OK, here at least is my thoughts after reading all the discussion between the two parties:
The attack outside of the Sol system on the EoS fuel depot is of no consequence to the GC as it doesnt contravene any one of our charters, so will be ignored as evidence of guilt here.
We have clearly got 2 issues here.
1. Has the Galactic Charter been broken with the opening fire upon another corporation as to cause destruction of property? and;
2. Was the removal of PMI property from their corp ships considered theft?
Regarding note 2:
"Each corporation leader sets his or her own internal code of conduct and values to be adhered to by its members while serving that corporation. Some of those values are written codes while some are verbal or implied. The corporation leader gives certain trusts and permissions to its members in accordance with an understanding and acceptance of these values or codes of conduct, to comply and to uphold to them"
Individual and/or Corporate codes of conduct are always internal values set upon its members to follow, or face their own internal consequences based on that corporations legal, moral and ethical rulings. It is not up to the GC to tell Corporation leaders how they should run their own internal rules and laws. At the very most all we can do in extreme circumstances is to let corporations know that we either approve or disapprove of their conduct within the social community as a whole, and where the actions are considered socially unacceptable, to have that person or persons declared outlaw status.
As such, the theft, actual or perceived by that corporation's code of conduct is not an issue the GC can make a ruling on or to issue any demands to said individuals to "make good" with returning any alleged stolen property. That is for a forum with its own thread for corporations to "put their views and thoughts toward the issue"
On that note however, We at IMG will recognise the issue at note 2 to be included into "mitigation" for actions against the charter.
Regarding note 1:
Is there a definite breach of the Galactic Charter? I draw members attention to article 3 of the Galactic Charter constitution;
3. Attacks in Sol except as authorized by terms 3, 4, or 5 are forbidden.
In article 3 JamJul's action within the orbit of Jupiter is clearly in breach of this article.
Sargas from EoS accuses JamJul of this breach; JamJul Lison admits to this breach and as a clear cut rule, IMG does concur that it is indeed a breach of conduct and that Sargas has, in this instance, followed through with correct procedure in accordance with our own ruling in article 3 subsection 2 of the charter, being;
3.2 Each Corp's GC representative or leader shall be authorized to appoint a Corp member to perform a single retaliatory strike after the fact upon said aggressor if it was not possible to stop the raid in progress. So long as said aggressor is NOT a member of a GC Corp. Raids where a GC Corp member is the aggressor must be brought before the GC for a vote of repercussions.
It is true that there is precedence in dealing with this similar kind of issue in the past in the case of BillNorthon and with Raphael from SSS. The main difference here though is that both those other cases were brought to the GC and voted upon BEFORE action was granted against the player(s) in question.
Does prior consent on a similar ruling automatically infers that permission will be granted in all cases of this nature? My answer is, "NO, each case must have due process followed through before the GC acknowledges it as a legal action"
If this case had have been brought to the GC prior to an attack, quite likely it would have received a "no challenge" vote in dealing with internal issues from IMG. In saying this, and bringing into consideration the mitigating circumstances at note 2 as discussed earlier, the GC now need to consider a ruling on this case, considering the following in summing up:
a. The breach has been acknowledged and is not under question. The accuser, the defendant and IMG concur that the article of law HAS been breached.
b. There is no further evidence presented to suggest this was a retaliatory strike against an earlier incursion against a GC member.
c. There are mitigating circumstances outlining the defendants reasonings for being found in breach of the Galactic Charter article 3.
There is no need for a guilty vote, as JamJul Lison confesses and has no challenge to the breach, but when considering the penalty I would draw the Jury toward the circumstances leading up to the event;
i) the loss of corporate equipment to a corporate leader is a stab to the heart of his corporation and can feel at the least as an act of betrayal, and at worse as an attack against the corporation power base.
ii) that the party attacked by JamJul has previously been openly called a friend, and helped assist the accusing party to break from PMI amicably to form their own corporation, EoS, adding to the feeling of "act of betrayal"
iii) attempts to negotiate internally to have the equipment in question returned failed in talks between the involved parties building frustration
Does all the mitigating circumstances justify JamJul Lison's actions? Can there be truly cases here as with "Justifiable homicide" or is it a case of, "The law is the law, equally and justly for all"?
The punishment for a breach of our own self-governed rules can range from a formal rep-remand, to expulsion from the GC, based on the severity of the breach.
In considering a suitable sanction or punishment. I draw upon JamJul's mitigation circumstance, JamJul Lison and PMI's past history within the formation of the GC, his personal restrictions to his prior activities and that of his corporation by accepting the self governance of the GC and his continued hard work and dedication in working toward maintaining the Galactic Council.
I would further like to petition the plantiff, Sargas of [EoS] to consider what he thinks is suitable punishment to suit the crime as well as to hear from the defendant, JamJul Lison, before the remaining eligible GC members casts a ruling on this matter.
That is all for now. Case will be adjourned until we receive final comments from both the plaintiff and the defendant, before resuming to cast our ruling.
Dadds, member of the [GC], CiC of [IMG], acting chairperson and "devils advocate" in these precedings
