As a citizen of this region, I hereby exercise my right to request further actions be taken in the matter of the last Local Council elections.

For the sake of context, and for possibly uninformed fellow citizens to be caught up regarding the issue being brought before this court, the full text related to the announcement of the current resolution regarding this incident is included:

Announcement posted on the regional Discord server, on the Announcements channel:

"Yesterday [Panda Minister] received a report that Techolandia had been sending telegrams to Auphelia voters over the last couple of rounds, in an attempt to change their votes. There is no problem with this tactic, however the Telegram contained quotes which were taken out of context and edited to misrepresent Auphelia's views - which may be defamation. TSP does not have any laws against defamation, either in the LC laws or in the forumside laws. However, defamation is against the NationStates rules.

This brings us onto TSP's Criminal Code:

-- Section 1.10 states "Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules."
-- Section 2.2 states "Conduct violations are punishable by immediate ejection and banishment from the region, albeit punished parties may appeal this decision to the court. In most cases, nations that appeal the decision and apologize should expect to have their ban lifted."

While the forumside LC laws do not apply to LC elections, and the LC laws do not contain guidance for Election Commissioners, if a Conduct Violation was found to have occurred, [the Election Commissioner] would have re-run the last two rounds (which were affected by the aforementioned Conduct Violation).

Since Techolandia's Telegram had been reported to the NS moderators, [Panda Minister] was waiting upon their response to determine [their] next move. The response from the mods was as follows: "I'm seeing selective and possibly out of context quote content in the attached telegram, but the quotes haven't changed what Auphelia posted. Is it political and underhanded? Certainly. Does it break the Malicious Quote Editing rule? Not really."

Due to this ruling, the Telegram did not break any TSP laws. A discussion was had with the Cabinet, and after considering the actions, evidence, and our laws, [the Elections Commissioner] made the decision to allow this result to stand."

Holding the strong belief that the actions carried out by Techolandia not only are extremely repudiable from the standpoint of ethics, but might have also had an effect that cannot be measured and extracted from the votes cast, and can also be qualified as an attack on our democracy through the spread of misleading information; I feel the need to present a formal appellation before this government body, so that the facts pertaining this incident can be reassessed and, hopefully, a different, more consequential decision, can be made on it.

In case any further elaboration, opinion, or guidance is required from me regarding the contents of this open letter, I will be perfectly willing to provide them as long as they are within my reach.

With nothing else to add for the time being, I cordially end this letter, looking forward to a response from whom it may concern.

Reply

Apparently, the purpose of this request hasn't been made clear.

I'm not a part of the government right now, so I don't think it is my place to directly tell the government what to do directly. I can, however, make my point a little bit more explicit:

The current elections are not valid, in my view, and in some of my fellow citizens' view as well, apparently, so I want the court to evaluate the situation, and decide if there needs to be any further action taken or if upholding the results as they are is the right thing to do.

My thoughts are that it's not, at all, and that a re-run of the affected rounds by this should be carried out. Then again, I'm not a part of the government, so that's not my choice to make.

I hope this clears it out.

Nahuel Martínez
Permanent Advisor to the Government of the Starfire Islands

Reply

Determination of Justiciability

Whereas Nahuelm has appealed the certification of the Election for the Local Council, done on 18 November 2018, through the following request:

I feel the need to present a formal appellation before this government body, so that the facts pertaining this incident can be reassessed and, hopefully, a different, more consequential decision, can be made on it.

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article VIII of the Charter to review the legality of regulations and clarify provisions of law.

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

1. It is deemed justiciable.
   
2. It shall be assigned the case number HCRR1804 and be referred to in full as Review of the Certification of the November 2018 Local Council Election.
   
3. The Court requests that Nahuelm provide in clear terms an explanation of the legal basis that would justify a challenge to the validity of the certification, no later than 27 November 2018.
   
4. The Court requests that the Election Commission provide testimony to account for its actions on 18 November 2018, no later than 27 November 2018.
   
5. 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.
   
6. 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.
   
7. The Court recognises the right of all parties appearing before it to rely on the advice of, and be represented by, legal counsel, and will afford such individuals all the necessary accesses and privileges.
   

It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice

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: 11-23-2018, 08:46 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Your honour,

My testimony is effectively provided in nahuelm's original statement, however, I will provide a summary of points here.

- The LC laws do not give guidance on how an EC should act in this situation, and the Elections Act does not refer to the Local Council.

- When it came to judging how to respond to the complaints and evidence I had received, I used our Criminal Code. It's clear that the actions of Techolandia^[1][2] did not violate terms 1-9 of section one of the code. However, it was possible that they would be considered by the NS mods to be defamation, which is against NS rules, and therefore against ours by section 1.10 of the Criminal Code.

- A report was sent to the NS mods by Belschaft, who received a response from the mods stating that they did not consider Techolandia's telegram to break any NS rules^[3]. As such, Techolandia did nothing to break TSP law, either forumside or gameside.

- Since no laws were broken, I deemed allowing the election result to stand to be the only action I could take.

[1] -

Spoiler

[2] -

Spoiler

[3] -

Spoiler

Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.

Reply

Question for Pencil Sharpeners:

• In the event that you concluded that Techolandia had indeed broken the law, would that in any way have affected the certification of the election result?
  

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

Reply

Question for Pencil Sharpeners:

• In the event that you concluded that Techolandia had indeed broken the law, would that in any way have affected the certification of the election result?
  

 

Your honour,

Given the lack of legal guidance on how an EC should act in this situation, I would have used my professional judgment. If the election was influenced by illegal activity, I don't believe I could have allowed the result to stand. I would have decided to re-run the affected polls (rounds 2 and 3), and sent a mass Telegram to the region explaining the situation.

Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.

Reply

Your honor

I would like to present my thoughts on the case before you: 

My thinking on the case has lead me to believe that the right course of action would be to reopen the second and third rounds of voting as these were the rounds of voting that were affected by the actions taken by Techolandia. The grounds on which I would seek the reopening of the voting rounds is in three components: 

1. His actions violated the slander laws previously in effect in the jurisdiction of the Local council.

2. His actions violated the slander laws being drafted currently in the assembly due to his actions and the events his actions caused.

3. His actions violated the trust and social contract of the coalition and the Regional Message Board, that is the unspoken contract that is signed by participation in the RMB and any Roleplay activities. 

I would also like to acknowledge and condemn the statements made by Auphelia that were misrepresented by Techolandia in his campaign related messaging, and ask that some form of reprimand be issued in response to that users use of violent speech in Roleplay activity. 

I would also ask the users Techolandia and Auphelia to be open to some form of arbitration or open discussion on how to bring an end to the feud they have participated in that has harmed the region in this manner. 

In conclusion I ask that:

1. The second and third rounds of Local Council elections be reopened due to the three reasons I listed above. 
AND
2. That some form of reprimand be sought for the excessive use of offensive language relating to violence used by the user Auphelia in her roleplay activities.

Reply

What legal basis do you have to suggest that this Court nullify the result of an election?

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: 11-25-2018, 07:32 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

What legal basis do you have to suggest that this Court nullify the result of an election?

I would like to point to the three points I laid out in my brief as the basis. 

I would also like to point out that the charter of the coalition allows the court "to declare any general law or regulation, Cabinet directive, Chair determination, and Local Council law or regulation, in whole or in part, void upon determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law." and claim that Techolandia's actions denied Auphelia her freedom of speech and her freedom of expression (that taking to mean that her candidacy was a form of speech and expression, and his actions that harmed it limited her candidacy's success) Beyond this contention I would reckon that the part of the charter quoted above as well as the section of the charter that states that "The High Court may reconcile contradictions within the Charter, constitutional laws, general laws, Cabinet directives, and Local Council laws and regulations, maintaining the least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory parts." would allow the court the ability to overturn an election result. 

I will admit that a large issue here is that we dont have laws codified to protect against this sort of action, and that therefor any argument related to punishing or fixing these actions will be somewhat contrived or forced. I believe that this shortfall is our own fault, and that we shouldn't let a crime go unaddressed just because we failed to prepare for it. This is a gut feeling: it is obvious that the actions are wrong, and that fact makes them feel like crimes. I dont think that my 3rd point I made in my brief should be so easily overlooked, it is pretty obvious that his actions violated the unspoken contract that all RMB users sign with their participation.

Reply

If an action is, as you say, not codified as a crime, what justification is there for any punishment?

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

Reply