Your honor,

In view of the evidentiary ruling above, I will make a few supplemental comments regarding the other legal questions in this case. I want to take a moment to thank the Court for recognizing that TSP laws requires evidence to be presented in open court where it determines that redaction will be sufficient to protect regional security. I am obviously disappointed that I remain unaware of what my client is alleged to have done that might justify a finding of hostility, but I appreciate the efforts made by the Court.

The evidentiary finding highlights the importance of Section IV through VI of my initial brief, and in particular Section V. Without the ability to review the evidence the Cabinet used in reaching its conclusions, the requirement from the proscription act of "a report detailing the hostile acts" gains extra importance.  The report becomes the only avenue for Petitioner to determine what the Cabinet is accusing him of having done. If the Cabinet's report had included even some details of a particular act alleged to be hostile, we would at least have some starting point from which to formulate a response. But the purported report does little more than repeat parts of the definition of hostile acts and refer in conclusory fashion to "sensitive intelligence."  Petitioner can only assume that the Cabinet has logs that are either inaccurate or out context, but has no way of demonstrating the error.

This makes it practically impossible for the Court to fulfill its role as a reviewing body. As a party referenced and/or participating in the conversation(s) shown in the classified logs, Petitioner is uniquely situated to identify inaccuracies and/or provide context. The Court cannot effectively substitute for Petitioner in this regard.

To give an absurd example, I generated the following fake log yesterday that appears to show Roavin plotting with Souls to coup TSP with the knowledge of the Chief Justice:


This took me five minutes and, other than the word "Fake" I scrawled on it out of an abundance of caution, it appears genuine. The avatars and usernames are correct, it's a screenshot from Discord, there is no image editing that might leave traces, or any other indicators that could be used by a third party to establish that it is false. Maybe in this example, the proposition is so ludicrous one might assume it is fake, but with minimal additional time and individuals with less developed trust with the Court, it would be easy to be misled.

I am not arguing that the logs the Court has seen are fake. Rather, that any logs cannot be trusted blindly if the person they are being used against cannot review them, challenge their accuracy, or explain a wider context. Even a single omitted or added word may vastly change how a log is interpreted.

Turning to this particular case, this is particularly pertinent. I demonstrated in Section IV of my initial brief that several of the facts asserted by the Cabinet in justifying its decision were erroneous. The Cabinet has since admitted to some of these inaccuracies. Similarly, in Section VI, I demonstrated that the remaining factual assertions were irrelevant to the legal question of whether Petitioner's proscription was valid. What we are left with is a proscription premised entirely on secret logs for which veracity cannot be adequately tested. The one person who could provide insight on inaccuracies or lack of context, Petitioner, has been excluded from reviewing them or even given a general sense of what actions the Cabinet believes support his proscription. Put another way, given the number of factual and legal errors Petitioner has demonstrated in the evidence and arguments that were provided in public, how can this Court (or anyone else) have faith that the classified evidence and its mapping to the required elements of the Proscription Act may be relied upon?

In closing, I'd like to reiterate that a finding of hostility under Article I, Section 1 requires Petitioner to have been involved or complicit in an attempt to illegally overthrow the government. Mere statements of desire to see regime change are not sufficient. Even discussion of thinking about acting is not sufficient. There must have actually been an attempt to overthrow the government and Petitioner must have been involved or complicit in that attempt.  Similarly, under Article I, Sections 3 and 4, there must have been an attempt at coordinated espionage and an attempt to sabotage military operations, respectively. I addressed these points in detail in my initial brief and will just add that Petitioner is confident he has not any of these things, and if anything resembling an explanation for how the Cabinet concluded otherwise was provided, he could demonstrate his actions do not raise to the level of hostile acts as defined by law.