Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 05-27-2017, 10:41 AM

Your honour,

Three weeks ago (on 12/5/17) the Security Powers Act (SPA) was amended, now including a clause nine reading "(9) If the basis of a security threat declaration amounts or equates to criminal accusation, the Council on Regional Security (CRS) must immediately press criminal charges. The security threat declaration will be rescinded should these charges not result in conviction."

The CRS investigation, report and subsequent ruling issued on 19/4/17 clearly and unambiguous amounts or equates to criminal accusations, including but not limited to accusations of Treason and Espionage, criminal acts regulated by the criminal code. This cannot be contested by any reasonable individual.

Your honour, three weeks far exceeds any reasonable definition of "immediately" in relation to pressing criminal charges, and as such the CRS report and all subsequent rulings and penalties are clearly unconstitutional. As such the Court has a legal duty to declare thus CRS report and all subsequent rulings and penalties void.

As such, petitioner asks;

"Where the CRS, in accordance with the SPA, declines or otherwise fails to press charges when the basis of a security threat declaration amounts or equates to criminal accusation, is this security threat designation illegal and thus void?"

Petitioner asks for swift and summary judgement on this matter, as this is not a question of legal interpretation but of the Court confirming that the CRS has failed to act in the legally required manner.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 05-30-2017, 06:39 PM

After deliberation the Court finds this legal question justiciable, which will hereafter be designated HCLQ 1707.

This case will deal only with the question posed on the Security Powers Act. Any relevant judgements on particular invocations of the Security Powers Act will not be held until after the resolution of this case.

**Belschaft** · 06-02-2017, 03:37 PM

If it so please the court;

Your honour, this is an incredibly simple matter. Article One, Clause Nine, of the Security Powers Act (SPA) creates a legal duty for the Council on Regional Security (CRS) to act in a certain manner. If this legal duty is not followed then the CRS has failed to act in the legally mandated manner; this is, to put it simply, illegal. Actions that are illegal can have no legal force, and are thus void. No further argument or discussion of this matter is required.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 06-05-2017, 01:40 PM

Your honour, it has now been more than four weeks since the CRS failed to act in the legally mandated manner. Considering that all you are required to do is confirm, from a judicial perspective, that the CRS has not done something that they legally have to do the delay in addressing this matter is inexplicable.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 06-05-2017, 03:14 PM

The Court issues the following reminders:

Legal Questions deal solely with matters of legal interpretation and therefore does not address specific cases, unless as consequences of a general ruling.
A violation of a law, if one has taken place, is by definition inlawful. It should not be necessary for the Court to to affirm this inherent definition, and a Legal Question is not the place to determine if a violation of law has taken place.
HCLQ 1707, as asked by the petitioner, does not address violations of Article 1.9 of the Security Powers Act themselves, but rather the consequences of its violation on the relevant security threat declaration. The Court will only address the scope of the asked question.

Imperial Frost Federation · 06-05-2017, 04:04 PM

If it so pleases the court;

Your honor, Article One, Clause Nine, of the amended Security Powers Act (SPA) created a legal duty for the Council on Regional Security (CRS) to act a certain way. The petitioner, Belschaft, is correct in arguing that the CRS’s failure to act in the legally mandated procedure is illegal, and must be rendered void. Should the CRS not want to act under Clause Nine then the CRS must write their Security Threat Declarations to clearly and distinctly separate security charges from criminal charges. Any attempts by the CRS to conflate Security and Criminal charges together through the use of ambiguous language would have harmful consequences on due process, and also undermine the credibility of the CRS. Therefore, the legal ramifications of failing to act when mandated to do so should result in the nullification of the security threat declaration, unless new evidence surfaces or a formal criminal charge is levied against the defendant.

(This post was last modified: 06-08-2017, 04:52 PM by Imperial Frost Federation.)

**Belschaft** · 06-05-2017, 04:07 PM

Your honour, I must respectfully disagree. If a legal question is not the place to determine if a violation of the law has taken place, where is? Petitioner is of the belief that a Legal Question, asked in regards to the specifics of an extant matter, is the only way to establish if a violation of law has taken place in regards to said extant matter.

Further, petitioner believes that it is necessary for the Court to first establish that the CRS may be in breach of Article 1.9 in general, voiding a relevant security threat declaration, before the Court could address a specific case of such. Petitioner could not seek for the Court to overturn a specific security threat declaration on grounds of illegality, without first securing a ruling that under certain circumstances a security threat declaration can be illegal.

If your honour believes that there is a better way to address this matter, petitioner would be happy to make use of such, but believes that the above interpretation is correct.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 06-07-2017, 10:07 AM

Your Honor,

While I've generally made it practice not to follow this appeal until now, I must strongly object to the petitioner's reasoning here.

Primarily, the update to the SPA was passed after the earlier use of the SPA by the CRS in ensure just this outcome. The CRS decree as written was not intended to accuse someone as a crime; this has been stated publicly and should be reaffirmed by the released CRS threads.

Further, seeing that this CRS decree was written before the update to the SPA, it is illogical to thing the decree would conform to a law yet to be written. In fact, it might be reasonable to suspect the law as written was constructed to conflict with the CRS earlier decree.

The CRS is not and will not be a prosecutorial body. It remains a security body and, as such, the decisions it makes are in response to security threats to the reason; not whether or not the body can successfully prosecute a crime.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 06-07-2017, 01:00 PM

Your honour,

With all due respect, CRS member Tusnamy's logic here seems strange. He is correct in that the SPA was amended to "conflict" with the earlier CRS decree; that was the entire point of amending the SPA, as the Assembly disproved of how the CRS has acted. He is also correct in that the the earlier CRS decree does conform to the amended law; that is why petitioner waited three weeks before filing suit, to give the CRS the chance to come into compliance with the law.

Whilst the CRS's decree was legal when issued, the SPA was amended because the Assembly felt that it should not have been. The CRS has every opportunity to argue against this change in the law, and made use of that opportunity. The CRS was not successful, and the law was changed, and the CRS must now follow the new law.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 06-07-2017, 05:18 PM

I would like to add that the current SPA is being discussed for possible repeal. Would that make this a moot point?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest