Messages In This Thread

**Belschaft** · 04-05-2017, 08:34 AM

(04-04-2017, 07:37 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: It's A week was spent by the CRS attempting to reach a mutual agreement with you that provided for leniency. You strung the negotiator along with change after change to the agreement, only to ultimately reject everything.

Yes, because the failure of the CRS and myself to reach mutually acceptable terms is an indication that I was stringing the negotiator along, rather than us failing to reach mutually acceptable terms.

It is a matter of record that I was willing to accept the "punitive" elements the CRS proposed, but required a summary of agreed upon facts to be included, including the acknowledgement that I was an SPSF Intelligence Officer - as confirmed by the SPSF and Ministry of Military Affairs. This was rejected by the CRS, and when I was given an option to "take it or leave it" I choose to leave it.

(04-04-2017, 07:37 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Additionally, the CRS is conducting interviews with material officials, prompted by your own submitted "depositions." Since you're a fan of trial language: you decided to bring forth witnesses and do a direct examination. We now get to do our cross examination. Given that this is a game and not a job, that people have different work and class schedules, not to mention actual lives to live, this cross-examination will take time.

I am overjoyed to here that the CRS is conducting a proper investigation, I only regret that it has taken them so long to do so.

(04-04-2017, 07:37 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: On the one hand, you decried our initial findings as rushed and inaccurate. And now you're trying to say we can't take time to conduct the investigation wherever it leads, and every day that passes is another indication of your obvious innocence. That's not how an investigation works. If TSP wants a thorough investigatory process, they will get one.

Your initial findings were rushed and inaccurate; this is indicated by the fact that no supporting evidence for the allegations have been produced, and that testimony has been provided disproving key assertions and the central claim. That, with the absence of evidence to support the allegation, the CRS is choosing to try and find new evidence to do so is simply regrettable. I was under the general understanding that the general idea was to produce a theory that matched the evidence, rather than trying to find evidence that matches the theory.

That you believe I am a member/agent of Empire is clear. That in the absence of any evidence of such you are conducting a fishing expedition to try and find some is also clear.

(04-04-2017, 10:25 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(04-04-2017, 05:48 PM)Belschaft Wrote: In accordance with the requirements of Article 1, Section 2(i) I have cleared my WA endorsements, bringing my nation bellow 70% of the current endorsement cap.

I note, for the record, that the CRS first publicised their allegations over three weeks ago and (to the best of my knowledge) have been "investigating" this matter for more than two months. Considering that in that two month period no evidence (again, to the best of my knowledge) has been produced to support the allegation, I trust that that when this additional two week period produces the same result the CRS will finally withdraw the allegation and apologise for this increasingly absurd witch-hunt.

I'm going to speak a bit out of turn here, but if you want to produce other evidence to the contrary, you should do so now.

Otherwise, all your depositions are doing are casting doubt on a wider circle of people who apparently floated law, tradition and reason — intentionally or unintentionally — to give you "permission" for this endeavor.

Despite arguments to the contrary, the members of the CRS aren't off on their own without contact to the rest of the region. Currently, there's a sitting prime minister and former minister of foreign affairs on the council; not to mention the entire current Cabinet thought the information we've been working off of was important enough to release to the entire Assembly.

I feel like if this intelligence gathering was truly justified, someone out of the circle above would've heard about it or stepped up to say something during our initial two month discussion.

At the end of the day — are we going to be able to completely judge the intentionality of your discussion with NK? Probably not.

However, that doesn't mean the region doesn't have a right to be concerned and that the CRS doesn't have a duty to protect the region.

You are correct that this investigation has been going on for longer than two weeks. If, instead of protracting this, you'd like us to skip any further investigation and have the CRS move onto Sections 1.5 or 1.6 of the Security Powers Act, I'm sure that could be arranged.

I have been incredibly patient here Tsu, and understand entirely the need of the CRS to conduct an investigation. But an investigation has to end at some point, and if it doesn't uncover anything then it is required that the CRS admits that - rather than just extending it endlessly and without due cause. An allegation is not in of itself sufficient - it has to be supported by facts.

To the best of my knowledge - and unless the CRS has some further details in regards to this that they haven't disclosed - this entire matter rests on my conversations with NK. These conversations were accounted for, and the SPSF confirmed the details. The CRS apparently did not find this sufficient, so a formal deposition was provided. This is apparently also not sufficient, and rather chillingly is "casting doubt" on anyone who provides it. Evidence of my innocence is now, apparently, evidence of both my and others guilt.

The following is a deposition of Roavin, conducted on 27/03/17 and provided to the CRS on 28/03/17.

Roavin Deposition

As everyone can see, Roavin - who was Minister of Military Affairs at the time in question - confirms certain basic facts that have previously been declared by the SPSF. The CRS is welcome to continue their investigation - not that I have any control over such - but in the absence of any evidence to support the allegation, at a certain point it is going to have to admit that it was wrong rather than investigating indefinitely.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES