I never said this.

Reply

I never said this.

it's only my first week, and I suppressed his next two posts just to get back at him and under his skin.

Screenshot if you believe I quote-edited:

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

(This post was last modified: 11-29-2018, 04:53 PM by North Prarie.)

Reply

Your Honors, and may it please the Court,

the record does appear to support the complainant's counsel's contention that the inteniton behind suppressing the posts was to "get under [the complainant's] skin"¹. However, I believe this piece of evidence lacks credibility, and while it should not be disregarded, it should also not be treated as conclusive evidence as to the defendant's intentions. I argue this for two reasons.

Firstly, the context surrounding the posts strongly suggests that the motive for suppression was to moderate the regional message board. I refer the Court to my previous amicus curiae brief for the relevant evidence I used and my interpretations of said evidence if it seeks further information on this matter.

Second, the initial testimony of the defendant was likely influenced by instinctive reactions. I would like to remind the Court that the entire basis for this case is the suppression of just two posts on the regional message board, which were unsuppressed, according to the defendant's testimony, less than five minutes later. It would be natural for the defendant to be frustrated and as such their initial testimony is not as convincing as it might appear.

I would also like to refer the Court to my previous argument that only one post was suppressed illegally, found in the same amicus curiae brief.

Furthermore, I still do not see any connection between this line of argumentation and the charge of corruption. The Criminal Code states that corruption is defined as "the misuse of public office for private or personal advantage"² , and neither the complainant nor the complainant's counsel have explained how, even if the defendant acted in anger, how this constitutes personal advantage. One may reason that the illegal suppression of posts would provide an advantage over the complainant; however, the defendant already has the authority as a Local Councillor to suppress posts on the regional message board, and as illegally suppressing posts would not provide any additional advantage.

I thank the Court for its time.

References

1. http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6631-post-178387.html#pid178387
   
2. http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4114.html
   

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

(This post was last modified: 12-03-2018, 01:23 AM by Pronoun.)

Reply

To further prove my point, I have found more evidence in this post. In the linked post, Slab is threatening to suppress all the posts of somebody for no other reason then because the poster is doing what is kind of disagreeing. Whatever it actually is, it is still not a valid reason to suppress every post of a user. Clearly, Slab would not be able to do that if they weren't an LC, especially if you consider that the post was suppressed.

and neither the complainant nor the complainant's counsel have explained how, even if the defendant acted in anger, how this constitutes personal advantage

Sure about that?

I believe this is corruption because he is misusing his powers to try and prevent people from saying things that disagree with him.
EDIT: Yeah, I should probably explain my actual point a little better. Essentially, if people can't (legally) disagree with an RO, then that can make their opinion and their view the only one present on the RMB. This obviously shouldn't happen.

Additionally, I would also like to note that Slab has deleted this post which was used as evidence in the original post of the thread. I believe this is breaking the 5th crime mentioned in the Criminal Code:

(5) Contempt of Court shall be defined as a deliberate perversion of the justice system - conduct which prevents the judiciary from reaching a true and just result.
...
(3) If found guilty of any other crime listed above, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense.

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

(This post was last modified: 11-30-2018, 06:14 PM by New Haudenosaunee Confederacy.)

Reply

I apologize your honors, but I deleted these posts before I knew of the court case due to me being ashamed of my actions, and not wanting them to be a permanent blasphemy. He must have used them before I deleted them.

Reply

Your Honor,

I considered myself to have said all that I have to say, but I would like to testify that I do vaguely recall that the post I believe the complainant to be referencing had been self-deleted by the defendant before Tuesday, November 2017, 2018 — my browser does not record a specific time of day, but it may be of assistance to the Court that I use Pacific Standard Time (UTC–8; UTC–7 during daylight savings time, which it is not currently).

Please do take my testimony with more than a few grains, however. My memory is not as reliable as it would need to be for this evidence to mean anything without corroboration.

I do hope this will be of use to the Court, however.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

(This post was last modified: 11-30-2018, 09:39 PM by Pronoun.)

Reply

I apologize your honors, but I deleted these posts before I knew of the court case due to me being ashamed of my actions, and not wanting them to be a permanent blasphemy. He must have used them before I deleted them.

This is obviously false. First of all, you knew of this happening before I even originally posted, as seen by the fact that you liked and responded to this post, which shows that you acknowledge it, especially considering that your response implies that you read the part where I informed you of this happening. You even acknowledge this by talking about your post of admitting to it in this post, where you compare yourself admitting to it to Auphelia admitting to it. If you're using a post to make a legitimate point, then it obviously wasn't deleted by that time.

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

(This post was last modified: 12-01-2018, 11:19 AM by New Haudenosaunee Confederacy.)

Reply

NHC, I thought you were making a jest... but apparently not.

Reply

NHC, I thought you were making a jest... but apparently not.

If you're saying you think I was joking when I told you that I'm going to High Court, then you're lying. In this post, you imply that you believe I'm serious. Even if it was a joke, the deleted post still existed on November 27th at 11:48 PM EST, when you were definitely aware of the existence of this thread due to the fact that you had previously posted in it, because of this:

You even acknowledge this by talking about your post of admitting to it in this post, where you compare yourself admitting to it to Auphelia admitting to it. If you're using a post to make a legitimate point, then it obviously wasn't deleted by that time.

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

Reply

This doesn't mean I was aware of the court case being created. I already told you I thought it was a joke. Just because I said that, doesn't mean I knew you were actually gonna make a complaint.

Reply