Your Honor,

just the notes I had prepared for this reply were considerably longer. In the interest of brevity (and sanity) I discarded the previous text entirely and am presenting this rather abridged response. I didn't respond to every assertion of the Counsel because in most cases it would amount to just repeating things I had already stated previously.

The above, in combination with various other obligations, led to the delay.

Addressing your request from August 5:

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• If Ever Wandering Souls is being proscribed, the assumption is that he is being hostile. In fact, Items B through E set out to support the determination of hostility. Was there then a purpose to Item A, which you claim merely establishes that there was hostility in the first place?

For legal purposes, no. As mentioned in my reply on August 3, Item A is intended to show hostility in the colloquial (rather than legal) sense for rhetorical purposes.

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• You are requested to produce as evidence the full contents of the conversation between Ever Wandering Souls and Imkitopia, as referenced in both parties' testimonies.

This was done on August 16.

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• Does the Cabinet consider the West Pacific to be a partner?

No. The militaries of the South Pacific and the West Pacific have, on occasion, worked together on interregional operations, but for the most part, the two regions don't interact much.

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• You are requested to clarify, for the record of this case, the exact reasons why the West Pacific and the East Pacific blacklisted The Black Hawks, with reference to the role that Ever Wandering Souls had in these blacklistings.

The Black Hawks had issued this statement in response to the blacklistings, which includes a log of a conversation between officials of The Black Hawks and the two regions.

In reference to the East Pacific, the above log establishes that Petitioner was bullying TEP's Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding a Hawk-led military occupation that was liberated with the help of the East Pacific Sovereign Army. According to Delegate Queen Yuno, Petitioner 'threatened a "nonthreat"', while Minister of Foreign Affairs Greyghost clearly says "we don't be bullied".

In reference to The West Pacific, the log mentioned above has Big Bad Badger, former Delegate of The West Pacific, saying that Petitioner was accusing The West Pacific of not being professional about a military situation; The West Pacific disagreed with that assessment and therefore stepped back its involvement with The Black Hawks. There is also this item from the NSGP Discord server:

[9:12 PM] Davelands: @glen-rhodes In http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6362.html
Please change "Is the singular reason why TWP proscribed his entire region,... " to "Is a reason why TWP temporarily proscribed his entire region,... " That would more correctly explain our position regarding Souls.

While the above quote doesn't state why, it clearly establishes that Petitioner had a role in the blacklistings.

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• There is a very clear difference between "blackmail" and "bullying". Does the Cabinet intend to amend the reasoning for its proscriptions after the fact, as was just attempted with the phrasing of Item D?

The proscriptions will be reissued with more detailed reasoning and any errors amended, pending the outcome of this appeal.

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• You are requested to provide, through private means, the unredacted contents of the evidence that supports Item E, for their consideration by the Court.

This was done on August 16.

---

In response to Counsel Mall's assertions on August 3:

(08-03-2018, 10:19 AM)Mall Wrote: How is a conversation between Ever Wandering Souls and Imki confidential and thus not subject to open disclosure to this court if the conversation is between Imki and the person who the Cabinet is refusing to disclose it to?

The issue isn't that Petitioner receives the conversation, but rather that it originated from private conversation and Imki herself has only cleared it to be shared with Cabinet, not publicly.

(08-03-2018, 10:19 AM)Mall Wrote: What is the legal effect of the Cabinet admitting in its above answer that it accused Ever Wandering Souls of not only a crime in this region (blackmail), but also of a frankly disgusting OOC action only to admit that it was lying?

There was no accusation of OOC action. Any OOC actions are dealt with administratively, not through IC legal means.

---

In response to Counsel Malashaan's assertions on August 16:

(08-15-2018, 11:01 PM)Malashaan Wrote: II. Appellant Should Be Given Access to Pertinent Evidence and Information
A. The Cabinet Must Explain the Basis on Which the Evidence is Classified

The classification of this evidence was not done by the Cabinet, but rather by the Intelligence Coordinator. The Cabinet had no role in the procurement or classification of this evidence.

(08-15-2018, 11:01 PM)Malashaan Wrote: B. The Evidence the Cabinet is Relying Upon Must Be Made Available

Petitioner's counsel should be aware that this isn't a criminal trial with a defined prosecution and defense, but rather an appeal in a non-adversarial setting. There is, therefore, no inherent right granted to cross-examine any evidence. The Court has received the full evidence as well as commentary on its sensitive nature, which is sufficient for it to derive a fair ruling.

Article 8, Section 2 of the Judicial Act only mandates that the Court works with the corresponding authority (in this case, the Intelligence Coordinator) to redact information that may harm regional security. The integrity of intelligence and counter-intelligence operations is intuitively important for maintaining regional security, and in some cases that integrity can't be maintained if any release of evidence is done at all, no matter how redacted. This is the case here. That doesn't mean such evidence can't be submitted (that would be absurd), it just means that when not reasonably possible, the court can accept confidential evidence even if no redacted form is published.

(08-15-2018, 11:01 PM)Malashaan Wrote: IV. The Proscription and the Cabinet's Defense of it Rely on Several Erroneous Assertions of Fact
C. Appellant was not the Singular Reason why The East Pacific Proscribed The Black Hawks

As shown above, it was Petitioner's conversation with The East Pacific's Minister of Foreign Affairs that led to the blacklisting. This directly contradicts the Counsel's assertion.