Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 12-21-2017, 01:19 PM

Your honour,

A foundational principle of justice is that the accused is always innocent until proven guilty. It is never the case that the defendant must be proven innocent; it is always the case that they must be proven guilty, and then beyond reasonable doubt.

In this matter the defendant, Cormac, has been accused of Treason. It is our most serious crime - the only one to carry a mandatory and immediate sentence of banishment - and as such the burden of proof for this crime must be the highest, beyond what expected of other crimes. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to make a case that the defendant may have committed treason; it must be shown that the defendant has committed treason.

Treason is defined as "plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with." This is a list of four specific acts; it must be demonstrated by the prosecution that at least one of these has been committed by the treason. Of these it is immediately evident that the defendant has not committed three of these acts; indeed, the prosecution has not even attempted to demonstrate such. The only act that the prosecution accuses the defendant of is the first; plotting against the Coalition.

Another foundational principle of justice is the elements of a crime; those facts that must be proven for a safe conviction. These are, in brief; intention, action and concurrence. It must be shown that the defendant had the intention of committing a criminal act; it must be shown that the defendant committed a criminal act; it must be shown that the intent and the act existed at the same time.

Your honour, at no point has any evidence been submitted even suggesting that a criminal act occurred; whilst evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the defendant possessed the intent to plot against the Coalition, demonstrated by a series of threats and declarations made in a public forum, no evidence has been submitted that shows such plotting occurring. The sole prosecution witness was unable to provide any testimony to demonstrate such, and actively evaded answering such a question. Declarations of desire and intent in a public forum does not rise to the necessary level for a criminal act to have occurred. This failure to submit any evidence of an act makes conviction impossible; the very definition of treason requires the accused to be plotting against the Coalition, not merely to express a desire or intent to overthrow it at some indistinct moment in the future. The desire or intent to overthrow GCR governments is expressed in NSGP on a daily basis; were such to be considered sufficient in of itself to qualify as treason then we would be criminalising speech and thought, much of it ill considered and rarely acted upon.

That this trial has proceeded as far as it has is already an absurdity; in the absence of any evidence of a criminal act it should have been dismissed long ago, and that it wasn't reflects poorly on your honour and calls into question your objectivity and impartiality. There is little question that this case would never have been brought against an individual better liked than the defendant who had made the same comments, or that if brought would have been allowed to continue in the absence of any evidence of a criminal act.

This matter is simple. What specific act does the prosecution allege the defendant committed? When did it occur? What effect did it have? Who witnessed it? Where is the evidence of it? If these answers cannot be answered positively then there is no case to answer. It is never possible to prove a negative, to demonstrate somethings non-existence; that is why the burden lies with the party making an allegation, and never with the party contesting it. In the absence of a single piece of evidence of an act - indeed, in the absence of even an allegation of an act - this court has no choice but to find for the defense.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 12-22-2017, 04:19 AM

Has the Defence concluded the presentation of its argument?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 12-22-2017, 04:20 AM by Kris Kringle.)

**Belschaft** · 12-22-2017, 06:11 AM

Yes.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 12-22-2017, 08:47 PM

In that case, the Prosecution will have its opportunity to respond to the argument made by the Defence.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

~~Cormac~~ · 12-28-2017, 10:47 PM

(12-22-2017, 08:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: In that case, the Prosecution will have its opportunity to respond to the argument made by the Defence.

May I ask Your Honor how long this opportunity is going to last? We're coming up on four months since the charges against me were initially filed by the prosecution. To say that this has not been a speedy trial is an understatement. We're going to be ringing in a new year before these charges are resolved.

***Kris Kringle*** · 12-29-2017, 05:35 AM

In response to the Defendant, the Prosecution has four hours to issue a response. Following that, the Prosecution and the Defence will each have one week to make their closing arguments. The Court will issue a verdict following the conclusion of closing arguments.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

***Roavin*** · 12-29-2017, 07:58 AM

The Prosecutions response will be posted in the evening local time (it's 1pm here now).

***Roavin*** · 12-29-2017, 10:47 PM

Your honor,

the initial case of the prosecution was unfortunately not submitted in time - for this, the prosecution would like to apologize profusely, both to the court and to the defense. The initially prepared case will not be submitted here; rather for the interest of brevity, an abridged case will be presented, followed by a more direct response to the defense.

The defendant is a known frequent usurper of governments, having been materially involved in two such situations in Osiris alone. As such, it is not unusual behavior for the defendant to exhibit such tendencies in some fashion or another. On September 1, 2017, the defendant explicitly expressed intent to overthrow the Coalition of the South Pacific in a post on the NationStates gameplay post (see evidence E1):

Quote:Let me be very clear, Glen: It isn't Empire or Osiris that TSP has to fear. It's me. I mean to overthrow the Coalition of the South Pacific, and I absolutely won't stop until it is overthrown and you, along with your supporters and enablers, are purged from TSP. And unlike with Empire, you don't have a handy list of my associates to bar from your legislature. Consider this a declaration of war, not from Osiris but from me -- and that is much more dangerous than if Osiris were declaring war as a region. Soon TSP will wish it just had Empire to worry about. The Coalition will be gone by this time next year.

This clearly demonstrates an intent to usurp the Coalition of the South Pacific. The defendant also revealed that infiltration through proxies shall be used as a strategy in this overthrow, and indeed admitted quite freely that agents for this cause are already present in the region for this purpose, and indeed have already been active for the cause by leaking information from the Private Halls of the assembly:

Quote:You can impose whatever draconian measures you want to keep me out of TSP and they still won't stop me, because you can't keep everyone out, and you won't know who is working with me until it is far too late. Several of my associates are already in TSP. More will come.

Quote:The voting forum isn't public. The legislation may have been publicly discussed today, but that isn't how I heard about it days ago.

Quote:At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me whether you believe I have associates in TSP or not -- you will know I have them when I'm firmly in control of TSP and the Coalition is a heap of ashes in the dustbin of history.

Deeper analysis of the texts are not needed - they are a clear and unambiguous admission. As per Article 1, Section 1 of the Criminal Code, "plotting against the Coalition" is an act of treason. An admission to, and demonstration of, the placement of bad faith agents for the purpose of overthrowing the Coalition indubitably constitutes plotting against the Coalition.

As for the statement by the defense, it defense argues incorrectly that not all three elements of a crime are present.

An intent was clearly present, and even the defense admits that freely. The defense does attempt to downplay any malice aforethought by claiming that the desire to overthrow GCR governments (such as the Coalition is) were a daily occurance on NSGP. The given frequency is certainly questionable at face value, but even if that contrived statistic were to be accepted, that does not downplay that an intent, one of the three elements, has indeed occurred. As per the testimony of Tim (W1), a frequent collaborator of the defendant in previous times, the defendant is certainly not one to make such threats in jest.

An action was also present, and this is where the defense is wrong. The defendant has admitted to having agents for his cause "in TSP". This has also been not just freely admitted by the defendant but also shown by knowledge of the Border Control Act up for debate in the Private Halls of the Assembly. The defendant did not have access to that area of the forum, and yet had knowledge of it, transmitted by bad faith agents that have been planted or subverted.

By the leak from the Private Halls of the Assembly, it is clear that at least one agent must have been present that was then (and may still be) a legislator, a status which grants the privilege to elect people to, and themselves be elected to, the Cabinet, as well as the privilege to draft and propose, as well as vote for or against, any legislation within the Assembly. The danger of bad faith agents in such a position is immediately apparent, as it makes the Coalition susceptible to espionage and electioneering. Just this year, our ally, the Celestial Union of Lazarus, was overthrown earlier this year by ostensible electioneering, which shows just how dangerous electioneering is in an open democracy such as the Celestial Union or the Coalition.

The criminal action specifically is establishing the presence of such agents (or even one such agent);
That such an agent exists is clear, both by admission of the defendant and by knowledge of the border control legislation. Whether these have been explicitly placed, or have been subverted by the defendant for the cause, is irrelevant; what matters is that the presence of these bad faith agents has been established by the defendant for malicious action, and this has been demonstrated.

The concurrence of intent and action are clear. Both the intent and the admission of very recent criminal action occurred on the same day, and were in fact stated together in the same post by the defendant.

Your honor, not only has guilt been demonstrated, the acts constituting that guilt have been clearly admitted by the defendant himself. It is that easy.

***Kris Kringle*** · 12-30-2017, 08:14 AM

The Defence will now have an opportunity to deliver its closing arguments.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Awe · 01-25-2018, 08:50 AM

Pardon my intrusion upon this courtroom Your Honour, but does the Defence wish to make any closing arguments so as to further the progress of this trial?

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information