click here for larger image
As you can see, Plato gave me FP for my article (still to be found in the Czechoslovak Chronicle) in which I, acting as a Country President, informed citizens of my country about the only measure I can take against Plato’s massive buying of our products for fake local currencies and thereby destroying our local currency. This article was published more than a week ago, on 18 January 2010 and now Plato has decided to delete it.
I have warned Plato about the character of this article and the consequences of its deletion directly in the article:
NOTE: This article presents an information from the president to his citizens and thereby constitutes performance of the president's priamary right and duty - to cooperate with his citizens. If anyone decides to delete this article, he denies my presidential rights and obstructs performance of my presidential duties, where I am prepared to defend them by legal means
As I am the man of laws, I have to stick to my promise. Though being neglected from my right to appeal, I am hereby filing an
APPEAL against the decision of Plato of Day 1.165 (hereinafter referred to as the “challenged decision”)
click for larger image
Reasons:
1. Breach of nullum crimen sine lege principle
Plato sentenced me for breaching the 1st Law of eRepublik which is as follows: “Thou shall not contaminate the New World with filth such as External advertising, Spam,Insults, Pornography, Vulgarity or Racism.“ However, the reasoning mentioned in the challenged decision says: „Reason: Public debates“ There is, however, no such prohibited conduct mentioned in the 1st Law of eRepublik, as „public debates“ and there is no proof that public debates could constitute „External advertising, Spam,Insults, Pornography, Vulgarity or Racism“.
You cannot punish citizen for the conduct which is not prescribed as illegal – nullum crimen sine lege.
click for larger image
2. No reasoning given
The challenged decision does not contain any reasoning proving my violation of eRepublic Laws, no identification of a particular law which was violated and no qualification of my conduct under the relevant law. By this act, you denied me my basic right to defend myself against accusations, as you did not provide ANY relevant justification of this accusation. Such a decision cannot be reviewed by an impartial higher court, as there is no reasoning in the decision which could be subject to judicial review.
You cannot sentence me for breaching the law and not justify such decision by any legal reasons, because you are violating my fundamental right to fair trial.
3. No appeal available
The challenged decision contains the following instruction with respect to the remedy against it: “Appeal is not permitted“ Though eRepublik team may find this solution comfortable, it is definitely violating my fundamental rights for fair trial which guarantees that EVERY decision imposing penalty shall be reviewed by an independent tribunal. I therefore apply my fundamental right to fair trial and since I have no other way to make it, I am filing an appeal publicly and ask for review of the challenged decision.
I will not write further about the content of the article and the reasons for its publishing, because I believe that you will find these mistakes to be serious enough to admit that the challenged decision is unlawful and since the only thing I ask of you is to
STRICTLY OBEY THE RULES YOU HAVE CREATED
With regards to the abovementioned I ask Plato to review the challenged decision and cancel it as being unjustified and restitute the state preceding the challenged decision.
Žiadne komentáre:
Zverejnenie komentára