Your honor,

addressing your questions:

(12-11-2017, 12:28 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• Do you believe that this Court should retroactively declare Invictean to have come to the region in bad faith and should therefore not be considered a member, as per Members of the Coalition [HCLQ1708]?
  

My postulation is based on the evidence of the history of the accused individual, and seeks to establish reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause, of an intent to be a bad faith agent in the South Pacific. Invictean's testimony does not necessarily contradict that - while Invictean denies the intent to seek change through overt extralegal means, a bad faith agent can operate on entirely legally methods overtly. For example, an agent colluding with a hostile foreign entity to electioneer our democracy against our interests would appear overtly lawful.

Assuming further testimony and evidence provided by the accused and others do not significantly undermine the ostensible intent demonstrated in my earlier amicus brief, then I do feel it is appropriate for the court to consider Invictean a bad faith agent.

(12-11-2017, 12:28 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• Do you foresee any possible consequences to such a determination, in terms of the precedent it would set for any future cases, and its compliance with Article III of the Charter?
  

I should preface this by saying that I'm not entirely fluent on 14 years of case law and legislative history. As far as I'm aware, the Border Control Act (through which the ban was justified) is the first law of its kind in the history of the Coalition, and there is no previous history of case law for this kind of case, so this would surely set a precedent.

The South Pacific has historically and culturally been very lenient when it comes to banning nations that appear to be agents of bad faith. In most cases, the discretion of the Delegate (and later, with the introduction of Regional Officers, the CSS and then CRS) was used to sparingly banject those whose conduct has become demonstrably intolerable. The BCA, as well as the proposed determination of bad faith, would not undermine that tradition; rather, by granting the Delegate and/or the Local Council a mandate that was previously implicit to those nations intrinsically or explicitly granted the power to do so, that very tradition is codified.

Similarly, I see no issue with regards to Article III, as it outlines rights granted to members only, and therefore they would not apply to an agent declared as bad faith. In fact, the current process goes beyond the guarantees of Article III, as a ban authorized through the BCA with an appeal through the court establishes a due process, which would (if the court rules Invictean as an agent of bad faith) then even have been applied to an ostensible non-member.

(12-11-2017, 12:28 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

• Do you consider that the views and intentions of Invictean, regarding the Coalition of the South Pacific and its leadership, should have any bearing on the determination of this Court regarding the legality of the ejection order?
  

The views and lawful intentions of Invictean should not have any bearing on the ruling. These are protected under Article III Section 1 of our Charter and form a cornerstone of our tradition of open democracy. However, any intentions of Invictean that may not be lawful (and this includes conduct that appears overtly lawful but covertly illegal) should have a bearing on the ruling. In my mind, sowing discord with the intent of affecting elections for the purposes of outside groups is such a thing.