Your Honor,

Some individuals amongst themselves have already written this appeal off as a “shit show” or as an “embarrassment to TSP”. I don’t see it that way. That an individual who is credibly alleged to display hostilities toward the region, and who is not and has not been a member (as per HCLQ1708) of the region, still has the right to challenge an executive decree prohibiting their participation, and do so through a fair and open review by another independent branch of the government, is truly representative of the South Pacifican values of openness and oversight that have helped to make the Coalition the oldest extant democracy in NationStates. Indeed, a cursory search of the legal codes of other large regions shows that we are, ostensibly, the only region with such an oversight mechanism.

That being said, sometimes the determinations that governmental agencies make are based on information that is not, and cannot, be laid out in the open, either fully or in part. There are a number of reasons why this can be the case. For example, the information may be based on classified intelligence operations, and a release of the information would compromise the source and methodology. Another example is that the information was gathered through mechanisms, techniques, and technologies that are unique to whichever individual or institution gathered that information, and a release would allow counter-intelligence officers from other regions and organizations to compensate their operations against those mechanisms, techniques, and technologies.

In either case, a full release of information may be detrimental to the security of the Coalition of the South Pacific. The Judicial Act mandates that cases are open, but does not mandate that submitted evidence or testimony is open. This is intentional for the very reason I specified above (and as the principal author of the new Judicial Act, I speak with some authority on the matter). With this setup, the judiciary (independent of, and separate from, any other institution) can adequately and trustworthily review governmental action without compromising the integrity of the South Pacific’s intelligence operations.

In this brief, and likely in some future briefs on this case, I will refer to information that is confidential. I will characterize that information as much as is feasible in an open setting, but not provide it outright. Any such information will be made available to both the presiding and the reviewing justice upon request.

The proscription levied against Petitioner is based on the work of the previous Cabinet (in which I was Prime Minister)⁽¹⁾. As I recall, the list as shown originated on a set of notes collected after a discussion by the Cabinet on Discord regarding proscriptions to be levied⁽²⁾. This list was not intended to be the final document, and as such wasn’t fully fact-checked and cross-referenced as it would otherwise have been. For reasons known to Legislators but not relevant to the case, the previous Cabinet was not able to finish the proscriptions; instead I released the notes for Assembly discussion⁽¹⁾, and then offered incoming Prime Minister Farengeto to finish and publicize the proscriptions before my term ended. That did not come to pass, for reasons I cannot recall; instead, the current Cabinet instead publicized the proscriptions as presented to the Assembly on July 24⁽²⁾, errors and all.

The five reasons levied against Petitioner were not intended to each be one item, conforming to one item of hostility; rather, they together establish the context for the mentioned hostilities. This can be easily deduced, as three sections are mentioned as the relevant hostilities for Ever-Wandering Souls overall, and none of the five specific reasons mention a specific applicable section. To account for this, I will state why Petitioner is, in my informed judgement, hostile as per Article 1 of the Proscription act, by referencing the 5 items mentioned in the published proscription (using Petitioner’s enumeration scheme):

Petitioner is hostile as per Section 1 (“actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners”) because of conspiracy to infiltrate and overthrow the Coalition of the South Pacific, as mentioned in Item E.

Petitioner is hostile as per Section 3 (“engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners”), likewise because of Item E.

Petitioner is hostile as per Section 4 (“has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics”) by attempting to unduly influence the membership of the South Pacific Special Forces as per Item B. Petitioner has similarly been untoward for military reasons to TWP and TEP, as established in Items C and D, respectively.

Now, to address Petitioner’s individual points:

Petitioner mentions that Item A should read “The SPSF” rather than “TSP”; however, the phrasing there was based on Petitioner’s own statement at https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic...#p33696400 where he states “TSP is considered an active, defender enemy of ours, banned from our chat, cross-membership not allowed, yada yada.” Either way, Item A was not presented with any specific hostility (as per Proscription Act, Article 1) in mind. Rather, the intent of Item A from the original notes was to establish hostility in the colloquial sense, based on that declaration as well as the discussion of drawing a South Pacifican Legislator towards The Black Hawks as discussed in that same post.

Petitioner’s reply to Item B contains a glaring factual error. It is stated that The Black Hawks were exploring cooperation with the South Pacific Special Forces “at the time”. This is false. On the minor update of September 10, 2016, The Black Hawks gathered a multi regional coalition to invade European Union. While the attempt ultimately failed, soldiers from the South Pacific Special Forces were participants in that attempt and SPSF would likewise have continued to support the invasion had it succeeded. The incident in question occured after the liberation (with help by the South Pacific Special Forces) of the region Spanish Kingdom from an invasion by Osiris’ Sekhmet Legion (an invasion not performed by, or supported by, The Black Hawks), which occurred on September 19, 2016. This factual error completely undermines Petitioner’s point that the conversation with the Minister was regarding concerns about a future relationship, since there already was such a relationship.

Furthermore, Petitioner conveniently omits several key facets of the conversation. It is true that “covering potential roadblocks”, such as the mentioned rules of engagement from Europeia, does not qualify as hostility for the purposes of Article 1 Section 4 of the Proscription Act — and indeed, that would be absurd.

(The next few paragraphs concern me, but would be awkward to write in the first person, so I will refer to myself in the third person).

What happened is the following: Imki’s term as Minister of Military Affairs lasted from July to October 2016, during which she rebuilt SPSF from the ground up as an independent (in terms of R/D, not in terms of the broader GP alignment) military. That included frequently seeking opportunities to work with both sides of the R/D spectrum. Near the tail-end of Imki’s term as Minister of Military Affairs, Roavin was the most active and, ostensibly, most skilled soldier in the ranks of the SPSF. On September 19, 2016, a multiregional coalition including the South Pacific Special Forces liberated Spanish Kingdom, occupied by the Sekhmet Legion from Osiris. The liberation’s success was, in part, due to Roavin simultaneously tricking Lone Wolves United into performing a very harmless raid, thereby pulling some endorsements from the invader lead in Spanish Kingdom. Note that The Black Hawks were not, in any way, involved in the occupation of Spanish Kingdom. Petitioner then reached out to Imki, utilizing argumentum ad misericordiam to argue quite heavily in favor of dismissing Roavin for his actions in Spanish Kingdom⁽²⁾. The logs are currently classified but are available to the court upon request.

On Item C and Item D, Petitioner mentioned that both The West Pacific and The East Pacific’s prohibitions on The Black Hawks have since been rescinded. While this is true, that does not mean that the underlying reason for those prohibitions did not occur.

Regarding Item C, then-Delegate of the West Pacific Davelands had clarified since the initial post of the proscriptions that a more correct explanation would be that Souls is a reason, rather than the singular reason, why The West Pacific temporarily prohibited The Black Hawks in its entirety. The conversation from here suggests that this was, as stated in the proscription, as a result of ill-suited conduct during a joint raid. There exists some more information on the specifics, which is available to the court upon request.

Regarding Item D, the original proscription announcement should have read “bullied” rather than “blackmailed”; nonetheless an impropriety did occur (as Petitioner even admits to).

The previous Cabinet, after reviewing the logs involving the incident surrounding Item B, opined that there was reasonable cause to claim that Petitioner attempted to use their position to coerce SPSF into an action that would make SPSF weaker overall (through the loss of its strongest soldier) and, at the same time, make it more likely to help out in its operations. The Cabinet further opined that Items C and D establishes a pattern of behavior rather than a single incident, making a designation of hostility as per Article 1 Section 4 of the Proscription Act reasonable and proper.

On Item E, there is sensitive intelligence on the matter that I cannot fully discuss. What I can say is that this intelligence exists, and that it suggests one or more instances of actual hostilities as per Article 1 Section 1 of the Proscription Act. After consultation with Intelligence Coordinator Sandaoguo, I can say that in addition to what the proscription report states, this does not just include “idle chatter” as Petitioner claims, but both acts and complicity. The information will be made fully available to the court.

Finally, while not containing all possible minutae (in part due to confidentiality, in part due to the unfortunate circumstances of the release of the proscription), the proscription report does lay out the hostilities that Petitioner was proscribed for, and therefore meets Article 3 Section 2 of the Proscription Act.

⁽¹⁾ This information was previously accessible to Legislators only and has been cleared for publication in an open setting by Deputy Chair of the Assembly Rebeltopia.
⁽²⁾ This information was previously accessible only to Cabinet members and has been cleared for publication in an open setting by Prime Minister Farengeto.