[HCRR1803] Review of the Proscription of Ever Wandering Souls
Internal Updates and Court Logs
I will be using this thread to provide internal updates, as needed, and to share logs of discussions from the Justices group chat that might be relevant to this case, for the record. I will not share any content that would allow the uninvolved Justice to gain any undue insight into the proceedings of this case.
Recusal of Sandaoguo
Justice Sandaoguo recused from this case on July 26. Justice Belschaft was assigned as the Associate Justice for this case in his place.
Code: hierocles 26/07/2018
So I’m going to recuse myself from Souls’ appeal. Roavin consulted with me about the proscriptions, prior to my appointment to the court. As the intel coordinator, though, I will be the point person for discussion of the relevant material.
Kringle 26/07/2018
Thank you for being proactive about this.
Belschaft will be the assigned Associate Justice.
Obviously, if there are any concerns about this, I'll be happy to hear them now.
Belschaft 26/07/2018
I have no CoI on this
Kringle 26/07/2018
Any concerns from @hierocles?
hierocles 26/07/2018
Not on that front. As part of this case, the court will come into possession of highly sensitive intel that's derived from an ongoing military+security intel op. I just want to stress that it needs to be kept unpublished, otherwise we risk burning an active source.
Deliberation
Code: Kringle 15/08/2018
I'll make sure to forward you any and all evidence provided to me in private, related to the EWS case. This will most likely happen over the weekend.
Belschaft 16/08/2018
nods
Kringle 19/08/2018
I just forwarded you the evidence I received.
I hope we can talk soon about it.
Kringle 20/08/2018
I don’t know if you’d seen these, so just in case.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
I hadn't seen those, but it doesn't surprise me really
Glen has a bad habit of forming a "theory of the case" based on his personal opinion of a player, and going looking for evidence to fit his theory
Even if he has to hammer a square peg into a round hole to make it fit
There's a reason why his various attempts to get me booted from TSP as a security threat have collapsed after all
Belschaft 20/08/2018
I'm really not overly impressed at this case, which makes me question how limited the evidence for the other proscriptions might be
Kringle 20/08/2018
Possibly similar.
We’re not reviewing the other proscriptions, however.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
nods
And I don't believe it's in our power to do so unless someone appeals
Kringle 20/08/2018
Yeah, I’d tend to agree.
I’d rather avoid picking fights anyway. Better to let the cases come to us.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
The others are likelier to be stronger though, the ones involving Laz especially - fairly clear cut actually
As the celestial union was an ally so Article 1.1 applies
Kringle 20/08/2018
Mm, yeah, I see what you mean.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
The HYDRA one is also likely to hold up under court scrutiny, considering Aav Whitehall's guilty plea to espionage
Looks to me that Souls is the only one where the evidence may be.... lacking
I think what happened is that Roavin concluded he's hostile (he clearly is) and then went looking for evidence to justify a proscription
Kringle 20/08/2018
I’m not sold on all the HYDRA arguments, but Aav’s guilty plea does make the espionage argument particularly compelling.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
Which doesn't seem to be particularly strong
Eh, HYDRA is incompetent enough for most of the allegations against them to be true IMO
Kringle 20/08/2018
Oh most likely.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean a particular argument would hold up in Court.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
nods
Indeed
Kringle 20/08/2018
You know, at first I thought we’d end up upholding the proscription.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
I suspected you'd lean towards upholding and that I'd be more critical TBH
But the evidence is even weaker than I expected
Kringle 20/08/2018
Well, some cases you can argue somewhat reasonably.
Like Cormac’s treason conviction.
Belschaft 20/08/2018
Yup
Kringle 20/08/2018
In others the evidence just doesn’t support itself.
It helps that I’m not sympathetic towards either side, so I’m just looking for a fair decision. :stuck_out_tongue:
Belschaft 20/08/2018
nods
I honestly couldn't give a damn either way, but tend to be sceptical of proscriptions, security actions, etc, in NS
Code: Kringle 23/08/2018
Question.
Are we empowered to decide that certain evidence simply won’t be released?
Belschaft 23/08/2018
I think so
Mallashan will raise a stink, but less so if we declare that at the same time as overturning the proscription
Something along the lines of "The High Court has determined that no level of redaction would be sufficient to disguise the nature and source of the evidence in question, and as such has chosen to withhold it from the public."
Might be a good idea to have me countersign any such declaration, as I'm viewed as more "sympathetic" to raiders than you are
Heh
Kringle 23/08/2018
Ha.
I’ll have a closer look at the law over lunch, but I’m inclined to agree.
Belschaft 23/08/2018
Souls actually asked me to take over from Mall, and I had to point out to him that I'm the approving Justice on this :stuck_out_tongue:
Kringle 23/08/2018
It’s just not practical to redact in any way.
Belschaft 23/08/2018
I'm fairly certain that we're empowered to redact as much or as little as we think is necessary, and that can reasonably be considered to include all of it
Kringle 23/08/2018
Sure. If we were to publish the log, I’d just redact it all.
Belschaft 23/08/2018
Which would kinda be stupid :stuck_out_tongue:
As that would have to include redacted where the log is from....
Kringle 23/08/2018
Yup.
Kringle 24/08/2018
So, I reviewed the Judicial Act.
It seems to imply that confidential evidence that could harm regional security has to be redacted.
Belschaft 25/08/2018
nods
That was my understanding
Kringle 25/08/2018
I’d be inclined to direct Glen to see if it’s feasible to fully redact the log.
Belschaft 25/08/2018
I think that's our own determination to make, without Glen
And I don't see any reason to order the release of a fully redacted log
Kringle 25/08/2018
Are we allowed to not release evidence?
Belschaft 25/08/2018
I think it's permissible in this case
Ordering the release of a black page would be moronic
Kringle 25/08/2018
I’m aware that a blank page would mean nothing useful. I’m just asking if the law allows us to withhold evidence.
Belschaft 25/08/2018
It makes far more sense to simply declare that we have determined no extent of redaction sufficient to disguise the origin and likely source of the intelligence, and thus we're not ordering instructing the Intelligence Coordinator to make it public
I think that the power to not compel the release of evidence is contained within the power to compel said release
My reading of 8.2 of the Judicial Act "Material that is confidential and may harm regional security may be submitted to the Court, provided that the Court works with the corresponding authority to redact the information that may harm regional security." is that we have the power to determine that any release of information may harm regional security, and as such fully react it.
8.1 Establishes that "By default, material submitted for a case shall be submitted alongside the case proceedings in a public venue."
Ergo, if the default is to submit evidence in a public venue there is a non default option of submitting it in an other venue.
Having examined the evidence In camera we have determined that 1. It does not justify a designation of hostility under the proscription act 2. That it should remain confidential and not released in a public venue
I'm happy to write that up in legal form if you want?
Kringle 25/08/2018
I’d prefer to keep #1 for our ruling, but go ahead.
Belschaft 25/08/2018
nods
Kringle 25/08/2018
I’m operating with the understanding that part of our argument is that “no release” is essentially the same as the degree of redaction that we’d otherwise order?
Belschaft 25/08/2018
Yes
Can you see any way to redact the evidence that wouldn't reveal where it is from, and thus indicate that TSP has compromised that Discord server?
Kringle 25/08/2018
Oh not at all.
Belschaft 25/08/2018
nods
Kringle 25/08/2018
Alright, I can work with that.
Let me know when you’ve written the determination.
Belschaft 25/08/2018
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dIN0eE0yXC-garTzcpNREX4XdcJE5UNLQK32vbzu75Q/edit?usp=sharing
Kringle 25/08/2018
That works for me.
Kringle 26/08/2018
So, who will post it?
Belschaft 26/08/2018
Sorry, was AFK
Don't really mind who posts it; I can do so right now as I have it saved as a draft
Kringle 26/08/2018
Go ahead.
Belschaft 26/08/2018
Posted
Kringle 27/08/2018
I've sent a PM to the counsels; you're CC'd on it.
Belschaft 27/08/2018
nods
Kringle 28/08/2018
EWS and Malashaan think they’ll lose, don’t they?
Kringle 29/08/2018
Do you have any issues with publishing the EWS-Imkitopia logs? I don’t see any sensitive in them, but maybe I missed something.
Belschaft 29/08/2018
They do, yes
It's why I thought releasing something making clear we didn't consider the classified logs to satisfy a designation of hostility at the same would be a good idea; avoid this issue
EWS & Malashaan have concluded "Court accepts evidence should be secret" -> "Court agrees with Cabinet's assessment"
I have no issue with publishing the EWS-Imki logs
The very idea that they are "restricted" is absurd as 1. Imki has said she's happy for them to be released 2. EWS's version of them were rather more complete than the Cabinet's version
Kringle 29/08/2018
Am I good to order them released then?
Belschaft 29/08/2018
Yup
Kringle 29/08/2018
Awesome. I’ll post about that right after lunch.
|
