Post

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.