Your Honor,

with all due respect, I would like to request an approximate time window in which I can expect to receive a decision on my motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.

Thank you.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

Since the Indictment invites members of the public to provide testimony and relevant evidence, leave is not needed at this point to provide such.

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

I extend my apologies, your Honors. I appear to have been under the mistaken impression that the term "testimony" referred only to witness testimony and excluded legal arguments. I thank your Honor for this opportunity.

 Your Honors and may it please the Court,

the legal basis for a charge of corruption is defined by the Criminal Code, Article 1, Section 7 of which defines corruption as “the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage”¹. This case is a matter of neither etiquette, courtesy, respect, nor hypocrisy — it is a matter of whether how Article 1, Section 7 of the Criminal Code should be interpreted and whether, under that interpretation, the defendant misused their public office for personal benefit. I define, in this brief, the misuse of public office as the use of the powers of said public office for purposes outside of the legal mandate or authority of that office. I further assume, in this brief, that the word “for” in Article 1, Section 7 suggests that intentionality is a necessary factor in corruption. In other words, an individual must intentionally misuse their public office for the purposes of personal gain.

In this brief, I seek to argue that the actions taken by the defendant constitute misuse of public office but not corruption, as the aforementioned actions violate the legal authority of the Local Council but were not taken with the intention of personal benefit. Please note that applicable evidence will be referred to by the exhibit letters provided by Beepee for the sake of continuity and for the convenience of the Court.

There are two relevant posts on the regional message board which both the complainant and the complainant’s counsel have used as evidence. These two posts were both suppressed by Concrete Slab. The first suppressed post consisted of the complainant’s objections to statements made by the defendant regarding the authority of the Local Council². There is no legal basis for a Local Councillor such as the defendant to suppress this post since Exhibit B, Legislation of the Local Council, only allows for the suppression of consecutive posts by the same user or for posts engaging in roleplay. In this instance, I contend that the defendant's actions constitute a misuse of public office, as they used their authority as a Local Councillor to suppress the complainant’s post without a legal basis.

It is noteworthy, however, that the second post that the complainant and the complainant’s counsel have referenced continued to engage in roleplay along the previous storyline while also arguing that the defendant had no legal basis for suppressing the previously mentioned post³. Given the fact the post continued the roleplaying behavior, the defendant had the authority, under LCL #2 of Exhibit B, had the authority to suppress the second post which the complainant and the complainant’s counsel has referenced. This piece of evidence is therefore irrelevant to misuse of public office.

As such, the defendant misused their public office when suppressing one — not two, as the complainant and the complainant’s counsel contend, but one — post on the regional message board. Nevertheless, a misuse of public office cannot be equated to corruption. In this instance, I believe there is clear evidence that the defendant suppressed the post for the purposes of moderation rather than personal gain, as the complainant acted in a manner that suggested their posts were not serious and credible. The evidence does not support the claim that the defendant suppressed the post because the complainant disagreed with the defendant.

The complainant argued in Exhibit T that Exhibit A, a dispatch published by Midand entitled RMB Etiquette and Rules, states, “RP is currently allowed in the TSP RMB.” Indeed, this is an argument that has been reiterated by the complainant’s counsel⁴. However, this argument excludes the fact that the complete sentence from the dispatch reads, “Current Stance: RP is currently allowed in the TSP RMB but nations are advised to move it to the Wheres.” By selectively quoting Exhibit A, the complainant demonstrated that either they had not read the dispatch carefully or that they deliberately misrepresented the text, and, given this fact, I believe that it is highly probable that the defendant suppressed the complainant’s posts under the impression that the posts did not represent a serious or credible argument rather than for the purposes of suppressing disagreement. This judgment would likely only be aggravated when, after the defendant asked the complainant what the etiquette dispatch recommended, the complainant answered, “Tell me, what does it say?” despite citing that dispatch earlier⁵ — therefore continuing to selectively quote the dispatch. Given this fact, I believe it is highly probable that the defendant suppressed the complainant’s post for the purposes of moderating the regional message board.

Thank you, your Honors, for your attention.

References

1. The Criminal Code can be found here, in the MATT-DUCK Law Archive.
   
2. The post can be found here.
   
3. The post can be found here.
   
4. The post (from this thread) can be found here.
   
5. The post can be found here.
   

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

That's... long.

In this instance, I believe there is clear evidence that the defendant suppressed the post for the purposes of moderation rather than personal gain, as the complainant acted in a manner that suggested their posts were not serious and credible. The evidence does not support the claim that the defendant suppressed the post because the complainant disagreed with the defendant.

The post (I believe you mean this one) wasn't suppressed for the purpose of moderation, as there was nothing illegal about it. That being for the purpose of moderation would basically be the equivalent of being arrested for murder when all you did was lightly slap somebody. I was not acting in a manner that my posts weren't serious. I tend to be quite serious about RMB related topics due to the fact that a lot of my time is spent on the RMB. Also, that's blatantly obvious why: because I'm disagreeing with them. Why else do you think he would've suppressed it? Because it's an argument? Well, probably not, but if it was because of that then they would also have to suppress / delete their own posts, and if they suppressed mine but did nothing to theirs then it would still be my point that they're suppressing what they disagree with. More evidence to support that it's because of disagreement is this post, where Slab describes themselves as a dictator, or actually "playing dictator". Obviously, a dictatorship is very different from democracy, in the way that disagreeing with the dictator (or expressing it) wouldn't be tolerated. Basically, they're admitting to it.

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

Reply

What happened when Auphelia called herself corrupt here?! She was still proclaimed innocent because it was obviously not serious. This is the exact same thing.

Reply

What happened when Auphelia called herself corrupt here?! She was still proclaimed innocent because it was obviously not serious. This is the exact same thing.

That's completely irrelevant. That's about a completely different case.

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

Reply

This is the second time this claim has been made. Please take into account the following:

• This Court does not rule on the innocence of individuals. When issuing a verdict, the Court rules the accused either 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. A verdict of 'not guilty' does not in any way constitute a declaration of innocence.
  
• Auphelia has not been found by this Court to be either guilty or not guilty or any crime. Charges have been brought against them on more than one occasion, but the Court refused to indict them. That means that no criminal process took place, and thus the Court did not issue a verdict. That does not mean that Auphelia was declared innocent or, to use the proper term, 'not guilty'.
  

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

Understood. I apologize, your honor.

Reply

Your Honors,

I will not use the court's time to debate the merits of the claims I made in my brief. I trust your Honors to use your own judicial judgment on that matter.

I would, however, like to issue some statements on the merits of the complainant's post arguing against my brief, as it introduced several new arguments.

Firstly, the complainant has argued that illegal suppression of posts on the regional message board compels the conclusion that the posts were not suppressed for the purposes of moderation. In my brief, however, I have already argued that posts can be suppressed illegally while still maintaining the intent of moderation.

Secondly, the complainant has argued that a statement describing oneself as a "dictator" compels two conclusions: that the author is intentionally suppressing any disagreement, and that doing so satisfies the definition of corruption. Both, I believe, are ambiguous.

In essence, my claim is this: the defendant has illegally suppressed posts on the regional message, but these actions were for the purposes of moderation and not for personal gain. In response to the complainant's argument, I also argue that even suppressions for the purposes of preventing dissent has at most a vague connection to personal gain until more convincing evidence is introduced.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

(This post was last modified: 11-28-2018, 06:44 PM by Pronoun. Edit Reason: Added URL to referenced post by the complainant. )

Reply

Your Honors,

I will not use the court's time to debate the merits of the claims I made in my brief. I trust your Honors to use your own judicial judgment on that matter.

I would, however, like to issue some statements on the merits of the complainant's post arguing against my brief, as it introduced several new arguments.

Firstly, the complainant has argued that illegal suppression of posts on the regional message board compels the conclusion that the posts were not suppressed for the purposes of moderation. In my brief, however, I have already argued that posts can be suppressed illegally while still maintaining the intent of moderation.

Secondly, the complainant has argued that a statement describing oneself as a "dictator" compels two conclusions: that the author is intentionally suppressing any disagreement, and that doing so satisfies the definition of corruption. Both, I believe, are ambiguous.

In essence, my claim is this: the defendant has illegally suppressed posts on the regional message, but these actions were for the purposes of moderation and not for personal gain. In response to the complainant's argument, I also argue that even suppressions for the purposes of preventing dissent has at most a vague connection to personal gain until more convincing evidence is introduced.

Your Honor,
These claims by Pronoun are incorrect, as proven by the accused himself. The accused said in his first post that he didn't intend to suppress the posts for moderation purposes, rather to get under the Complaint's skin. Therefore, these claims are proven incorrect.
I apologize for not using the proper formatting. I am on a mobile device.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply