessary.


Understood--this statement is lacking some detail and leaves room for some loopholes by lie-detecting suspected (non-arrested) accomplices, after relooking. Fixed/improved.

Also, the author defines "defendant" as "one suspected of perpetrating a crime by law enforcement, already scheduling to or having undertaken any criminal proceedings after an arrest". This would mean that this resolution does not prohibit the usage of lie detectors on suspects who do not have any legal proceedings scheduled, and are just under preventive arrest. This is a loophole that may need to be addressed, perhaps by introducing and using "suspect" as a separate definition.


Understood & fixed. Thank you for pointing this loophole out.

Finally, it appears that the draft is disjointed as of now. I concur with Jeb's other notes, and would be interested in seeing a more complete version of this draft. Support in principle, but this needs polishing before getting further feedback.


Fixed.
Last edited by The Steam-Gardens on Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Fri Oct 20, 2023 6:47 pm

/bump
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13483
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Oct 21, 2023 9:13 am

I have no clue what "NDD." stands for, but you can assume that - if your thread is in drafting - you need feedback. The opposite of needing feedback is not needing feedback; at that point, you'd either submit or seriously think about submitting.

* * * * *
I was also taken aback when I quoted your post and saw this:
Code: Select all
[size=25]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄[/size]

You can just use this instead:
Code: Select all
[hr][/hr]

* * * * *
I am now in a place to rewrite your resolution. And it will be rewritten heavily. :P

You may, of course, cite Tinhampton as co-author if you feel as though my contributions were worthy. For the sake of grammatical correctness, if you don't like what I've done, I do at least ask you replace "enacts as follows" with "hereby" in your enacting clause; the verbs you open your clause with are parts of a single sentence, rather than sentences in their own right, and therefore fit a "hereby" structure much better.
The World Assembly,

Noting that many nations employ criminal proceedings to determine whether or not someone accused of committing a crime is in fact guilty of it,

Believing that the right of the accused to have and know their rights during questioning and in court is critical to safeguarding the integrity of such proceedings,

Dismayed that no current World Assembly resolution safeguards these rights, allowing for unchecked abuse of power and violation of rights by officers and therefore resulting in unfair trials, and

Hoping to guarantee the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings while preventing law enforcement from abusing their authority:

The World Assembly hereby, subject to prior and standing WA legislation,
  1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,

    1. a "defendant" as any person who is suspected by law enforcement as having scheduled, undertaken, or undertaking any criminal proceedings, or is charged with the same,
    2. an "officer" as a person who compels observance of or compliance with a World Assembly member nation’s laws, such as judges, police officers, and interrogators, and
    3. a "criminal proceeding" as any proceeding in the prosecution, conviction or punishment of a person charged or to be charged with the commission of a crime, including police questionings and trials-in-court;

  2. Declares that, during criminal proceedings:
    1. Defendants are entitled to:
      1. Refuse to answer an officer’s questions (although nothing in this resolution precludes the conviction of a defendant if legitimate evidence is found against them, even if they remain silent throughout the proceedings), and only provide an answer for questions of their choosing, and
      2. Provide an answer of their choice to questions they wish to answer (although this clause shall not preclude the conviction of defendants who provide a false answer);
    2. Defendants must be informed of their procedural rights prior to questioning;
    3. Defendants must be treated as innocent until proven guilty; that is, they may only be considered guilty of a crime after a final guilty verdict in relation to it; and
    4. Officers must not:
      1. Force a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer, threaten to punish a defendant for not doing so, or in fact punish a defendant for not doing so, nor
      2. Use lie detectors on any person in their capacity as law enforcement officers;

  3. Requires officers to inform defendants by some means about all the rights that World Assembly legislation provides them during criminal proceedings (including the rights stated in clause 2), and ask those defendants if they understand those rights, before their questioning begins; and

  4. Declares that, while any words said by a defendant during questioning can be used against them in the criminal proceeding they immediately face if the two steps outlined in clause 3 are taken, what they say during questioning conversely cannot be used against them in that proceeding if either of those steps are not taken.

I've excised your section on attorneys because GA#37:
INSISTS that the accused be permitted expert representation by a professional versed in the area of law concerned; [...]

FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it;
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Sat Oct 21, 2023 5:50 pm

Thank you for the rewrite! It aids in clarification and I will incorporate and edit it as needed. Will list you as a co-author for your help. :D
Last edited by The Steam-Gardens on Sun Oct 22, 2023 8:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7741
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:00 pm

The Steam-Gardens wrote:Fixed. Will submit soon.

(OOC: That seems a little preemptive. Drafts can take months to properly edit, taking feedback from a wide range of posters. A few days is unlikely to be enough time to allow all that needs to be said to be said. Clause 2b, for example, achieves almost nothing, because it means that the World Assembly is allowing defendants to have lawyers. The World Assembly already does so. It is more correct to have the World Assembly mandate that member-nations permit defendants access to a solicitor.)
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:08 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
The Steam-Gardens wrote:Fixed. Will submit soon.

(OOC: That seems a little preemptive. Drafts can take months to properly edit, taking feedback from a wide range of posters. A few days is unlikely to be enough time to allow all that needs to be said to be said. Clause 2b, for example, achieves almost nothing, because it means that the World Assembly is allowing defendants to have lawyers. The World Assembly already does so. It is more correct to have the World Assembly mandate that member-nations permit defendants access to a solicitor.)


Fixed. I am going to postpone submission to sometime in November and make edits along the way.
Last edited by The Steam-Gardens on Sun Oct 22, 2023 8:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Fri Nov 10, 2023 6:02 pm

/bump
I'd appreciate feedback right about now. If any of you have anything to say, please do. Thank you!
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2351
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Fri Nov 10, 2023 6:34 pm

The Steam-Gardens wrote:Provide an answer of their choice to questions they wish to answer (although this clause shall not preclude the conviction of defendants who provide a false answer);

"What is this provision meant to achieve, Ambassador? I, at least, find that the part in parentheses is effectively toothless; the part can reasonably be read as stating that it shall not preclude the conviction of individuals who lie in such proceedings for unrelated offences only. A member nation can therefore interpret this Section overall to, at worst, render interrogation proceedings utterly useless as an individual no longer has a compelling incentive not to lie, or at best, do nothing except still make it harder to achieve a useful outcome in interrogations, keeping in mind that the exception applies only to answers which are outright false, rather than simply misleading or omitting an important aspect of the truth. Overall, we highly suggest axing this clause -- I cannot speak for the rest of my mission, but I would likely encourage our mission to oppose should this clause remain."

Be allowed access to a solicitor prior to proceedings, or be provided with one by their member state's government at their will; and

"This appears to do nothing that Resolution #37 does not. I would also advise removing this clause -- while it is not necessarily problematic, it will also have the effect of making the proposal look redundant to voters if it has partial duplication. Voting missions, of course, have the basic duty of being more informed than to jump to such conclusions, but the clause still does not provide any benefit while providing the harm of making the other protections more difficult to pass."

Force a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer in any capacity;

"As a minor, largely stylistic, suggestion, I believe that 'compel or coerce' would be more effective wording here than simply 'force'."

Declares that any words said by a defendant during questioning can be used against them in the criminal proceeding they immediately face ONLY IF all steps outlined in clause 3 are taken;
  1. If all steps mentioned in clause 3 are NOT taken, the defendant's words (said in their immediate proceeding) conversely may not be used against them in both immediate and future proceedings.

"The use of capitalisation is -- no offence to your mission intended -- simply obnoxious. This is a professional international body, and even though I commented earlier on political expediency, any mission which fails to even read the resolution in full is already non-compliant with World Assembly law, in the form of General Assembly Resolution #122, 'Read the Resolution Act'. Writing terms such as 'ONLY IF' and 'NOT' in all caps makes this resolution more unpleasant to read. We strongly suggest placing these words in regular sentence case."

"Regarding the policy effect itself, the manner of this clause's construction seems to grant, or can at least be reasonably interpreted as granting, blanket authorisation for anything spoken by a defendant for being used against them. This means that even words which would otherwise be inadmissible evidence can now be used against a defendant as long as they were said during questioning, thus jeopardising due process and potentially even contradicting resolutions such as the 'Omnibus Due Process Act', which bars invocation of a right, such as refusal to answer a question, as being used against a defendant during trial -- if a person, during questioning, expresses via any use of words that they desire not to answer a question, your resolution would colourably authorise that expression to be used against said person in court. I presume, here, that your mission intended merely to prohibit words spoken without the proper procedure being followed. If so, I would encourage to simply remove the opening part of the clause and use only what is currently Section 4a."

"Thank you for your time, Ambassador, and we look forward to seeing how the next draft develops."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Last edited by The Ice States on Fri Nov 10, 2023 6:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Factbooks · 42x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · Quincentenary Archive · GA Stat Effects Data

Immigration Officer, Greater Dienstad | Fmr. Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific | GA Secretariat
Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:16 pm

The Ice States wrote:
The Steam-Gardens wrote:Provide an answer of their choice to questions they wish to answer (although this clause shall not preclude the conviction of defendants who provide a false answer);

"What is this provision meant to achieve, Ambassador? I, at least, find that the part in parentheses is effectively toothless; the part can reasonably be read as stating that it shall not preclude the conviction of individuals who lie in such proceedings for unrelated offences only. A member nation can therefore interpret this Section overall to, at worst, render interrogation proceedings utterly useless as an individual no longer has a compelling incentive not to lie, or at best, do nothing except still make it harder to achieve a useful outcome in interrogations, keeping in mind that the exception applies only to answers which are outright false, rather than simply misleading or omitting an important aspect of the truth. Overall, we highly suggest axing this clause -- I cannot speak for the rest of my mission, but I would likely encourage our mission to oppose should this clause remain."

Be allowed access to a solicitor prior to proceedings, or be provided with one by their member state's government at their will; and

"This appears to do nothing that Resolution #37 does not. I would also advise removing this clause -- while it is not necessarily problematic, it will also have the effect of making the proposal look redundant to voters if it has partial duplication. Voting missions, of course, have the basic duty of being more informed than to jump to such conclusions, but the clause still does not provide any benefit while providing the harm of making the other protections more difficult to pass."

Force a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer in any capacity;

"As a minor, largely stylistic, suggestion, I believe that 'compel or coerce' would be more effective wording here than simply 'force'."

Declares that any words said by a defendant during questioning can be used against them in the criminal proceeding they immediately face ONLY IF all steps outlined in clause 3 are taken;
  1. If all steps mentioned in clause 3 are NOT taken, the defendant's words (said in their immediate proceeding) conversely may not be used against them in both immediate and future proceedings.

"The use of capitalisation is -- no offence to your mission intended -- simply obnoxious. This is a professional international body, and even though I commented earlier on political expediency, any mission which fails to even read the resolution in full is already non-compliant with World Assembly law, in the form of General Assembly Resolution #122, 'Read the Resolution Act'. Writing terms such as 'ONLY IF' and 'NOT' in all caps makes this resolution more unpleasant to read. We strongly suggest placing these words in regular sentence case."

"Regarding the policy effect itself, the manner of this clause's construction seems to grant, or can at least be reasonably interpreted as granting, blanket authorisation for anything spoken by a defendant for being used against them. This means that even words which would otherwise be inadmissible evidence can now be used against a defendant as long as they were said during questioning, thus jeopardising due process and potentially even contradicting resolutions such as the 'Omnibus Due Process Act', which bars invocation of a right, such as refusal to answer a question, as being used against a defendant during trial -- if a person, during questioning, expresses via any use of words that they desire not to answer a question, your resolution would colourably authorise that expression to be used against said person in court. I presume, here, that your mission intended merely to prohibit words spoken without the proper procedure being followed. If so, I would encourage to simply remove the opening part of the clause and use only what is currently Section 4a."

"Thank you for your time, Ambassador, and we look forward to seeing how the next draft develops."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.


"Thank you for your review. I do now notice the redundancies of both clauses mentioned and will remove and/or change them accordingly. We appreciate your feedback, Ambassador."

- Jean Bordeaux, WA Ambassador for the Socialist Federation of the Steam-Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
Waffia
Attaché
 
Posts: 92
Founded: Aug 27, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Waffia » Mon Nov 13, 2023 6:00 am

(I wanted to write some nice things in this preamble, but I don't have time, sorry!)

Legend: strike = remove, bold = add, [Brackets] is comment.

The Steam-Gardens wrote:The World Assembly,

Noting that member states undertake criminal proceedings to determine whether or not someone accused of committing a crime is guilty of committing it,

Believing that the right of the accused to have and know their rights during questioning and in court is critical to safeguarding the integrity of such proceedings,

Dismayed that no current World Assembly resolution safeguards these rights, allowing for unchecked abuse of power and violation of rights by officers and therefore resulting in unfair trials, and [Consider explicitly acknowledging the existence GA#37, so readers will know you didn't forget about that.]

Hoping Aiming [I think "hoping" is too weak.] to guarantee the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings while preventing law enforcement from abusing their authority;

The World Assembly hereby, subject to prior and standing WA legislation,

  1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,
    1. a "defendant" as any person who is suspected by law enforcement as having scheduled, undertaken, or undertaking [I read this as "having undertaking". Maybe reorder the words?] any criminal proceedings [You define "criminal proceeding" below, but I think that's a different meaning, which is confusing. Replace with "criminal act"? But even then, why include scheduling? Planning a crime is not always a crime, and even when it is, your phrase is redundant.], or is charged with the same,
    2. an "officer" as a person who compels observance of or compliance with a World Assembly member nation’s laws, such as judges, police officers, and interrogators, and
    3. a "criminal proceeding" as any proceeding in the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of a person charged or to be charged with the commission of a crime, including police questionings and trials-in-court; and
  2. Declares that, in criminal proceedings:
    1. Defendants are entitled to:
      1. Refuse to answer an officer’s questions (although convictions of a defendant shall not be precluded if legitimate evidence is found against them, even if they remain silent throughout the proceedings), though without precluding the conviction of a defendant against whom legitimate evidence is found,
      2. Provide an answer of their choice to questions they wish to answer (although this clause shall not preclude the conviction of defendants who provide a false answer), though without precluding the conviction of a defendant who lies under oath;, [Note the addition of "under oath"!]
      3. Be treated as innocent until proven guilty; that is, they may only be considered guilty of a crime [By whom? Governments? Media? Individuals?] only after a final guilty verdict in relation to it the said crime; and
    2. Officers must not:
      1. In any capacity force a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer in any capacity [Placement was ambiguous.];,
      2. Punish a defendant for refusing to answer a question;, nor
      3. Use lie detectors on any person in their capacity as law enforcement officers; and
  3. Requires that officers to inform defendants by some means about all rights and regulations that relevant World Assembly legislation provides them during criminal proceedings (including those in clauses 2 and 4 of this legislation) [Self-evident.] and ask those defendants if they understand those rights before their questioning begins before questioning takes places and in a way that the defendant understands; and
  4. If not all steps mentioned in clause 3 are not taken, the defendant's words said [Or written, or signed, or blinked, or...] in their immediate criminal proceeding [I don't get this one. What is the "immediate (criminal) proceeding"?] may not be used against them in both immediate and future criminal proceedings as incriminating evidence.
Fimmi Grebbel
Waffian Ambassador to the World Assembly



Comments in quotes are in-character, comments without quotes are out-of-character.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2351
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:39 am

The Steam-Gardens wrote:"Thank you for your review. I do now notice the redundancies of both clauses mentioned and will remove and/or change them accordingly. We appreciate your feedback, Ambassador."

- Jean Bordeaux, WA Ambassador for the Socialist Federation of the Steam-Gardens

"The draft is certainly improved from its previous iteration. However, we still have concerns which are yet to be addressed, despite our having stated them earlier and even with the wording changes the Waffian delegation has offered you, which I broadly agree with. In particular, Section 2a.ii still makes it at worst impossible to prosecute all acts of perjury, and at best impossible to prosecute the provision of deceptive or incomplete answers. This should be addressed before we can promise this draft support."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Last edited by The Ice States on Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 42x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · Quincentenary Archive · GA Stat Effects Data

Immigration Officer, Greater Dienstad | Fmr. Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific | GA Secretariat
Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Tue Nov 14, 2023 5:33 pm

Waffia wrote:(I wanted to write some nice things in this preamble, but I don't have time, sorry!)

Legend: strike = remove, bold = add, [Brackets] is comment.

The Steam-Gardens wrote:The World Assembly,

Noting that member states undertake criminal proceedings to determine whether or not someone accused of committing a crime is guilty of committing it,

Believing that the right of the accused to have and know their rights during questioning and in court is critical to safeguarding the integrity of such proceedings,

Dismayed that no current World Assembly resolution safeguards these rights, allowing for unchecked abuse of power and violation of rights by officers and therefore resulting in unfair trials, and [Consider explicitly acknowledging the existence GA#37, so readers will know you didn't forget about that.]

Hoping Aiming [I think "hoping" is too weak.] to guarantee the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings while preventing law enforcement from abusing their authority;

The World Assembly hereby, subject to prior and standing WA legislation,

  1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,
    1. a "defendant" as any person who has scheduled, undertaken, or is undertaking [I read this as "having undertaking". Maybe reorder the words?] any criminal proceedings [You define "criminal proceeding" below, but I think that's a different meaning, which is confusing. Replace with "criminal act"? But even then, why include scheduling? Planning a crime is not always a crime, and even when it is, your phrase is redundant.], or is charged with the same,
    2. an "officer" as a person who compels observance of or compliance with a World Assembly member nation’s laws, such as judges, police officers, and interrogators, and
    3. a "criminal proceeding" as any proceeding in the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of a person charged or to be charged with the commission of a crime, including police questionings and trials-in-court; and
  2. Declares that, in criminal proceedings:
    1. Defendants are entitled to:
      1. Refuse to answer an officer’s questions (although convictions of a defendant shall not be precluded if legitimate evidence is found against them, even if they remain silent throughout the proceedings), though without precluding the conviction of a defendant against whom legitimate evidence is found,
      2. Provide an answer of their choice to questions they wish to answer (although this clause shall not preclude the conviction of defendants who provide a false answer), though without precluding the conviction of a defendant who lies under oath;, [Note the addition of "under oath"!]
      3. Be treated as innocent until proven guilty; that is, they may only be considered guilty of a crime [By whom? Governments? Media? Individuals?] only after a final guilty verdict in relation to it the said crime; and
    2. Officers must not:
      1. In any capacity force a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer in any capacity [Placement was ambiguous.];,
      2. Punish a defendant for refusing to answer a question;, nor
      3. Use lie detectors on any person in their capacity as law enforcement officers; and
  3. Requires that officers to inform defendants by some means about all rights and regulations that relevant World Assembly legislation provides them during criminal proceedings (including those in clauses 2 and 4 of this legislation) [Self-evident.] and ask those defendants if they understand those rights before their questioning begins before questioning takes places and in a way that the defendant understands; and
  4. If not all steps mentioned in clause 3 are not taken, the defendant's words said [Or written, or signed, or blinked, or...] in their immediate criminal proceeding [I don't get this one. What is the "immediate (criminal) proceeding"?] may not be used against them in both immediate and future criminal proceedings as incriminating evidence.


1) The immediate proceeding is the one that the defendant is currently facing.
2) I made some wording changes to the definition of "defendant", focusing on the criminal proceeding part. I realized my mistake of wording on the first part of the clause.

Thanks,
Jean Bordeaux
WA Ambassador of the Steam-Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12431
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:12 pm

The usual adjective is "instant": eg "in the instant proceeding the respondent moved to dismiss". My initial thoughts are to direct to GA 37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" but it does seem as if there is an opening in the acquis vis-à-vis the law of evidence.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Waffia
Attaché
 
Posts: 92
Founded: Aug 27, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Waffia » Wed Nov 15, 2023 1:15 pm

The Steam-Gardens wrote:*snip*

1) The immediate proceeding is the one that the defendant is currently facing.
2) I made some wording changes to the definition of "defendant", focusing on the criminal proceeding part. I realized my mistake of wording on the first part of the clause.

Thanks,
Jean Bordeaux
WA Ambassador of the Steam-Gardens

"We are happy to see that our feedback was useful and has been incorporated into your proposal, and thank you for the clarification. I do suggest, however, that the phrase 'under oath' is appended to Article 2a(ii), since perjury should not follow if a defendant lies when not under oath, for example during their arrest. For that matter, we also suggest changing 'will result in perjury' to 'may result in perjury', since not all lies necessarily result in perjury. That said, I believe this to be an excellent proposal and will support it once the aforementioned has been resolved."
Fimmi Grebbel
Waffian Ambassador to the World Assembly



Comments in quotes are in-character, comments without quotes are out-of-character.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2351
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Wed Nov 15, 2023 1:30 pm

"The clause is certainly improved from the previous versions, although we would suggest adding 'incomplete' after 'false' in Section 2a.ii. In addition, 'perjury' refers to the act of perjury, not charges therefor. It would be helpful to change 'perjury' to 'charges of perjury', as well as to effect the change of 'will' to 'may' suggested by the Waffian Ambassador. Otherwise, best of luck on this proposal."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 42x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · Quincentenary Archive · GA Stat Effects Data

Immigration Officer, Greater Dienstad | Fmr. Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific | GA Secretariat
Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:41 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The usual adjective is "instant": eg "in the instant proceeding the respondent moved to dismiss". My initial thoughts are to direct to GA 37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" but it does seem as if there is an opening in the acquis vis-à-vis the law of evidence.


Noted. Will make appropriate changes.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

User avatar
The Steam-Gardens
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Dec 22, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Steam-Gardens » Thu Nov 16, 2023 3:43 am

The Ice States wrote:"The clause is certainly improved from the previous versions, although we would suggest adding 'incomplete' after 'false' in Section 2a.ii. In addition, 'perjury' refers to the act of perjury, not charges therefor. It would be helpful to change 'perjury' to 'charges of perjury', as well as to effect the change of 'will' to 'may' suggested by the Waffian Ambassador. Otherwise, best of luck on this proposal."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.


Noted and fixed.
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢
The Steam Gardens
⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢ㅤ ⬢

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blyskalia, Nu Elysium

Advertisement

Remove ads