«12345. . .89»
Mardis as the defendant has not appointed counsel, can you please appoint a Public Defender?
sure why not
Yes I am able to prosecute this case. Although I would like to request a very small change to the first charge.
High Crime - LR 044 Article VIII Section X (x1) The defendant utilised at least between one and eight alternate accounts and potentially up to eight alternate accounts to vote multiple times, hindering the democratic process of the region.
After reviewing the charge I feel that if the defendant is only found on using one account, the current charge may mean that the defendant is overall found not guilty even if he is known to have used at least one. We feel this significantly raises the burden of proof required to even further beyond, beyond a reasonable doubt as proof of using one alternate account should be enough to be found guilty. With this renewed charge the unnecessary hinderance to the prosecution will be dispelled. I am willing to concede time to the defence to prepare for this change in the charge if they wish, although I feel that the change is so minuscule it does not need it. If the request is denied the prosecution will withdraw and refile yet again as we wish to carry out justice properly, but we feel such a small change is not be worth the hassle of refiling.
As the substance of the charge is at its core the same and no plea has been entered or evidence presented, the Court will allow this change. The updated list of charges are as follows:
High Crime - LR 044 Article VIII Section X (x1) The defendant utilised between one and eight alternate accounts to vote multiple times, hindering the democratic process of the region.
Misdemeanour - LR 044 Article VIII Section XII (x1) The defendant failed to respond to a legally binding subpoena within 14 days of its enactment.
Brototh please present any evidence you have as soon as possible. 
Cerdenia please attempt to get in contact with the defendant to establish a plea and present any evidence you have as soon as possible, if no plea is entered after a reasonable amount of time the Court will enter a default plea of not guilty.
The High Crime evidence form will be submitted shortly. For now, here is the evidence form for the Misdemeanour, as well as the witness form.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is the law in question.
Type of Evidence: Passage from Legislative Resolution 044
Relevance: This is the law that the defence is accused of violating.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is the post on Thaecia's The House of Commons regional message board announcing the passage of the subpoena on Xernon.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Regional Message Board Post
Relevance: This proves that a legally binding subpoena was filed.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is the legally binding subpoena.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Dispatch
Relevance: Using the date on the subpoena dispatch, it can be seen exactly when it was made and seen how long Xernon had until to respond. It also proves the existence of the subpoena, and shows exactly what the subpoena instructed.
(Below Exhibits will show the two images here in full)
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This photo taken on or around the 20th April 2022, approximately eight (8) days after the subpoena was filed, shows Xernon had been online during that time period.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Government Activity Screenshot
Relevance: This shows that the defendant would have been aware of the subpoena as he had been online to receive telegrams about the subpoena and had also been online to see being mentioned in the subpoena dispatch via the Notices tab.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This photo taken on or around the 20th April 2022, approximately eight (8) days after the subpoena was filed, shows Xernon had been telegrammed about the subpoena by Marvinville.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Telegrams Screenshot
Relevance: This shows that the defendant was made aware of the subpoena. The defendant was not oblivious of the subpoena, not made aware of it and so didn't know to respond, etc. The defendant was contacted, and with the above Exhibit was online to receive that telegram- he was informed that not doing so was a criminal offence. The defendant knew that failing to respond to the subpoena was a criminal offence and still made no effort to respond or even so much as provide an excuse as to why he could not attend.
"In total, the Commission took statements from seven witnesses. Notably, this did not include Xernon, despite being subpoenaed"
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: The House report, which was voted on and approved by Members of Parliament, directly states that Xernon despite being legally required to do so, did not respond to the subpoena.
Type of Evidence: House Report into the June 2020 General Election
Relevance: The House of Commons voted on and approved a report confirming that Xernon failed to appear before the House for testimony as required to do so by the subpoena. This legally commissioned report shows that the defendant violated the subpoena set out by the House of Commons.
Witness Form:
page=dispatch/id=1718936
Witness Called By: Prosecution
Witness Name: Marvinville
Topic: The witness will testify that the defendant did not respond to the legally binding subpoena.
Relevance: The witness is/was a member of the House of Commons during the hearing in which Xernon was legally required to attend due to the subpoena and so will know whether or not the defendant responded.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Witness Called By: Prosecution
Witness Name: Of altonianic islands
Topic: The witness will testify that the defendant did not respond to the legally binding subpoena.
Relevance: The witness is/was a member of the House of Commons during the hearing in which Xernon was legally required to attend due to the subpoena and so will know whether or not the defendant responded.
I submit the evidence form and witness form for the high crime
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is the Thaecia regional happenings feed on June 30, 2020, two days after the general elections. There is also a version posted by The Marconian State that shows that Xernon and Tomb were ejected very separately. All the nations were ejected within three minutes of each other for rule violations.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Regional Happenings Screenshot
Relevance: This shows that the nations here had a link. Nations are ejected from the World Assembly for a reason. The most common reason being that the nations were all controlled by a single person, and game rules state that a person may only have one WA account at a time. The fact that they were all ejected at the same time indicates that they are all related to one another. If they were all separate people, only one of them would have been ejected. It is extraordinarily unlikely that every single one of them individually broke WA rules. Note that Xernon and Tomb were ejected two/three minutes before the rest of the nations, which were all ejected within seconds of one another. This implies a remarkably close direct relationship between Xernon and Tomb.
The Helvetic Imperium
Zon island
Islonia
World Trade
Emazia
Korsinia
Pap Sculgief
Brototh
Serenissima Res Publica Sancti Marini
Xernon
Saint Alban Islands
Dizgovzy
Marwa and Falmer Islands
Peatfacerria
Satherland Islands
Newly United
Evileia
Marvinville
Hulldom
Bahnhof
Ermica
Mexicana Rayea
Rhyssua
Prussian Sail Nation
Belsiaria
Castarilia
Cerdenia
The Islamic Country of Honour
Antenion
The Marconian State
Lamontica
Andusre
Rayekka
Indian Genius
Constitatem
Besancia
Titanne
Ashlawn
Hoping for the Best
Snowflame
Zanaana
Rushenberg
Tengjiang
UCP
Boreia
Catlin
The Bigtopia
Sanchee2020
Alaweesha
The Peoples caribbean union
Kryssinia
German Moravia
Hydra Dragon
Yariveriachetti
Broustan
Britle
BICNONO
Fishergate
Republika Poludniowej Wyspy Ksiazecej
Ghranata
Conquista Cafe
Uppenja
Lemonadia
Zon island
Aexodian
Quelectoran
Yawnden
Inner Havsky
Dendrobium
Pseudo-masocha
Duras
Moist Moist
Right to Win
The Democratic Republic of Tomb
Pancomania
ASEAN Nations
Senota
Flandronia
Shoila
Celdoria
Teonage
Reformist Netherlands
Timperis
Africana Republika
Tortalis
Pendors
Theophilonia
Giant Redwoods
The United Socialist Republic of India
Logotia
Dominirovanie
Angypt
New Deepayantendoland
Sagalan
The kingdom of datlofia
United Faith Kingdom
Moontana
Gifty
Link: https://discord.com/channels/755892828621504523/970983728123875328 (Thaecia Electoral Commissioner Discord Server)
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is the election voters list for the June 2020 election, in order of when the nation voted in the election (first vote 'Serenissima' at the top, last vote 'Gifty' at the bottom). This shows everyone who voted in that election. The bolded nations are those that were ejected from the World Assembly.
Type of Evidence: June 2020 Election Voters List
Relevance: This shows that Xernon, Tomb, alongside all the other accused alternate accounts, all voted in the June 2020 general election. Not only did all of them get ejected but all of them also voted, which seems mildly unlikely that every single one of them would have voted. Note 'Reformist Netherlands' for later in particular. The nations all voted relatively close to each other, it is not like they all voted hours and days apart. In fact, Right to Win and The Democratic Republic of Tomb voted one after the other.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is a statement made by Cerdenia on June 30, 2020, about the individual behaviour and characteristics of the assorted ejected nations.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: Firstly, this shows that Reformist Netherlands, not being online on NationStates, could not have seen the election. This nation would not have known to vote because they were not even online for the election period. This shows us that the nation was probably either directly told to vote by someone in real life or was a puppet. They were also the last of the ejected nations to vote, which could be that Xernon forgot about his last puppet until just before the election and did not remember to log on when voting.
Secondly, it shows that most of the nations (apart from Tomb and Xernon) only existed for two weeks. This indicates that they were created just for the election, which is incredibly suspicious. We can properly infer that what has happened is Xernon has made these accounts explicitly to vote multiple times in the election. Xernon was running as a candidate for President in this election, so his motive is to boost his chances of winning the election.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: This is Xernon's own explanation to Brototh on or around the 20th of October 2021. Aside from a brief comment about how the alternate accounts were friends from university (he does not contest this in the image here), this is the only explanation he has ever given.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: The first thing we must consider is that Xernon originally stated that the alternate accounts were friends from university. Having all allegedly used the same Wi-Fi, the game detected them as the same nation and ejected them. This is mildly plausible, however could also open a separate debate on whether bringing peoples into the region for the exclusive and explicit purpose of voting for them is in and of itself subversion of democracy. However, the story has now shifted to the 'individual', suggesting one person, making alternate accounts. Xernon here admits that there were alternate accounts used, admits that there is blame on him for not stopping it- indicating that he had an involvement in this, potentially regretting his actions and thus blaming himself for undertaking it- and most notably and strangely, says he will be avoiding shared accounts.
If Xernon's story is truthful, he would need no fear of alternate accounts. There are many shared alternate accounts employed in Thaecia: The Thaecian Dep Admin for instance, shared between at least Brototh and Snalland, switching hands at every administration. There is a significant difference between these alternate accounts and the eight accused: the Thaecian Dep Admin is on multiple computers and is not in the WA, whereas the alternate accounts employed by Xernon was all on one device: his own and were all in the WA. If all shared accounts would result in a ban, neither Brototh, Snalland, nor the great list of people who have collaborated on our dispatch office would be permitted in the World Assembly. Xernon clearly has an experience with shared accounts: if he had not shared them, why would he fear them? As he says himself, fault lies on him, which is why he must avoid shared accounts- there would be no fault on him if he had not used shared accounts to rig the elections then.
It is noticeably clear from Xernon's own statements that he had at the very least, created an account with at least one other person to vote multiple times in the election. There is no reason Xernon would share an account with 8 other people- at the least, Xernon and one other person created 7 alternate accounts between themselves and used them to manipulate the results of the election.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Xernon informs Snowflame of his military past in the Sekhmet Legion (the armed forces of Osiris), the North Pacific Army (the armed forces of The North Pacific), and that he had considered joining The Black Hawks.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: Xernon stated multiple times that he had military experience. This is something he had also informed Brototh and Andusre of. However, Xernon's only known past is as "Nydaymos" of the New Western Atlantic which only very briefly had an exceedingly small military (as will be detailed), the region he and Andusre among others came from before founding Thaecia together. Unless he had some sort of other history with a different nation (which is shown in the next set of exhibits), this would not be possible.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Xernon speaks to Snowflame about his past with raiding. Includes the founding date of Nydaymos.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: Xernon suggests that his past with raiding was all part of a "different lifetime". What Xernon means here is that his past with raiding took place during his time as The Democratic Republic of Tomb, which would fit well as a 'different lifetime'. His raiding experience also goes back by "about two years", which is inconsistent with Nydaymos's founding date in 
November 2017 unless Xernon had begun raiding with Osiris and The North Pacific as soon as he was founded as Nydaymos, which seems unlikely for a very new player to the game.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: MadJack of the North Pacific discusses with Marvinville Tomb's history in the North Pacific Army.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: MadJack informs Marvinville that Tomb was in the NPA between September 2016 and September 2017. These dates are consistent with Xernon's alleged two-year military history as he told Snowflame which would be around October 2017. His "different lifetime" quote becomes more obvious that he means his time as Tomb in the North Pacific Army as shown here. As a previous Delegate of the North Pacific (which anyone can see on the North Pacific's history pages onsite), it is not unrealistic that he would have acquired R/D experience in The North Pacific, learnt the game from there, travelled to different regions etc, and then decided that he wanted a clean slate which is where Nydaymos began.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Western Tomb (The Democratic Republic of Tomb) applies for citizenship in Europeia.
Type of Evidence: Europeian Forums Screenshot
Relevance: In Tomb’s citizen application in Europeia, he mentions that “I am only involved in Osiris and TNP” and that he served as a Scribe of Culture, Deputy Scribe of WA Affairs, and a Scribe of WA Affairs in Osiris. Refer to where Xernon states that he had served time in the Sekhmet Legion, the armed forces of Osiris. This proves that Tomb was a member of Osiris and provides an explanation for how Xernon who had not been involved in Osiris as Nydaymos was a veteran of the Sekhmet Legion. Notably, Tomb also was the Minister of Communications for The North Pacific. He was also the person as Xernon who proposed and formed the Ministry of Communications during his term as Prime Minister. This suggests further similarity of interests on NationStates between the two.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Nydaymos advocates for the formation of a regional military and forum in the New Western Atlantic.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Regional Message Board Screenshot
Relevance: Since Xernon created Nydaymos on November 19, 2017, and soon moved it to New Western Atlantic (NWA), someone could argue that he gained his military experience from his time in NWA. However, this argument is flawed since Nydaymos (Xernon) joined NWA and then on December 1, 2019, less than 2 weeks after he was founded, he started an effort to create a military and forums in the region. Nydaymos is deeply knowledgeable on how militaries and forums should operate, even though his nation is less than 2 weeks old at this time. It is worth mentioning again that Tomb had military experience in the NPA just prior to creating this new nation. Tomb also used The North Pacific forum often while he served in many government positions in that region, which can relate to why Nydaymos is a vocal proponent of forum usage in NWA. He also displays a great understanding of how moderators determine WA rules and how important it is for one nation to cast only one vote instead of multiing and rigging an election. His knowledge of this provides a reason as to why he tried to use eight alternate accounts- believing himself to be an expert on WA rules, he had thought he could not be caught. He was.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Nydaymos creates the NWA Reform Party and declares he has vast knowledge of the NWA.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Regional Message Board Screenshot
Relevance: Also on December 1, 2017, which is less than two weeks after Nydaymos was created, he created The Reform Party in NWA. Nydaymos again explains why the region should adopt forums in addition to changing how elections operate. Once again, Nydaymos possesses a lot more knowledge on forum usage and how to run elections than what a brand-new nation just two weeks old would know. Note also that he states, "relatively new to the NWA political landscape", instead of stopping at relatively new. This further suggests that he was not new to NationStates but only NWA. This is because he had been a member of TNP and Osiris among others as Tomb.
(Link to Nydaymos’ July 2018 Senate campaign factbook: page=dispatch/id=1054212)
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Nydaymos urges the creation of a forum and military.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Dispatch Screenshot
Relevance: Nydaymos continues to, despite being relatively young, urge for the creation of a regional military and forum. He should still have truly little knowledge of this, especially as his "two years" of raiding is now long past as it is July 2018. Yet he continues to parrot knowledge of it- unless he had gained it elsewhere, i.e., as Tomb.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: The passage and declaration of unconstitutionality of Legislative Resolution 089 The Military Establishment Act (New Western Atlantic) authored by Nydaymos.
Type of Evidence: NationStates Dispatch Screenshot
Relevance: The military in the New Western Atlantic was then created on July 18, 2018, when the Senate passed the Military Establishment Act. However, the Military Establishment Act was found to be unconstitutional on September 15, 2018, which is less than one hundred days after its passage. In less than 100 days there is no way Xernon could have attained military experience.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: The prosecution explains the connected relevance of some previous exhibits.
Type of Evidence: Explanation of Evidence
Relevance: These exhibits show that there is no feasible way for Nydaymos (Xernon) to gain raiding experience in the New Western Atlantic. Even when Nydaymos joined NationStates and moved to NWA, he openly advocated for a military with much more knowledge than what a new nation only 2 weeks old would have. The military in NWA only lasted for around one hundred days, and this occurred in 2018. In October 2019, Xernon told Snowflame that his “raiding experience goes back about two years,” which would be around October 2017 or beforehand. We know that Nydaymos was created on November 19, 2017, and then advocated for a military in NWA on December 1, 2017. All of this shows that there is no possible way for Xernon to gain military experience from his time in NWA due to his advocacy for the military right after he joined the region as a brand-new nation. The only way Xernon could have military experience would be his time in NPA as Tomb, where he served in their military between September 2016 and September 2017 or as a member of the Sekhmet Legion of Osiris, of which Tomb was a citizen of. This does end up verifying what Xernon told Snowflame about his prior military experience.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: The prosecution recounts Tomb's delegacy and its similarities with Xernon's premiership.
Type of Evidence: Recount of events and quotations + Screenshot of NationStates Regional Message Board
Relevance: In the North Pacific, Tomb’s delegacy ended in controversy. The TNP Xernon Article Draft states that “Tomb had sought to prevent long time TNPer Flemingovia from joining the North Pacific Army (NPA), unless he moderated his previous criticism of some NPA actions, coercing what the Attorney General called a ‘clearly uncomfortable’ Minister of Defence Eluvatar into speaking with Flemingovia to achieve this. This clear abuse of power had serious consequences - a guilty verdict followed by the removal of their voting rights for three months."
Tomb was found guilty in TNP for preventing someone from joining the NPA unless they moderate previous criticism of the army. This is like how Xernon has acted towards those who have criticized his Prime Minister administration. He often attacked those who criticized his administration rather than listening to them and making changes in the Executive. For these reasons, it is interesting to see how similar both Xernon and Tomb are in treating those who dissent.
"Has Tomb ever had any history of silencing dissenters or opposition?
[5:22 PM]
or anything similar to that
Ghost — Today at 5:22 PM
Yes" (Pallaith to Marvinville)
(Declares that Bowshot's opinions are irrelevant)
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Tomb's 2020 TNP citizenship application and Xernon's WA membership coinciding.
Type of Evidence: The North Pacific Forums Screenshot, NationStates Trends Screenshot, Discord Screenshot
Relevance: On March 30, 2020, Tomb applied to join the North Pacific Army (NPA) in addition to filing an application to become a citizen. In this NPA application, Tomb states that his current World Assembly nation is “The Democratic Republic of Tomb.
With Tomb now being a World Assembly member, there is no way Xernon could also be a member of the WA without breaking NationState WA rules. Upon checking Xernon’s population statistic, we find that Xernon CTE’d on March 17, 2020, and the nation was revived on May 2, 2020. This means that there is no possible way for Xernon to be a World Assembly member at the same time as Tomb since Xernon did not exist at the time that Tomb applied to join the NPA and being a member of the WA.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Similarities between the usage of emojis by Tomb and Xernon.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: Both Xernon and Tomb have used the same emoji often in at least the Thaecia discord server and TNP discord server. The examples above show their heavy usage of that emoji within a period of 24 hours or less.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Same location between Xernon and Tomb.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: Both Xernon and Tomb have also said that they live in Tennessee, which is not strange by itself but increasingly odd considering both have many similarities as discussed by this report. Tomb also says "currently" and Xernon says he wishes to move, indicating they both aspire to move, another similarity between them.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Similarities in typing patterns between Xernon and Tomb.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot
Relevance: When the North Pacific wrote up an article draft of the Xernon situation, they sent it to the Thaecian government and Xernon with questions for them to answer. MadJack, the WA Delegate of TNP, states that Xernon responded to some of the questions “in a very Tomb-like way.” It is also interesting that with the many similarities they have in common, they are both known for their unique style of writing. Even MadJack, who was TNP’s WA Delegate, noticed that Xernon wrote the same way as Tomb wrote. Notably, they also use grammar to even a period/full-stop in nearly every situation, this is just one excerpt of him speaking even in 2019. It can be found in nearly all of his posts in most conversations.
Most alternate accounts are found based on how they write and present themselves, for example, Indian Genius was proven to be one in the same with Love You 3000, as well as Peabodia with his many alternate accounts, and Faelauntz with her many alternate accounts in the roleplay. This is not unique to Xernon- everyone who uses alternate accounts writes in the same fashion on their nations. This suggests even further that Xernon, and Tomb are one in the same. These exhibits lay out overwhelming evidence that suggests Xernon and Tomb are the same person.
Trial Name: Thaecia v. Xernon
Evidence Submitted By: Prosecution
Description: Results of the June 2020 general elections before Xernon was ejected from the WA.
Type of Evidence: Discord Screenshot / Election Results
Relevance: The quota being 48.5, if Xernon did not use his 8 alternate accounts, he would have missed the first round quota by 3.5 votes. Xernon knew this. He knew that his election chance was not guaranteed, especially after having had left for 4 months and only returning a few weeks prior, roughly the same time his alternate accounts bar Tomb were founded. Xernon's motive is to secure his win as President of Thaecia. He knew that bringing alternate accounts in would help his chances after waning popularity after 4 months. This evidence establishes his motive. His means through multiing and opportunity with old nations and a fresh start as Nydaymos instead of Tomb have been proven throughout this form.
Witness Called By: Prosecution
Witness Name: Snowflame
Topic: The witness will testify that when a nation violates World Assembly rules, they are informed of this via telegram by NationStates moderators in order to resolve the situation before being ejected from the WA.
Relevance: The witness is a long time raider and has in the past accidentally violated World Assembly rules and communicated with moderators on having violated WA rules. If Xernon violated this rule, he would have been made aware of it via telegram and thus this shows that he not only knew what he was doing was against the rules but did not take steps to stop it- showing that again, he knew what he was doing and continued to do so.
I also submit a brief explanation of why this charge is legal:
"The High Court rules that if a criminal offense is repealed and replaced with one substantially similar as the previous offence, a Citizen may be prosecuted for actions committed while the former offense was law under the currently enacted criminal statute" - CR 21
"Electoral fraud will be defined as creating puppets to vote for a specific candidate, or in any way attempting to hinder the democratic process of the region." - LR 008
"10. Voter Fraud - One person voting with multiple nations in a Thaecian election, or in any way attempting to hinder the democratic and electoral process of the region." - LR 044
These passages are identical, and it is definitely true that voting multiple times in an election hinders the democratic process of the region. Democracy is where the population votes in a leader, an oligarchy is a small group of people. If someone votes multiple times, they are hindering democracy and forming oligarchy.
It can also be argued that voting with multiple nations and creating puppets to vote for a specific candidate are also substantially similar. Either way, it is still hindering the democratic and electoral process.
CR 021 also states that "it does seem that the repeal and replace was not meant to create a new law, but rather establish legal continuity from the previously enacted statute with some formatting and wording improvements" in reference to this specific law.
Your honours,
the defendant has not responded to my attempts to contact him, therefore the defence stands with the not guilty plea.
Furthermore the defence submits the following evidence before the Court:
nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1720192
nation=cerdenia/detail=factbook/id=1720189
The prosecution takes issue with the submitted evidence form by the defender's legal counsel (henceforth simply 'Cerdenia' or likewise for ease of typing).
The prosecution is fully prepared to argue as to why the crime in LR 008 is not unconstitutional, however this period is for taking issue with the relevancy of the evidence as I understand it. As such, the prosecution argues that Cerdenia's evidence is not relevant to the case because it is built upon the assumption that the law was unconstitutional during its time of existence and during the time of the alleged voter fraud.
The defendant themselves whilst serving as a Justice approved the dismissal of a case brought by Marvinville in the High Court because the basis of the charge relied upon the assumption that part of LR 040 Military Commission Act was unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that such a case cannot be taken and instead a constitutional challenge against the law (or however it was named during this time period I cannot recall) must be filed first. As the argument was that the defendant in that case, United Cascadian Peoples, had lost his citizenship because part of LR 040 was unconstitutional, the court dismissed the whole case as the currently established precedent was that LR 040 was not unconstitutional. The Court would be required to separately deem it unconstitutional.
That was established by the prosecuting lawyer Democratized Peoples AJ, who I am sure can testify to that occurring. It cannot be seen because the High Court ceased to exist so the RMB record was lost, but because Peeps was the lawyer who brought the argument that basing your argument in a trial on the suggestion that part of a law is unconstitutional cannot be done and it must be separately filed, he can definitely confirm it took place.
The defendant's entire argument rests upon a law being unconstitutional - the court has already ruled that this cannot be done by the prosecution and so it would unnecessarily raise the standard needed for the prosecution if the defence is able to do the same. The defendant's argument also relies upon an assumption of the law that is not based within court precedent, and that is that free speech is absolute. While this may appear obvious, this has never been decided by the Court. Assuming that it was during the Third Constitution's time, this would be better suited for a constitutional challenge against LR 008 holding that it was always unconstitutional, not as a defence against charges brought to the defendant.
What the defendant is trying to do is host a constitutional challenge during a criminal case. Instead it should be held separately and independently, with its own procedures and arguments. Instead, the defendant should be attempting to have their client cleared of the charges against them instead of attempting to have another case within this one.
This is a case on establishing Xernon’s guilt to an alleged crime that to this date the law of which it is contained in is considered as having been constitutional during its time, not a case on establishing whether or not LR 008 was unconstitutional. They are separate things and should occur as independent cases.
The defence's logic is also flawed because later legal precedent established by the court before the passage of the Fourth Constitution found that only parts of a law and not the entire law could be deemed unconstitutional. Legal precedent established by CR 018 (linked) which occurred more than a month before the passage of the Fourth Constitution of Thaecia held that only the violating sections would be struck, not the entire law. This is the most up to date legal precedent from the Third Constitution and so should be used by the Court when establishing the unconstitutionality of older laws. If the Court is to deem the previous law unconstitutional, it should be done with the legal precedent of the time, to which the most up to date precedent was to only strike part of a law. If the Court does rule that the incitement section is unconstitutional, it should only affect that section as never having been law in the first place, not the entire legislative resolution.
If this was done it would make the rest of the evidence irrelevant as the defence's argument relies upon the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, not just a single section. As such the evidence is not relevant to either the charges brought or to itself as it relies entirely upon the entire law and not just the section allegedly violated.
As such the prosecution requests that the High Court rule the defence's evidence form for the High Crime charge irrelevant / inadmissible as it is a) attempting to create a constitutional challenge within a criminal trial despite the Court has already established this cannot be done [reminder note: Marvin v. UCP was dismissed because it relied upon a portion of the law being unconstitutional: Court ruled this had to be done in a separate constitutional challenge] & b) relies upon one section being unconstitutional and thus the whole law, which is inconsistent with the most up to date legal precedent from the time of the Third Constitution as established by CR 018, and so only one section would be ruled unconstitutional and leave the Election Fraud section in place which would not change this trial at all.
The prosecution also recommends that because the misdemeanour evidence form attempts to do the same thing it also be ruled irrelevant / inadmissible. If the Court decides that constitutional challenges can occur during a criminal trial and changes its precedent, the High Crime evidence form should still be dismissed because of (b) as I stated in the paragraph above, but the prosecution is still willing and ready to provide arguments as to why the misdemeanour is not unconstitutional. However that is for the cross examination of the evidence presented by the other party and so that will be saved until later unless the Court requests it now.
The prosecution's motion to expunge the evidence form of the defense insofar as it argues for the unconstitutionality of a law is granted. As previously established, in the case of Thaecia v. United Cascadian Peoples constitutional challenges to laws must be made in a separate filing to the Court. All exhibits of both forms are expunged.
The Court further adds two points of obiter dicta, the Court did rule in CR 018 that under the previous Constitutions individual sections of laws could be stricken while the law as a whole remained intact. Furthermore, defense council is reminded that under the current Constitution laws are only unenforceable insofar as they violate the Constitution. Differing applications of the law can yield different results.
The defense is given a further 72 hours, with extensions if reasonable, to present evidence.
The defence understands the Court's position regarding the evidence presented to the High Crime charge, however we request clarity regarding the Court's position on the misdemeanour charge. While the misdemeanour charge attempts to argue that Article II of Legislative Resolution 055 is unconstitutional, which perhaps might not be proper for a Criminal Case, it is an argument based on current Thaecian law and which does not come into contradiction with previous court rulings, as the argument the defence presented for the High Crime charge arguably did.
Considering the clear relevance of the evidence submitted by the defence regarding the misdemeanour charge, and the precedent set by Marvinville v. United Cascadian Peoples, the defence request this case be temporarily put to a halt so that they High Court may analyse the constitutionality of Legislative Resolution 055. It wouldn't be proper for the defence to have its entire argument invalidated because the High Court is considering a law which isn't a law at all, taking into account the solid reasoning for its unconstitutionality presented by the defence.
I respect that this is not a time for debate and so I will not challenge the rest of the post but instead just leave a comment here that the prosecution would find this acceptable so long as it did not cause delay for the High Crime charge as well. If the High Court is able to hold this constitutional review at the same time as holding the criminal trial the prosecution would be fine to do so on our end.
Do "these proceedings" include the High Crime case? I feel that there would be unreasonable delay to said case if it was delayed considering the issue of constitutionality there has already been resolved. With all due respect, the prosecution did file that case first. There are no issues with the High Crime from a technical standpoint. The Court also has a history of taking cases first come first serve whilst another is ongoing even if they are directly related. For instance, the challenge against L.R.033 Safety Net Act was not instantly picked up as there was a court case where that law was violated ongoing (Hulldom case). While the prosecution believes that LR 055 is not unconstitutional, if it is we would not want an individual to be charged under it as that would be unfair. However we do stress that this should not apply to the other case as there are no issues there and we feel it would be improper and unreasonable to delay that as well.
I respect that the Court may not wish to take on two cases at once, in which case it could be possible to simply split the charges and we could host High Crime trial now, once the verdict is delivered there the challenge against 055 can be filed and then if it is not unconstitutional the misdemeanour charge can be continued.
Constitutional Challenge
Item being challenged: Legislative Resolution 055 Article II
Section of the Constitution under violation: Article II Section I: "The right to personal privacy"
Explanation: Article II of L.R. 055 directly contradicts the constitutional right to personal privacy. Through Article II Section I, Congress is given the powers to call individuals to testimony before Congress. Article II Section IV goes on to elaborate that: "Individuals subject to a subpoena must obey every aspect of the subpoena by 14 days of its enactment". Considering testimony is an ample term, Congress has the ability to request any information from an individual, including information one might consider to be personal. Since individuals are required to "obey every aspect" of the subpoena, refusing to reveal personal information would be considered a violation of the law. As such, it can be established that the law directly contradicts the rights of individuals by forcing them to reveal information which they by no means need to as per the Constitution.
With all due respect, the prosecution previously dropped their original case against the defendant regarding the subpoena to have it along with this one, and now the prosecution wants to split the charges again? Could the prosecution please make up their minds? It appears that it is the prosecution which is the origin of this unreasonable delay.
After extensive deliberations, the Court has decided to pause the entirety of the criminal case against Xernon and accept a Constitutional Review.
Cerdenia please file using the filing form contained in LR 56.
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional;
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution;
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
Constitutional Review
Requesting: court order declaring an item, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be: Article II of L.R. 055 directly contradicts the constitutional right to personal privacy. Through Article II Section I, Congress is given the powers to call individuals to testimony before Congress. Article II Section IV goes on to elaborate that: "Individuals subject to a subpoena must obey every aspect of the subpoena by 14 days of its enactment". Considering testimony is an ample term, Congress has the ability to request any information from an individual, including information one might consider to be personal. Since individuals are required to "obey every aspect" of the subpoena, refusing to reveal personal information would be considered a violation of the law. As such, it can be established that the law directly contradicts the rights of individuals by forcing them to reveal information which they by no means need to as per the Constitution.
Your honours,
I believe the point made my myself in the filing of this review (that being that while individuals are guaranteed a right to personal privacy by the constitution, Article II of Legislative Resolution 055 essentialy gives Congress the power to obligate individual to testimony any information, including personal information) is enough to explain the unconstitutionality of the Article. That said, I would like to raise another point.
Suppose we are to ignore all of what I previously argued, I still believe Article II of Legislative Resolution 055 to be unconstitutional for a separate reason. Article I Section I of L.R. 055 establishes the following:
"Congress shall have the ability to investigate any past or current government actions and functions, which includes every aspect of the Thaecian government and its members in relation to their action(s) as an officer serving in the government."
I believe this establishes very clearly that Congress has the ability to investigate government officials, this includes alleged misconducts conducted by government officials during their tenures. With this proven, I would like to remind the Court of Article II Section I, which gives Congress the power to "issue a subpoena for testimony".
With both of these established, I believe it to be clear that Congress has the power to investigate individuals as well as to force them, through a subpoena, to testimony on their own investigations. Considering this, I argue that Legislative Resolution 055 further infringes upon Constitutional Rights by violating the protection from forced testimony against oneself, established under Article II Section I of the Constitution. If an individual is forced by law to testimony on an investigation of themselves, and an investigation seeks to uncover information to potentially bring criminal charges against an individual, as established through Section V (II) of the law, then a forced testimony through Congress is merely a way to attempt to cheat the Constitution, by ensuring an individual can be forced to testimony, as they would not have to if a matter was directly brought to Court without a formal congressional investigation.
Your honours, I argue that the defence / filing's point that a subpoena can be unconstitutional is correct, but that this is a hypothetical fault of a government action and not of the legislative resolution 55.
First of all, let us look at Article I, Section I:
"[...] in relation to their action(s) as an officer serving in the government"
It is important to note here that an investigation by Congress can only investigate a member of the government in relation to their actions as an officer serving in the government. Article II of the legislation states "The chamber of Congress conducting an investigation may issue a subpoena for testimony or government information from an individual". This directly links an investigation and a subpoena for testimony, which suggests that a subpoena may by extension only cover actions in the government. This would mean logically that a subpoena cannot demand private information nor can an individual be asked private information whilst being questioned under a subpoena. The legislation does not enable Congress to issue subpoenas that violate a person's personal privacy. The legislation then goes on to define government information as "official government documents and discussions, either in public channels, private channels, dispatches, telegrams, and direct messages". This means that if a conversation was not a private one and instead was an official government channel, it is not subject to a subpoena. The subpoena would not be able to extend to this. For instance if me and Peeps debate a new bill, me expressing my opinion would not be government documents, if I ask Shadow for permission to revoke a nation's citizenship under the Constitution, that would be a government relay.
In no ways is an individual forced to testify against themselves- if one replies with "I invoke the right to protection against forced testimony", that should be considered a valid response. What the Court should do here is lay down a ruling that officially states this is a valid response: it would be responding to the subpoena and it would be constitutional.
Your honours, let us take a look at constitutional reviews, defined in resolution 56 as "a proceeding in which [...] a Court declaration that a past action is or is not legal [...]". The Court is well established to have the power, even before the passing of this legislation, to rule that a government action is unconstitutional- even without 056, if I were to revoke a person's citizenship illegally (not criminally as the Constitution has no set punishments), the Court could declare that action to be illegal, and this has been done in which Z00POLIS was unbanned by the Court after Xernon was found to have unconstitutionally banned them. Why is this relevant? Because as I have established, a subpoena cannot force a person to give up their private information and can only command a person to give up government information (which again, can be avoided by invoking one's rights). So if the government (in this case, the Chamber of Congress issuing the subpoena and conducting the investigation as these are inherently linked as previously mentioned) issues a subpoena that infringes upon a person's rights and/or tries to force them to testify against themselves, the Court would be able to strike this down as an unconstitutional government action and void the subpoena.
What would be unconstitutional here is the subpoena directly, not the legislation. The legislation does not do anything unconstitutional, instead, it would be the Congress that issues an unconstitutional subpoena. For instance, say that the word 'cheese' is universally considered to be treason and espionage, and take that a piece of legislation gives me the power to ban people if they say the word 'cheese'. Say that I then ban a person where they have obviously not said 'cheese' and attempt to invoke this law. It is not the legislation in this case that is unconstitutional, as the legislation provides that someone who has done this criminal thing can be banned. It is the government action of illegally banning a person outside the scope of the law and the scenario provided (that is, in this case, a subpoena being outside the scope of government actions and drifting into personal privacy) that is unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Court, not the legislation itself.
As a final point, despite we have already established that subpoenas can be unconstitutional as a government action but not the item LR 055 itself, let us consider that subpoenas under LR 055 can drift into personal privacy. This would obviously be a violation of the Constitution, right? But even in this case, the Constitution provides in 2.3 "the rights set out in [the Constitution are] subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Under the instance that a Chamber of Congress is investigating the government's members for their actions, this would certainly fulfil this section. The reasonable limits have been passed as Congress must investigate the government for their relation to some sort of hypothetical thing. Even in this case, only the subpoena's questions (which are part of the subpoena itself, the legislation states "every aspect of the subpoena", connecting the questions to the subpoena issued) could be unconstitutional as they would not be past the reasonable limit.
In conclusion to summarise, it is the scope of the subpoena and the government actions in the questioning that can be unconstitutional and struck down, not the actual legislation itself.
Thank you both. The High Court will now retire to create a ruling.
--
-
Constitutional Review
.
Cerdenia asked the High Court to determine whether Article II of L.R.55 contradicts the constitutional right to privacy.
The High Court rules that Article II of L.R.55 is inconsistent with the constitutional right to privacy to the extent that congressional subpoenas authorized pursuant to Article II of L.R.55 which request personal information or information not connected with any legitimate governmental interest are of no force and effect.
As to the constitutionality of L.R.55. This statute, in itself, does not violate the right to privacy held by Thaecian citizens. It does not require Thaecians to, on its own, turn over any data or divulge any private information in a manner inconsistent with a democratic society. As such we do not grant the remedy that the filing party initially requested, a declaration that Article II of L.R.55 violates the constitutional right to privacy and is therefore of no force and effect.
However, there are legitimate concerns regarding the right to privacy when it comes to power the legislative branch has as a result of this statute to extract information at will. While there are certainly good uses for such a power, and the power itself is not inconsistent with the right to privacy, the High Court must determine a line for when a subpoena is valid and when it is invalid. To do this we must extend the general test the constitution gives us, whether an act or action is justifiable in a free and democratic society, to the specific case of the right to privacy and congressional subpoenas.
In determining this, we must make two broad generalizations. First, that in free and democratic societies in the context of NationStates the state typically has no place investigating the personal lives of the people behind its citizen nations. We believe that this is self-evident. Second, that in free and democratic societies the government should have a legitimate interest in undertaking any restriction of a right as broad as privacy. We draw this from case law in real life jurisdictions, where the legitimate governmental interest test is used to protect against abuses of some rights. We recognize that the test proposed is incredibly broad, and we will have to on a case-by-case basis determine whether or not a subpoena triggers either of these conditions if a case is filed regarding a specific subpoena. However, we can concoct no more specific test, as the right to privacy itself is a broad and undefined right and there are an infinite of circumstances in which it can apply.
Chief Justice Sma Cyrillic
Associate Justice The marconian state
Associate Justice Democratized Peoples
The trial proceedings are resumed.
«12345. . .89»
Advertisement
