[TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium
Jim Vassilakos
(27 May 2023 17:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium
Jeff Zeitlin
(29 May 2023 16:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium
Alex Goodwin
(29 May 2023 18:20 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium Jeff Zeitlin (29 May 2023 21:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium
Jim Vassilakos
(30 May 2023 12:59 UTC)
|
RE: [TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium
ewan@xxxxxx
(31 May 2023 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Legal Immunity for Citizens of the Imperium
kaladorn@xxxxxx
(22 Jul 2023 03:03 UTC)
|
On Tue, 30 May 2023 04:20:40 +1000, Alex Goodwin wrote: >On 30/5/23 02:45, Jeff Zeitlin - editor at freelancetraveller.com (via >tml list) wrote: >> Noting that I'm not aware of any canon on the subject, my holding is, more >> or less, yes. Client States usually do have a separate SoFA, but member >> worlds usually have SoF defined standardly as part of the Agreement of >> Accession. >Jeff, that forecloses whole _classes_ of shenanigans from local-specific >variations of the standard SOFA - which doesn't seem, well, you. Not really; per below, the standard SoFA isn't world-wide. Consider TL8/9 Terra; if Phoenix is the downport, it'd only cover a day's travel by automobile from Phoenix. Unless a separate extended coverage is negotiated. >Have to agree with FreeTrav - an Imperial member world, _by fact of such >membership_, has some sort of SOFA in place. >How would the "standard" FreeTravian SOFA vary for worlds in the Vegan >Autonomous District, frinstance? Not clear; accession came well before autonomy, which was granted to counterbalance the Sollies when they took their autonomy beyond what was actually granted. >The situation will definitely vary for Imperial clients (single, >multiworld) and for Imperial ports/bases on non-member worlds. GM would >have to rule on it. >> <snip> >> My holding is as follows: >> >> Imperial Navy, Marines, Scouts: SoFA always applies to all personnel >> Imperial Army: Personnel not on their homeworld are always covered. >> Personnel in units considered to be in 'deployed' status are always >> covered. Personnel on their homeworld are covered while performing duties, >> but not while on leave, if the unit is not considered to be in 'deployed' >> status. >> Imperial Nobles, staff, and household: Always covered. (Imperial diplomats >> are always considered to be attached to the staff of the local Imperial >> noble.) >> Imperial bureaucrats: Always covered if not on homeworld. On homeworld, >> only covered while engaging in official duties. >> Megacorporate employees: Negotiated by megacorp, not by Imperium. >By "Imperial Nobles", are you limiting that to high nobles - ie, those >with direct ex officio governmental responsibilities? More or less, but be careful: Norris, as Baron Yori, has his title(s) in capite; Captain J. Random NavalAdministrator's Barony is entailed to his position in the Navy administration; Jean-Paul Ringojorj's Barony for pleasing His Imperial Majesty in a command perfomrance was a way of getting him on the books for a stipend and recognition.. Norris is covered as an Imperial Noble; JRN is only covered as Naval personnel; J-PR isn't covered. >I'd expect service nobles to be covered under their parent organisation >(eg the SPA Chaircritter), but where do honour nobles fit in? > >Assuming high nobility only, how is that modified beyond a given nob's >demesne? eg Norris lobs on Vland, gets into a pissup with Ushuggi, and >runs some poor git down while maggotted? Vland can't touch Norris; they can appeal to His Imperial Majesty through Ushuggi for redress. Of course, if Norris is as honorable as he's been made out to be, then he'll voluntarily try to pay some recompense. >I guess huscarles would share their parent high noble's status. Yes; they're either covered as 'staff' or as 'household'. >Which subsets of those in your list above can be declared persona non >grata by the local government? Any personnel not of the nobility-in-capite can be PNG, but that might only mean that such person is restricted to base (or maneuvers; no liberty/leave) for the duration of his being stationed on that world. Or equivalent, if non-military. >> The startown for the main planetary downport is generally treated as though >> all offworlders are covered by SoFA. Locals have no special status in any >> portion of startown that lies outside the extraterritoriality cession. The >> local world's law enforcement has no official status within the ExT >> cession, but starport security (which has technical jurisdiction) and >> authorized contractors (which the SPA usually arranges for, since starport >> security is, as usual, chronically understaffed) will generally cooperate >> with planetary authorities for cases of serious felony. (IMTU, serious >> felony generally covers what are generally held to be internationally- >> extraditable crimes, ignoring policy based on possible penalties to be >> imposed.) >I'm guessing "felony" translates as "(major) indictable offence" for us >in the Commonwealth? I might not recall correctly, but I _believe_ that >the remaining actual felonies in AU law are a subset of high treason. The definition of a felony in the United States is any transgression whose minimum penalty on conviction is one year of incarceration or a fine of $1000. Serious felony generally covers what the FBI here calls an 'index crime' (US-based crime shows also will use the phrase 'seven majors'), or any crime that invokes Federal jurisdiction. >As for ports - given Imperial ports are extraterritorial, why wouldn't >that startown treatment apply to _all_ ports, high and down? It does, but only downports/startowns that spread across the line need to consider anything like SoFA - inside the line, the world has NO jurisdiction. And highports are all entirely "inside the line", so no planetary jurisdiction. >Frinstance, (going back to post-1110 Terra), say the Class A port >comprises of two high ports (Cairo Orbital and Phoenix Orbital, each in >synchronous orbit roughly over their namesake cities' longitudes), their >corresponding downports (Phoenix Down being the bigger one), and two >auxiliary (but still Imperial) ports, one near the planetary capital, >Brasilia, and the other on the island of Sumatra. > >Why would _only_ Phoenix Down be treated as covered? It's only the portion of PHX Startown that's outside the line that's at discussion here; the portion that's "inside the line" is outside Terra's jurisdiction entirely, as are both highports. Cairo Down, Sumatra, and Brasilia will _probably_ be covered by an extended SoFA, not by the default, unless the extraterritorial cession was explicitly 'broken up' to cover all those locations - e.g., if the cession is 100 sq km, and PHX is 40 sq km, Cairo also, and 10 sq km each for Sumatra and Brasilia, then all will be covered by the standard agreement. But if Cairo, Sumatra, and Brasilia were all ceded under a separate agreement from PHX, their SoFA is also separate from PHX. >The naval base (Alice Springs Orbital and Down), being an IN facility, >is covered by the IN's component of the SOFA and is mentioned for >completeness. ®Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2022. Use of the trademark in this notice and in the referenced materials is not intended to infringe or devalue the trademark. -- Jeff Zeitlin, Editor Freelance Traveller The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com http://www.freelancetraveller.com Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following enterprises for hosting services: onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io) The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)