Andre Delauney arrives at the PLS embassy

  • Alleged former MPM member Andre Delauney has been smuggled to the PLS embassy in Montmartre. Do you grant him entrance to your embassy?

  • Lawyers from the firm of Botoxia & Nudniks, one of the best law firms in PLS, have arrived to assist Mr Delauney after having been retained by officials from the PLS National Party on Mr Delauney's behalf. They have made representations to the effect that Mr Delauney's presence in the PLS Embassy places him within the jurisdiction of PLS and that he is capable of making an asylum application.

    The PLS Department of Foreign Affairs has received Mr Delauney's application and representations from his legal representations. These documents have been sent to the Department of Home Affairs offices in Pazia for processing. In the meantime, Mr Delauney is free to remain in the embassy whilst his application is being processed as an asylum seeker in PLS jurisdiction. His application is being processed on an expedited basis.

  • Urgent message from Prime Minister Bruno Magritte to Rebecca Hainault, MP,
    Prime Minister of Peace-Loving States

    Dear Madame Prime Minister:

    It has come to my attention that your embassy in Montmartre is holding a terrorist by the name of Andre Delauney, who is seeking asylum in your nation.

    Please be aware that Mr. Delauney was the leader of the Military Police under General LeClerc's regime, and is personally responsible for the deaths and disappearances of thousands of Paristani citizens.

    As such, we request that you return him to Paristani authorities immediately so that he may stand trial for his crimes.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prime Minister Bruno Magritte

  • Dear Mr Magritte,

    I am writing in response to your most recent letter concerning Mr Andre Delauney.

    We have not heretofore stated publicly whether any particular New Paristani national has entered our Embassy for the purpose of making an asylum application. I understand that certain representations have been publicly made by a certain law firm and that there have been consequent press reports about supposed communications between a Mr Delauney and PLS consular staff.

    I am able to confirm that Mr Delauney and his legal representatives did attend the Embassy of Peace-Loving States in Montmartre. Press reports have stated that he submitted an asylum application. However, I am not at this stage able to confirm or deny this because immigration and asylum applications are legally required to remain confidential unless a decision has been rendered.

    I can tell you that Embassy staff noticed early this morning that Mr Delauney was no longer present in the PLS Embassy. CCTV footage shows that he exited the Embassy via a side door at approximately 6am, accompanied only by his layers. I understand that this side door is located only a few steps from the entrance to a train station.

    I can further inform you that Mr Delauney was arrested this afternoon at Pazia International Airport on suspicion of attempting to enter PLS on a forged Belaran passport. He was in possession of PLS Airways ticket that was apparently purchased in cash at approximately 9am this morning.

    I have not been informed yet whether a decision has been made as to whether Mr Delauney will be charged for the offence in relation to the fake passport. The police have until 1pm tomorrow before they decide whether to charge Mr Delauney or release him from police custody.

    I am not yet able to comment whether Mr Delauney may be subject to administrative removal proceedings, as I cannot comment on whether he has a pending application for leave to enter PLS.

    Please be patient whilst our legal procedures run their course.

    Yours sincerely,

    The Right Honourable Rebecca Hainault MP
    Prime Minister of Peace-Loving States

  • Mr Delauney has been told by a guard at the Central Pazia Jail:

    "Mr Delauney, today's you're lucky day. We're not charging you at this time. Thus, we are releasing you from custody.

    "However, please note that the statute of limitations for knowing use of a false identity document is one year. If we decide at any time within the next year that we have sufficient cause to charge you, then we will be able to arrest you. Please note that the maximum sentence for use of a false identity document is five years' imprisonment.

    "By the way, I've just been faxed this decision from the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal on your application for asylum. Here you go."

    Mr Delauney looked at the papers...



    Background on the Applicant?s Asylum Claim**

    1. The Home Affairs Department has received an asylum application from Mr Andre Delauney (hereinafter ?the Applicant?), a New Paristani national, on the grounds of persecution in New Paristan for his political opinions and expressions. The matter has been submitted to this tribunal for adjudication.

    2. The Applicant presented himself at the Embassy of Peace-Loving States in Montmartre along with his legal representatives during the evening of 5 October 2010. His application and representations in favour of it were received by the consular staff at the Embassy. He requested that his application be considered on an expedited basis. He was informed that his application would be sent to the Home Affairs Department in Pazia for processing. He was allowed to remain in the Embassy whilst his application was pending. He was offered food and sleeping quarters.

    3. The Applicant was found to be absent from the Embassy when consular staff attempted to provide breakfast at 7am on 6 October 2010. A review of the CCTV footage at the Embassy shows that he left the Embassy, surrounded by his lawyers, at approximately 6am. His departure was via a side door that is very close to a train station.

    4. The Applicant was arrested at 1pm on 6 October 2010 at Pazia International Airport. He had attempted to enter PLS using a forged passport purporting to be issued by Belarum. He was found with a boarding pass for PLS Airways flight 1356 from Montmartre to Pazia. The plane ticket was apparently sold at 9am on 6 October 2010 and paid for using cash.

    5. Upon being taken into custody, the Applicant referred to the asylum application that he made in Montmartre the previous day. He stated that he wished to be granted leave to enter on the basis of that application.

    6. The Applicant asserts that people who support the ideology and policies of the Movement for a Popular Majority are being persecuted on the basis of their beliefs and expression. He asserts that opposition to the ideology of anarcho-communism is prohibited within New Paristan and that all lawful opposition parties are a charade to create the false appearance of an opposition.

    7. The Applicant asserts that he faces real danger of persecution if forced to return to the jurisdiction of New Paristan.

    8. The Applicant cites, as evidence of supposed efforts by the New Paristani government to persecute people on the basis of belief alone, the fact that an e-mail server used by people genuinely in opposition to the government went offline. The Applicant states that the server went offline after his denunciation of the New Paristani government and plans to seek asylum in Peace-Loving States were leaked to the press.

    9. The government of New Paristan has confirmed that the Applicant is charged with treason, kidnapping, and murder in relation to the earlier regime of New Paristan.

    Consideration of the Applicant?s Asylum Claim

    10. Enforcement of the Asylum Claims Reform Act 2010 has been suspended pending the outcome of a constitutional challenge brought by the PLS Civil Liberties Council. Thus, the Applicant?s claim for asylum is considered under the regulations in force prior to the adoption of that Act.

    11. The Applicant has asserted that he is persecuted for his beliefs in opposition to the policies of the current government of New Paristan. However, he provides only his own self-serving statements in relation to this without any independent corroboration of his own treatment.

    12. The Applicant?s evidence in relation to a removed e-mail server has not been shown to have been caused by malicious mischief. No evidence has been provided to show that the removal of the e-mail server from service was anything other than a system crash.

    13. The Applicant has cited press reports about state-sponsored violence against those expressing opposition to the government of New Paristan. However, these reports ultimately come from one person who is apparently pursuing her own asylum claim within PLS. Thus, the source of the reports is making self-interested statements that have not been subject to cross-examination. For this reason, the press reports are not considered reliable.

    14. The only adverse action cited specifically against the Applicant by the New Paristani government is the fact that he has been charged with various criminal acts. The criminal charges cannot in and of themselves be regarded as evidence of persecution, as any person in PLS who engaged in homicide or kidnapping in PLS would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment if convicted.

    15. In the event that the Applicant were guilty of the offences alleged by the New Paristani government, then he would be ineligible for asylum. The asylum law of PLS specifically excludes those who are guilty of crimes against peace, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

    16. The Applicant claims that the charges brought against him are a mere pretext to persecute him for his political activity. However, no evidence has been presented to support this belief. No evidence has been presented to support or undermine the charges of the New Paristani government.

    17. The Applicant is not found to have a credible basis for believing that the charges against him are meant to punish him for his political beliefs rather than try him for alleged crimes. The examples of persecution put forward by the Applicant and one other involve torture without any charge or record. The inconsistency suggests that the Applicant is mistaken or less than truthful.

    18. The Applicant has presented no evidence as to the current criminal justice system of New Paristan. He has not presented anything to convince this tribunal that he would not receive a fair trial for the charges against him.


    19. The Applicant has not shown that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political beliefs and expression. His application for leave to enter as a refugee is denied.

    20. The Applicant is notified that he has 48 hours from the issuance of this decision to submit notice of his intention to appeal to the Immigration and Asylum Appellate Tribunal.

    21. The Applicant is found to be liable to administrative removal from PLS because he has no right to enter or remain in PLS. Administrative removal proceedings may be commenced 48 hours from the issuance of this decision. However, in the event that the Applicant submits notice of his intention to appeal, then the administrative removal proceedings shall be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.


    Dear Sir,

    As you are aware, your application for leave to enter PLS as a refugee has been denied by the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.

    The Home Affairs Department has the statutory authority to grant discretionary leave to remain to any person physically present in PLS who is not already in possession of valid leave to enter or remain. In an effort to avoid public expense on any appeal that you may file as well as subsequent removal proceedings, the Home Affairs Department has decided to grant you discretionary leave to remain for the next five years. At the end of the five-year period, you will be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

    This grant of discretionary leave is no less favourable than any grant of leave as a refugee would have been if you had been successful in your asylum application. For this reason, your legal right to appeal the denial of your asylum application is extinguished and the adjudication of the fact that you are not a refugee will be automatically upheld if you attempt to appeal.

    You are requested and required to appear at a Home Affairs Department Public Enquiry Office within 48 hours so that we may enrol your details and issue a biometric residence permit. Failure to comply with this requirement is an offence that, on conviction, results in forfeiture of all immigration and asylum rights under PLS law.

    Please note that all grants of leave to remain in PLS are subject to a strict requirement to obey the laws of PLS. Conviction of crime for which the maximum sentence exceeds one year leads to an automatic revocation of all rights to remain in PLS and the issuance of deportation proceedings.

    In the event that you have any further questions or concerns about your immigration status, then please do not hesitate to seek legal advice.

    Yours faithfully,

    Department of Home Affairs of Peace-Loving States

  • Dear Mr Magritte,

    I am writing further to our earlier communications regarding Mr Andre Delauney.

    As the matter has been concluded, I can now confirm that Mr Delauney did apply for asylum and that his application has been rejected. I can also confirm that we have taken administrative steps to prevent an appeal of the adjudication of the fact that Mr Delauney is not a refugee.

    Yours sincerely,

    The Right Honourable Rebecca Hainault MP
    Prime Minister of Peace-Loving States

  • OOC: This is confusing - you're denying his asylum request, and his refugee status, but letting him stay in PLS for five years anyway? Can you clarify what you're doing here?

    Also - note that general protocol in any RP is that one can only manipulate one's own characters. Thus, your removal of Delauney from the embassy, while an interesting plot development, wasn't really in my plans for him. We should have RPed a discussion between Delauney and the lawyers that led to that decision. Also, your creation of a second Paristani refugee doing stuff in PLS isn't really proper either, but I can make it work.

    No big deal - it's all in fun.

    Once you clarify what's actually happening with Delauney, I'll figure out how to respond IC.

    also, it's "anarcho-communism" not "anarcho-capitalism." 🙂

  • Admin

    [OOC]: This is what private messages are for, it helps to coordinate the RP tongue.gif

  • OOC:

    The whole part about Mr Delauney leaving the Embassy was effectively a charade in which the PLS government snuck him out of the Embassy, brought him to PLS, and then presented to the world a story that Mr Delauney had come on his own. I assumed that it was clear that an offer to bring him to PLS under such a pretense would be accepted on the basis that turning him away from the Embassy would result in his immediate arrest by New Paristani officers.

    The decision to deny his asylum application and give him leave to remain is supposed to be a cunning move by the PLS government. This allows PLS to avoid an outcry by human rights groups about the denial of the asylum claim whilst maintaining good relations with New Paristan by saying that it denied Mr Delauney's application. (By the way, plenty of failed asylum seekers in the UK end up being granted discretionary leave to remain after they spend years in the UK waiting for their applications and appeals to be processed.) For the record, it is assumed that the PLS government has not told the New Paristani government or the press about the fact that Mr Delauney has been given leave to remain.

    The additional refugee is meant to be the one referenced in press reports. I am not role playing this to say whether this person is a real refugee or a lying economic migrant. The presence of press reports about possible persecution in New Paristan would surely convince at least some illegal immigrants to try their luck and make an asylum claim; I think we can take it as given that there have been some New Paristani entrants to PLS and that some have entered clandestinely or overstayed their visas.

    I apologise for the typo in paragraph 6 of the immigration decision. This has been corrected.

  • OOC: Right on - I can work with all of this. Please understand if there's a bit of a delay before I respond formally - I have a pretty busy few days coming up IRL (road trip wooooo), so I'm not going to have a ton of time for this. Still, stay tuned - things are about to get REAL, if you know what I mean.

  • Official Press Statement from Prime Minister Magritte:

    "I am relieved to hear that the war criminal Delauney has been denied asylum in Peace-Loving States. I expect that the government of PLS will begin preparations for his extradition to New Paristan immediately. The people of New Paristan deserve justice for what this man and his cronies did to our beloved nation during the terrible reign of General LeClerc. Our revolution will not be complete until all former members of that regime, and its terrorist backers, are behind Paristani bars."

    Urgent message from Prime Minister Magritte to Prime Minister Hainault:

    "Thank you for your cooperation in denying this war criminal asylum in your country. Please inform me of when your government plans to extradite him to New Paristan for trial. We expect that preparations for his extradition will commence at once."

  • Dear Mr Magritte,

    I am writing further to your recent letter regarding the denial of Mr Delauney's asylum application and your government's desire for extradition proceedings to be issued.

    As you are surely aware, our two countries do not have an extradition treaty at present. For this reason, extradition proceedings require the presentation of a formal petition to a federal trial court that must be considered at a full hearing in which the respondent has the right to full representation. The petitioner must show:
    1. The existence of a prima facie case for acts that are crimes under the country in question and that would be crimes if committed in the jurisdiction of PLS;
    2. That the respondent will be afforded a fair trial upon extradition; and
    3. That the respondent, if convicted, will not be subject to punishment that would be disproportionate or a violation of the respondent's human rights.

    There are two methods for the issuance of an extradition petition. The first is for the Federal Prosecution Service to bring a petition on the request of your government. The second is for your government to seek leave of the court to present a petition.

    If you wish the Federal Prosecution Service to bring a petition for Mr Delauney's extradition, then please submit your request and supporting evidence to it. The Federal Prosecution Service will only bring a petition if provided with evidence demonstrating a likelihood of success on all elements at the hearing.

    If your government wishes to seek leave to bring its own petition, then I suggest that you seek legal advice from a firm of solicitors in PLS. Please note that even when leave to bring a petition is granted, the Federal Prosecution Service has a statutory power to intervene as petitioner and decide how to proceed with or discontinue the petition.

    I trust that this answers your questions regarding possible extradition proceedings against Mr Delauney.

    Yours sincerely,

    The Right Honourable Rebecca Hainault MP
    Prime Minister of Peace-Loving States

  • Madame Prime Minister:

    Before I get my Attorney General working on your request, may I ask what it would take for you to just sign an extradition treaty with us?

    Bruno Magritte

  • Dear Mr Magritte,

    I would be happy to explore the possibility of an extradition treaty. However, we are not able to present a draft proposal at this stage.

    An extradition treaty that streamlines the process for certain countries must not have a reasonable prospect of undermining the human rights the rights of the accused. A treaty that was found to have seriously compromised the rights of the accused would likely be held unconstitutional and rendered unenforceable. For this reason, we must be very thorough in our initial investigations, public consultation, and negotiation of the text.

    Every extradition treaty requires rather extensive considerations about the nuances of the legal systems of both countries. Knowing very little about the New Paristani criminal justice system, I cannot know what sort of issues of compatibility may arise.

    Please submit reports to the PLS Embassy in Montmartre about criminal law in your country, the procedure used to investigate and prosecute offences, and the corrections system. We will respond in kind to the New Paristani Embassy in Pazia with details about the criminal justice system in PLS. We can proceed to send monitors to each other's countries. We can then invite members of the legal profession and other interested parties to provide input that we must take into account.

    I trust that we will have many co-operative exchanges in the coming months abnd years as we work toward an effective extradition treaty.

    Yours sincerely,

    The Right Honourable Rebecca Hainault MP
    Prime Minister of Peace-Loving States

  • Madame Prime Minister:

    To be blunt, my government places a higher value on our desire to see justice done than it does on legalistic minutiae and bureaucracy. We are a government of workers, not lawyers.

    Since you have denied Mr. Delauney's application for asylum, under what authority are you keeping him in your country? Frankly, he's either allowed to be there, or he's not. If he's not allowed to be there, then he should be returned here. As a Paristani citizen, he is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial jury of his peers. I can assure you that my government has reformed the brutal "justice" system of the LeClerc regime, and the fairness of our legal process cannot now be in doubt. Note the recent upgrade of our civil rights rating to "Good." What more proof of our sincerity do you need?

    With due respect, and a desire for continued cooperation, I urge your government to drop your legalistic firewalls and return Mr. Delauney home to us, so that we can give him the fair justice that his government so often denied us. Further delays would do a disservice to the relationship we are trying to build between our countries.


    Prime Minister Bruno Magritte

  • Dear Mr Magritte,

    Possible extradition proceedings against Mr Delauney

    With respect, it has only been a matter of days since you contacted me about your desire to have Mr Delauney extradited. I can hardly see cause for impatience on your part when you have not yet made any contact with the Federal Prosecution Service in order to issue a formal extradition request.

    You have asked about extradition of Mr Delauney and I have explained our governing law and procedure where an extradition treaty is not in force. You have also asked about the procedure for the formation of an extradition treaty and I have explained the procedure and the fact that we are more than happy to begin work on the matter.

    I am not able to serve special pleadings in extradition matters. Any efforts to extradite someone must follow certain procedures. The same applies to creating laws and treaties that are deemed to create specific exemptions and presumptions in extradition cases. If I were to attempt to subvert the process, then I would find my efforts thwarted by the courts.

    Your government is not the first to find itself inconvenienced by the technicalities of our extradition laws. Countries in which the death penalty is lawful have noted, for example, the extreme scrutiny and difficulty to provide absolute assurances that no person who is extradited by PLS will face execution.

    I request that you please respect that we take our constitution and respect for the rule of law quite seriously. Peace-Loving States is known for having a surprisingly complex system of law and procedure, but I am not at liberty to disregard it. Though it is theoretically possible to change the situation through a constitutional amendment, this is an incredibly difficult procedure.

    Possible administrative removal proceedings against Mr Delauney

    As to your concern that Mr Delauney may not be lawfully present in PLS, I should note that the enforcement of PLS immigration law is a separate matter from extradition and not a concern for your government.

    The government of PLS is not able to use administrative removal as a viable alternative to extradition. If we were to initiate administrative removal proceedings at this time, we would first have to demand that Mr Delauney leave on his own accord and to such country as he sees fit. Only upon his refusal to leave would we be able to enforce his departure, which would still be required by law to be to a country of his choosing where he had leave to enter. Only if he failed to specify a country where he had leave to enter could we force him into your jurisdiction at the end of the administrative removal process.

    The initiation of administrative removal proceedings would revive Mr Delauney's right of appeal with respect to his asylum claim. My government's recent efforts to reform the asylum appeal process have been enjoined by a federal trial court and the process remains rather slower than I would prefer.

    My advice regarding Mr Delauney

    As you can appreciate from this letter, my only power at this time is to encourage you to contact the Federal Prosecution Service with your asylum request. You may find it helpful to consult a firm of solicitors in PLS.

    Yours sincerely,

    The Right Honourable Rebecca Hainault MP
    Prime Minister of Peace-Loving States

    [OOC: Please take it as given that PLS has an international reputation for having legal and administrative processes that are the ultimate bureaucratic nighmare. The ability to delay proceedings ad infinitum through appeals and judicial review claims is a key reason why the UN describes crime in PLS as crippling.]

  • [ooc - in that case...]


    The Prime Minister thumps his desk in frustration. "Bloody bourgeois bureaucrats..." he mutters under his breath.

    He punches a button on his intercom. "Get me Valjean."

    A few minutes later, a large, muscular man enters the office: Jean Valjean, head of the Worker Freedom Party, and R/B Head Delegate to the Party of the European Left.

    "There has to be some way to get Delauney out of there and back here. Do you have any contacts in PLS? Unofficial contacts? Friendly to us?"

    Valjean thinks for a moment. "Well, their United Left party caucuses with us in the European parliament. Maybe there's someone there I can talk to."

    "Give it a shot, brother. Let's see if we can't expedite the process, eh? Convicting Delauney would be a real morale booster for us right now - and Lenin knows we need one."

    "I'll see what I can do."

    He walks out.

  • ooc: Alright, here's your fictional legal paperwork:

    -Delauney is suspected of engineering the arrest, execution, or disappearance of over 1,000 leading union activists during the LeClerc regime, and being an instrumental part of the May Day Massacre that sparked the revolution.

    -New Paristan has reformed its legal system to create a pretty standard adversarial trial by jury, with both civil and criminal courts, innocent until proven guilty. Legal advice and representation is provided free to all citizens by the Legal Union, a quasi-governmental network of cooperatives made up of lawyers and paralegals and operated by local council governments. From what your government can tell, based on what your contacts have said, New Paristan's reformed system seems fair and equitable.

    -Being a government of workers, not lawyers, New Paristan's legal brief is quite short and to the point, lacking in the legal refinements and whatnots that bourgeois legal culture might demand.