Bravo Fleet
Office of the Bravo Fleet Judge Advocate General
Bravo Fleet
v.
James Raza
Presiding Judge:
Charges
The Defendant, James Raza, is charged with violating the following Article(s) of Conduct and Reprimand as defined by Section 6 of the Bravo Fleet Judicial Code.
- 1x Discrimination (Plea: None)
No member shall discriminate against another member in regards to promotions, medal awards, praise and acknowledgment, or positions on the basis of real-life political affiliation, gender, race, color, age, disability, creed, heritage, nationality or sexual orientation.
- 1x Disreputable Behavior (Plea: None)
No member shall partake in any action that brings disrepute onto themselves, the fleet as a whole, or any independent fleet, ship, or individual member. Actions include those done by a member, either within or outside traditional Bravo Fleet activities and communication channels, that reflect on the above parties, such as: undermining or circumvention of the Bravo Fleet Charter, Judicial Code, or policies, acts to sabotage, stealing of property, filing frivolous complaints under this code or otherwise abusing the judicial process, or any conduct forbidden by these articles.
Statement of Facts
See Evidence above
Verdict
The Presiding Judge, Nushif Ejoma, reached the following verdict with regards to the Defendant, James Raza.
- On the charge of Discrimination, the Defendant is found GUILTY on 1 count.
- On the charge of Disreputable Behavior, the Defendant is found GUILTY on 1 count.
Judge's Opinion
This ban was put into place at a time when Bravo Fleet did not have an active judicial system. Given the severity of the ban from a similar organization to Bravo Fleet, the Bravo Fleet Magistrate has determined that the ban should remain in place.
Defendant's Sentence
The Defendant’s ban from engaging in any activity with Bravo Fleet remains in effect.
Evidence
-
Exhibit A
Defendant had been previously given a permanent full ban, but the ban was lifted by the PFA on the promise that the inappropriate comments that they had made on IRC were behind them. However, the inappropriate comments returned on IRC, along with complaints from other COs. In addition to inappropriate comments towards people for their nationality, Defendant criticized people for having a different way of life than their own. The PFA had also received complaints from COs that defendant had been criticizing the way that they ran their sims, with Defendant assuming that they could do it better despite having issues of their own on their sim, the USS Argo/Gaia Colony. They were given two months to clean up their behavior, or the ban would be reinstated. Just as the two months came to a close, the PFA received additional complaints, this time in reference to comments made that could be considered sexual harassment. It was decided unanimously by the PFA that the ban should be reinstated, effective immediately. It should be noted that Defendant was warned that if the ban was reinstated, it would indeed be permanent. They have run out of chances in Pegasus Fleet, and the ban should not be lifted again. Last Reviewed: 12th June 2016 Note: Although the incident above occurred in Pegasus Fleet, Bravo Fleet adopted the ban in 2016."
Managed By the
Judge Advocate General's Office
This trial was conducted by the Judge Advocate General's Office. If you have questions about this trial, please contact an office staff member.