Users browsing this thread:

***Kris Kringle*** · 07-26-2018, 11:48 AM

Determination of Justiciability

Whereas Ever Wandering Souls has appealed his proscription from the region, done on 24 July 2018, through the following request:

I believe the proscription in its current state contains 4 claims which, besides being flawed in the nature of what they are claiming, cannot be construed as “acts of hostility” under the Proscription Act even at face value. It also contains a fifth claim which does appear to meet the criteria for an “act of hostility” under the Proscription Act at face value, but which fails to provide “a report detailing the hostile acts,” as mandated by 3.2, which additionally renders me unable to properly challenge its accuracy. As such, I believe the proscription should be struck down.

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article IV, Section 1 of the Proscription Act to review the validity of determinations of hostility and overturn those found in contravention of the Proscription Act.

It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:

It is deemed justiciable.
It shall be assigned the case number HCRR1803 and be referred to in full as Review of the Proscription of Ever Wandering Souls.
The Court requests that the Cabinet provide testimony to account for its actions on 24 July 2018, and invites the Cabinet to refute any claims made by Ever Wandering Souls, no later than 02 August 2018.
The Court reserves the right to consult with, and request private testimonies from, other government institutions and individuals, for the purposes of research and clarification of context.
The Court will consider this review request as a legal question for the purposes of the Charter and the Judicial Act, and retains the sole right to issue an opinion on the same.

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

Annex A

A screenshot of the original review request by Ever Wandering Souls is provided below:

Annex B

A plain text version of the original review request by Ever Wandering Souls is provided below:

Code:
Morning, Kris. As requested, I’ll attempt to be as thorough and full of citations as possible. Apologies for lack of formatting beyond line breaks, and feel free to add boxes etc as you feel will help make this more presentable. Also apologize for any typos. Will be happy to clarify anywhere they confuse my phrasing. I've also sent you a discord friend request, and would be happy to provide this in (similarly unformulated) word document form. 

I’ll begin by entering the Proscription act, under which I am being charged, as an exhibit. The Proscription act can be found at http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6204.html . This act has been invoked to proscribe me, as an individual, as noted here: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6362.html . 

It is my understanding that the latter thread, consisting of the formal proscription of myself, and noting in its introduction…

 “The criteria mentioned below relate to Article 1 of the Proscription Act, which lay out the Acts of Hostility that establish eligibility for proscription,” 

…is serving in this case as a fulfillment of section 3.2 of the Proscription Act, which requires…

“A proscription must be issued publicly, and be accompanied with a report detailing the hostile acts.”

The standing for this case comes from section 4.1 of the Proscription Act, which states 

“Individuals subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.”

As an individual now subject to proscription, I am indeed challenging the issuing authority’s determination of hostility. 

“Acts of Hostility” are clearly defined in section 1 of the Proscriptions Act. 1.1 through 1.5 detail specific descriptions of what qualifies as “hostility” in this context. 3.1 gives two bodies the ability to proscribe individuals or regions whom are determined to be hostile as per the definitions in 1.1-1.5. Thus, the proscription rests on the validity of the supposed “acts of hostility,” a validity that 4.1 allows me to challenge. Repeating myself a bit, but want to be clear on that. Ultimately, I will be arguing that I do not fit the items in section 1, and thus am not eligible for proscription. 

For the purposes of these arguments, I will generally be drawing any other definitions of terms first and foremost from the TSP Criminal Code, as found at http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4114.html . These include, but are not limited to:

1(3) Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates in official South Pacific discussion areas, excluding private messages, without the express written permission of the relevant officials or institutions shall be considered Espionage.

1(4) Blackmail shall be defined as demanding private gains from a player in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information.

1(10) Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules.

I will also refer to line items in report of my proscription by letters A through E, as labelled below:

Ever-Wandering Souls of The Black Hawks (criteria 1, 3, 4)

A) Outright considers TSP an enemy force as-is

B) Attempted to manipulate the SPSF in 2016 by using unrelated incidents to coerce Imki into firing SPSF soldiers deemed detrimental to TBH using SPSF for its operations, to the detriment of the well-being of SPSF

C) Is the singular reason why TWP proscribed his entire region, relating to ill-suited conduct during a joint raid.

D) Is the singular reason why TEP (an ally) proscribed his entire region, relating to blackmailing the EPSA military commander

E) Sensitive intelligence suggests he has conspired, or is conspiring to, overthrow the Coalition and "cleanse" it.

You can note that the proscription specifies I am generally being accused of hostile acts 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 in the Proscription Act, so I will not bother to address any of the claims in terms of their relevance to 1.2 or 1.5.

I will address each line item individually, and may make several different cases for why it is not a valid item. I apologize for lack of conciseness originating from having to discuss each line item in the context of three different criteria – it is my only option, given that specific line items are not cited with specific criteria. 

Item A

“Outright considers TSP an enemy force as-is”

Off the bat, this statement would better read “Outright considers The SPSF an enemy force as-is.“ While I personally consider several high-ranking members of TSP enemies, I do not consider the region, or even it’s military, a personal enemy. On behalf of the region The Black Hawks, I can soundly confirm that I have stated that TBH considers the military of TSP an enemy force. Attempts at proscription of such, even if they should be valid, would thus be better aimed at the region, and not at myself. 

That noted, I believe that Item A does not meet the standard for an act of hostility. The lines of the Proscription Act cited in my report are 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. Item 1.1 requires me to have been “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.” Item 1.3 requires to have “engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners.” Item 1.4 requires me to have “attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.” Considering the region an opposing force on the normal field of raiding and defending gameplay does not meet any of these criteria. 

Item B

“Attempted to manipulate the SPSF in 2016 by using unrelated incidents to coerce Imki into firing SPSF soldiers deemed detrimental to TBH using SPSF for its operations, to the detriment of the well-being of SPSF”

Based on the content of this item, I will be presuming it is meant to apply to criteria 1.4, “has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.”

This claim is flawed in two steps. 

Firstly, it is disingenuous in its characterization of events. The long and short of the situation is that the SPSF was at the time exploring the possibility of cooperating with The Black Hawks. At some point in the exploration, I spoke with Imki on behalf of The Black Hawks, raising concerns about things including Roavin’s ability to separate sides of the R/D game. Our ultimate viewpoint was that, at the time, we were unsure if we were interested in working with the SPSF going forwards, given these concerns. To these concerns, Imki gave the following reply: https://i.imgur.com/DufdQX6.png . Said reply validates the general direction of the concerns raised, while defending Roavin’s intentions, and ends with an apology for the situation, and a fairly typical offer – as always, you’re welcome to choose to not work with us. Ultimately, TBH would choose to make that choice via its leadership body. It is wrong to characterize a fairly common concern that TBH, as a raider region, has when working with independent regions (that of how exactly they in reality operate on both sides) as an attempt to manipulate TSP. Given that our two regions had no notable standing history of close cooperation, it’s not like there was anything to be held over anyone’s head, or even the ability to threaten ending anything. What was there to be used as any force, even, with which to “manipulate” or “coerce?” There was the possibility of a future relationship, TBH made clear that it had some concerns, TSP replied to those concerns, and TBH chose not to enter into a relationship. To claims that such a course of events, such a raising of concerns, in any way would force TSP to oblige, is so ridiculous as to imply that it was practically a necessity for our regions to work together from TSP’s point of view; that the mere idea of us saying “no thanks, because x y and z” could potentially be powerful enough to drive change in your region, and that anyone who explains why they choose not to create a relationship with your region is guilty of trying to coerce the region into making changes that would render those reasons null. Which, frankly, is absurd. If TSP raised any concerns about TBH’s operations in return, would they be guilty as such? Is Euro guilty of such manipulation and coercion every time TBH follows their Rules of Engagement in order to invite them along on an operation? Such interactions are normal transactions in gameplay diplomacy. Manipulation and coercion cannot occur without a threat, and deciding not to pursue a brand new relationship without prior pedigree can hardly be construed as any serious threat. 

Further, I again believe that this line item does not meet the requirements for an act of hostility as per 1.4. Representing a region to another region in a discussion of a potential future of cooperation, including covering potential roadblocks to such a cooperation, and what it would take in the eyes of either potential ally to clear said roadblocks, are entirely “normal” elements of the “raiding and defending dynamic.” These are conversations engaged in regularly, sometimes so regularly that they become givens more so than conversations. Every time that Europeia participates in a TBH raid on condition that we follow their rules of engagement, or we join an ally’s operation on condition they meet criteria of ours like not inviting our enemies or not using scripts we have not approved, such a conversation has occurred in the past, often to the point of being a given assumption. TSP is welcome to consider conditions of cooperation offered by TBH to be unreasonable. As Imki said on your behalf – “if you don’t want to work with us…that is your choice.” This, organizations choosing whether or not to work together, and describing what the latter would take to happen, is a common, “normal” element of GP, and thus 1.4 should not apply.

Additional note: I happen to have had that reply from Imki handy already in screenshot form, but can provide more of the conversation if there are more specific and relevant claims concerning it to be made. 

Item C

“Is the singular reason why TWP proscribed his entire region, relating to ill-suited conduct during a joint raid.”

The proscription named can be viewed here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=391428&start=75#p33725125

While perhaps TSP has had claims presented to them not publicly stated, the proscription makes no such claims of me or my actions. 

The proscription named has been rescinded here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=34200047#p34200047

Without a specifically detailed statement from TWP explaining why they chose to revoke the proscription to be entered, I think it is generally fair to presume that if the proscription has been rescinded, any issues that may have been named (which again, did not include the claim made here by TSP in the first place) have been resolved. 

I’m probably reaching here, since this is likely not the intended definition in this case, but I have not broken any NS rules in quite some time, so I think my “conduct” in TSP legal terms has been acceptable. 

Even at face value, assuming I was in fact the sole reason for a proscription, and the reason for such was behaving poorly in a joint raid, no part of that claim could be considered an act of hostility – it does not claim any attempt to overthrown government of an ally or commit espionage against an ally, which are the only times allies are mentioned in 1.1, 1.3, or 1.4, as cited. 

Finally, though I’d rather not go down this rabbit hole at all given the above, I’d be more than happy to dispute the nature of the event I believe is being mentioned. That noted, I don’t plan on digging up those particular old logs unless it can first be demonstrated that doing so would be relevant to an act of hostility as described by the Proscription Act. To be asked to do so without first demonstrating the relevancy would be a senseless act. 

Item D

“Is the singular reason why TEP (an ally) proscribed his entire region, relating to blackmailing the EPSA military commander”

The proscription named can be viewed here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=439108#p33725127

While perhaps TSP has had claims presented to them not publicly stated, the proscription makes no such claims of me or my actions. 

The proscription named has been rescinded here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=439108&start=75#p34200113

Without a specifically detailed statement from TEP explaining why they chose to revoke the proscription to be entered, I think it is generally fair to presume that if the proscription has been rescinded, any issues that may have been named (which again, did not include the claim made here by TSP in the first place) have been resolved. 

Even at face value, assuming I was in fact the sole reason for a proscription, and the reason for such was an act of egregious blackmail of TEP’s military leader, no part of that claim could be considered an act of hostility – it does not claim any attempt to overthrown government of an ally or commit espionage against an ally, which are the only times allies are mentioned in 1.1, 1.3, or 1.4, as cited. 

Roavin has clarified in gameplay that this line was directed at a testy diplomatic interaction between TEP (represented by GreyGhost) and TBH that I have described a few times publicly prior (as well as my regret over aspects of my representation of the Council of Hawks in said interaction). While an interaction did occur, and I could detail it further, I don’t plan on digging up those particular old logs unless it can first be demonstrated that doing so would be relevant to an act of hostility as described by the Proscription Act. To be asked to do so without first demonstrating the relevancy would be a senseless act. 

Finally, as to the nature of said interaction in general, given the definition of blackmail in 1(4) of the TSP Criminal Code, I believe GreyGhost would be glad to confirm that I have not “demanded private gains from her in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information.” I somehow doubt we’d still be close friends if I had done such a thing. 

Item E

“Sensitive intelligence suggests he has conspired, or is conspiring to, overthrow the Coalition and "cleanse" it.”

Well, at least I can say that this line is, in fact, somewhat more relevant to the Proscription Act than the rest of the items, specifically I presume to 1.1. I will, however, soundly dispute that I have been “actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise,” with the intent “to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific.” 

I have, in fact, probably said at some point that I’d find pleasure in most of TSP current government members being gone from the region. I’ve probably even idly said at some point that I’d be down for theoretically doing the purging myself, and rebuilding from the ashes. It’s a fair assessment to state that I do not consider several of those who have held office in TSP to be people I particularly like. All of this noted, expressing such thoughts are not an act of hostility as described by 1.1 – being actively involved or complicit in an attempt to commit the *action* of overthrowing the government is. These are, after all, ACTS of hostility. Idle chatter about imaginary futures does not a plan for action make. 

I can’t much further dispute this item without more specific claims being made. I see from both the original proscription text and Roavin’s claims in Gameplay that the relevant evidence is being hidden behind the claim of “sensitive intelligence,” of which the sharing of could compromise the source. Unfortunately, no part of the Proscription Act provides such overzealous protection for the source in question. Rather, 3.2 demands that the proscription must be issued with “a report detailing the hostile acts.” I would like to insist that 3.2 be enforced, and that the claim made in item E be supported with a detailed description of exactly what attempts I am supposedly complicit in, when they occurred, and so forth. I believe the burden of proof here lies on those issuing the proscription to prove the positive – that I have committed these acts - rather than on myself to prove the negative, that I have never done so. I cannot further not dispute the existence of any such acts, their nature, or whether I think they can fairly fir the criteria for an act of hostility, without specific accusations and evidence being detailed in order for me to address. 

In conclusion, I believe the proscription in its current state contains 4 claims which, besides being flawed in the nature of what they are claiming, cannot be construed as “acts of hostility” under the Proscription Act even at face value. It also contains a fifth claim which does appear to meet the criteria for an “act of hostility” under the Proscription Act at face value, but which fails to provide “a report detailing the hostile acts,” as mandated by 3.2, which additionally renders me unable to properly challenge its accuracy. As such, I believe the proscription should be struck down. 

I am more than happy to answer further questions about this case, provide further relevant information as requested, and answer any counter-claims made in the course of this case.

Ever-Wandering Souls.

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

Mall · 07-28-2018, 07:13 PM

Greetings to the Court of the South Pacific.

I will be representing the interests of Souls in this proceeding. I respectfully request that the Court direct all questions, statements, rulings, or other matters associated with this proceeding directly to me. As such, I request further that the Court instruct the administration team to grant whichever permissions the Court deems reasonable for me to have to ensure a fair and just review of this case.

On a procedural point: does the Court plan on resolving the case once testimony has been received pursuant to the current timeline? I would, in the interests of fundamental fairness, hope that there would be an opportunity for my client (through me) to at the very least respond to such testimony and ideally engage in an examination of the testifying individuals under the guidance of this Court.

I thank the Court for its time.

[Image: 5yCbAZM.png]
Former Major and Head of Military of The Black Hawks
Former Colonel of DEN Central Command
Former Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Patriarch of House Isaraider
Charter Nations of Antarctic Oasis

***Kris Kringle*** · 07-29-2018, 06:47 PM

The Court recognises Mall as the counsel for Ever Wandering Souls, and further answers the following requests:

Unless a case is made for the contrary, the level of access given to Registered users is deemed sufficient for proper participation in this proceeding.
In accordance with prior practices, the Court will conduct further questioning based on the testimonies presented by both parties to this proceeding, and will allow each party to respond to the other's testimony.

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

Mall · 07-29-2018, 08:55 PM

I thank the Court for its answers and I look forward to the Cabinet providing an honest and open accounting of its actions.

[Image: 5yCbAZM.png]
Former Major and Head of Military of The Black Hawks
Former Colonel of DEN Central Command
Former Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Patriarch of House Isaraider
Charter Nations of Antarctic Oasis

***Roavin*** · 07-31-2018, 09:36 AM

Your Honor,

After consultation with the Cabinet, it has been decided that I will be representing the Cabinet's interests in this case. I will present initial testimony and refutations by the deadline given by the Court, though it may come to pass that not all clearances for currently confidential information is given by that time. I kindly ask the Court for leniency if that occurs.

***Roavin*** · 08-02-2018, 09:03 PM

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.

Mall · 08-03-2018, 10:19 AM

At this time the petitioner has a few questions for the Court before delving into the substance of the Cabinet's reply, I respectfully submit these questions to the Court with the hope that the Court can provide guidance to expedite this proceeding.

How is a conversation between Ever Wandering Souls and Imki confidential and thus not subject to open disclosure to this court if the conversation is between Imki and the person who the Cabinet is refusing to disclose it to?
What is the legal effect of the Cabinet admitting in its above answer that it accused Ever Wandering Souls of not only a crime in this region (blackmail), but also of a frankly disgusting OOC action only to admit that it was lying? I cannot stress enough how important this question is for the Court, the Cabinet (which prides itself in its answer on its knowledge of the laws of this region) presumably knows what blackmail is, and presumably knew when it proscribed my client what it was accusing my client of. As such, I humbly recommend that this Court answer my above question by taking Judicial Notice of either the fact that the Cabinet acted maliciously towards my client, or in the alternative, that the Cabinet is ignorant of publicized laws of the region.
Will this Court give my client any meaningful chance to respond to the accusations laid out by the Cabinet in Item E? At this time the Cabinet has accused my Client of apparently doing something, but will tell no one what that something is. While fully understanding that regional security is of importance, we have already established that the Cabinet either does not even know what blackmail (a defined term in the legal code) means, or that the Cabinet is malicious towards my client. The Cabinet states that this intelligence "suggests" the existence of acts. If there is to be a fair review of this Cabinet action then I must at least be told in some way what my client is accused of doing.

I thank the Court for its time, and I sincerely apologize to the Court for the display put on by the Cabinet above. It is not the intention of this party to turn this proceeding into a "shit show" and the Cabinet's not-so-subtle attempt to suggest otherwise while sarcastically claiming the opposite was nothing more than an attempt to drag this proceeding into the muck to distract from the key issues.

Once the Court has had a chance to read over the answer by the Cabinet and had a chance to either respond to or explain a dismissal of my questions I will commence the main response on behalf of my client.

[Image: 5yCbAZM.png]
Former Major and Head of Military of The Black Hawks
Former Colonel of DEN Central Command
Former Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Patriarch of House Isaraider
Charter Nations of Antarctic Oasis

***Kris Kringle*** · 08-04-2018, 07:47 PM

The Court thanks both counsels for their contributions. Having considered the arguments put forward by both, it would to like to make the following comments:

To Mall:

You are requested to produce as evidence the full contents of the conversation between your client and Imkitopia, as referenced in both parties' testimonies.
The counsel for the Cabinet contends that the conversation between your client and Imkitopia was in response for actions by Roavin, unrelated to any attempt to form a bilateral relationship. Does your client stand by his assertion on the nature of this conversation?
The Court similarly recognises your concerns on the matter of the term used for Item D of your client's proscription, and will rule accordingly in a subsequent comment.
The Court recognises your right to cross-examine evidence against your client, but also recognises that the Judicial Act requires a certain level of confidentiality for evidence of a classified nature. Therefore, it will make a determination on its possible availability to you once it has had a chance to review the evidence.

To Roavin:

If Ever Wandering Souls is being proscribed, the assumption is that he is being hostile. In fact, Items B through E set out to support the determination of hostility. Was there then a purpose to Item A, which you claim merely establishes that there was hostility in the first place?
You are requested to produce as evidence the full contents of the conversation between Ever Wandering Souls and Imkitopia, as referenced in both parties' testimonies.
Does the Cabinet consider the West Pacific to be a partner?
You are requested to clarify, for the record of this case, the exact reasons why the West Pacific and the East Pacific blacklisted The Black Hawks, with reference to the role that Ever Wandering Souls had in these blacklistings.
There is a very clear difference between "blackmail" and "bullying". Does the Cabinet intend to amend the reasoning for its proscriptions after the fact, as was just attempted with the phrasing of Item D?
You are requested to provide, through private means, the unredacted contents of the evidence that supports Item E, for their consideration by the Court.

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: 08-04-2018, 07:48 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Mall · 08-04-2018, 09:02 PM

(08-04-2018, 07:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
The Court thanks both counsels for their contributions. Having considered the arguments put forward by both, it would to like to make the following comments:

To Mall:
You are requested to produce as evidence the full contents of the conversation between your client and Imkitopia, as referenced in both parties' testimonies.

The counsel for the Cabinet contends that the conversation between your client and Imkitopia was in response for actions by Roavin, unrelated to any attempt to form a bilateral relationship. Does your client stand by his assertion on the nature of this conversation?

The Court similarly recognises your concerns on the matter of the term used for Item D of your client's proscription, and will rule accordingly in a subsequent comment.

The Court recognises your right to cross-examine evidence against your client, but also recognises that the Judicial Act requires a certain level of confidentiality for evidence of a classified nature. Therefore, it will make a determination on its possible availability to you once it has had a chance to review the evidence.

I thank the Court for its prompt response, I will endeavor to compile sufficient answers to these inquiries in a timely manner. If the Court has any further questions that it develops as things proceed I would be happy to answer those as well.

[Image: 5yCbAZM.png]
Former Major and Head of Military of The Black Hawks
Former Colonel of DEN Central Command
Former Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Patriarch of House Isaraider
Charter Nations of Antarctic Oasis

***Roavin*** · 08-06-2018, 03:35 AM

Your Honor,

the requested evidence and responses will follow soon. For purposes of providing confidential evidence, am I correct in assuming that Associate Justice Belschaft will serve as the approving justice in this case and should therefore also receive the evidence?