[APPELLATE TRIAL] The East Pacific v. Soramra (JoWhatup)

The Conclave
,
1

230×230 38.4 KB

I hereby proclaim the opening of the appellate trial:

TEP v. Soramra (JoWhatup)

on the charges of High Treason and Omission to Prevent Treason

I open this appellate trial with a reminder to all - this is a serious trial and the offences we are speaking of are serious. That said, the Viceroy (myself) will not tolerate any unsolicited comments from the public, or frivolous behaviour of the parties involved. I encourage all to read over the Trial Process as in the Standing Orders of Conclave, as this help you to understand the procedures being followed here.

As this is an appellate trial, the Presiding Arbiter will be the sitting Viceroy. The former Presiding Arbiter, @Shadow is excused from this trial procedure.

The Conclave has agreed to hear this appellate trial on the endorsement of Arbiter @Bachtendekuppen. I will remind the prosecution that I want to hear compelling evidence and argument to justify the overturning of the Conclave’s decision, not a rehashing of the previous trial.

Date for Trial: Invalid date to Invalid date. (This end date may change)

The Standing Orders of the Conclave on Trial Procedures

TRIAL APPEALS

2.17. An accepted appeal of a trial shall be heard by the full Conclave, the Viceroy serving as Presiding Arbiter. The trial shall follow the process as laid out prior in Section 2, with special requirements as laid out for appeals, and as below.

2.18. A request for an appeal must be presented to the Conclave in the form of an application by any party in that suit, the Delegate, or any Arbiter.

a. This application must outline the Presiding Arbiter, parties to the suit, the verdict, and the reason(s) for appeal.

2.19. Upon receipt of the application, the Conclave shall hold a hearing to rule on approval. Recognized reasons for appeal shall be as follows:

a. New substantively compelling evidence,

b. Breach of protocol,

c. Mistrial (including bias, prejudice, etc.),

d. Delegate request for appeal,

e. Arbiter endorsement of appeal application.

2.20. During Trial, should the applying party fail to be present, the appeal trial is closed and declared void.

a. Should the non-applying party fail to be present, Conclave shall consider only their arguments made in the first trial.

2.21. The trial shall be locked by majority vote of the Conclave or by discretion of Viceroy. Conclave shall then move to deliberation in private chambers, following the process laid out in Section 2.6.

2.22. Upon a decision, The Viceroy shall then present the verdict (and Minority Report, if applicable) and thereby lock the trial.

a. The decision may uphold, reverse, mitigate, or generally change the previous verdict.

2.23. The Arbiter who was Presiding Arbiter in the original trial shall recuse from all matters involving this trial and may not participate in voting or discussions for this trial.

The Parties

VICEROY

@Merlo

PROSECUTION

First Chair: @A_mean_old_man, Vizier and Magister

Second Chair: @Dremaur, Grand Vizier and Magister

DEFENSE

Soramra / @Kingdom_of_Napels (JoWhatup) , Magister

The listed parties shall have 72 hours from the opening of this trial to declare their presence.

In the care of clarity, only one listed member from either party need declare their presence.

Parties will refrain from posting any evidence, argument, or testimony until allowed by procedure or solicited by the Viceroy.

2

I am present.

3

The Prosecution is present.

4

The Viceroy has noted the presence of both parties.

The Prosecution is now given 2 days (2025-03-23T12:00:00Z) to present their case.

Requests for extensions will be considered.

5

The Prosecution thanks the court for its time and consideration in this matter. We have appealed this action in the interest of it running its full course. We are cognizant of the Viceroy’s request that our appellate action be premised on compelling reasons to overturn the verdict, rather than a relitigation of the trial level action.

We see this affair as perhaps no longer paramount to but still pertinent to TEP’s security and legal fortitude, and strongly suggest the court reconsider the verdict, if not in a fashion that punishes the defendant to the full extent of the law for the crime of High Treason, at least in one that punishes obvious wrongdoing against TEP, especially regarding Omission, as lawbreaking was seemingly acknowledged by the Presiding Arbiter’s statement that “for TEP laws to apply to a specific person, they would also have to be a citizen”; the Prosecution impresses upon the court the danger of this verdict:

The prosecution believes that the ruling of the Presiding Arbiter at the trial level presents a concise issue for appellate consideration within the broader action that warranted this appeal. The verdict at the trial level centers around the idea that JoWhatup was not a citizen at the time of the criminal activity he is charged with. The Court has taken the position that this makes JoWhatup unable to be held criminally liable for his actions, citing a “lack of legal obligation to The East Pacific”. The prosecution respectfully believes the Presiding Arbiter has erred in this finding.

The statement of jurisdiction in the verdict is not absolute. While the laws of The East Pacific generally apply to actions undertaken within The East Pacific, there is evidence suggesting that our government maintains the jurisdictional grounds to bar or penalize individuals for actions committed outside The East Pacific. Section VI of the Citizenship Act, Proscription, specifically empowers penalty on the following basis,

“…for reasons of regional security based on actions committed abroad or against The East Pacific.”

To clarify, the Prosecution is not proposing a proscription in raising this point. Rather, we are contending that there is explicit legislative precedent for the government of The East Pacific exercising jurisdiction over non-citizens and non-residents (Citizenship Act, Section VI, 6.2-6.3). The test created by the act explicitly allows all nations and individuals to be punishable by the powers granted in this act regardless of citizenship, if they engage in “actions committed abroad or against The East Pacific”.

The prosecution does not believe the actions undertaken were abroad in their totality. JoWhatup maintained citizenship before and after the period of Scardino’s infiltration, as is accepted in the facts. Further, an infiltration by a hostile party is undoubtedly an issue for the Court before us as an action “against The East Pacific.”

Next, we turn our attention to the Criminal Liability Act. Per Section II, Liability, the following is established as the burden for criminal liability,

“…all criminally liable offences shall require proof that the defendant had committed a voluntary action or a voluntary omission…”

The Criminal Liability Act only references the above test as opening an individual to liability. It makes no mention of citizenship, only defendants as a concept, and the following Section III, Defenses, provides two affirmative defenses: preventing a greater criminal act, or necessity. The law provides for no citizenship or jurisdictionally-premised defense.

Taking these provisions of the Citizenship Act and Criminal Liability Act, we can infer constructive intent by the legislature to allow jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-citizens.

The prosecution further argues, in addition to this legislative evidence, a policy interest in avoiding an injustice on technicality. Where a defendant can avoid penalty on citizenship grounds despite being a citizen both prior to and after the action undertaken, it would allow for a near-bulletproof defense to liability for engaging in the most heinous acts against The East Pacific, or knowingly withholding information of the same.

Foreign Interest and Potential Interference: This trial has been of interest to several parties abroad. This was inevitable given the circumstances of the evidence provided to the Praesidium, but it is important our justice system remain sovereign and free of interference.

On February 24, 2025, during the Presiding Arbiter’s deliberations (it was probably not clear to outsiders that the entire court was not deliberating on the verdict and that only the Presiding Arbiter was in control of the outcome), one of our Arbiters was solicited in DMs by Xoriet, after not hearing from her for a very long time. She began with “small talk” which escalated very quickly into an announcement that she’s “really happy about what she could accomplish as NPO delegate” which “includes concluding an alliance with LWU and complimenting Jo because he went from raider to genuinely caring about GCR’s. [sic.]” As far as I know, this Arbiter hasn’t heard from her since. This constitutes an attempt by a foreign entity and apparent close conspirator / collaborator with Jo to influence the outcome of the trial in Jo’s favor in DMs with a standing Arbiter and is a condemnable breach of process and of our sovereignty.

It is expected that individuals abroad will speak on matters in other regions. It is therefore unsurprising that there has been gossip surrounding this trial, including comments that question the motives of the prosecution, or comments on the substantiveness of either arguments. However, to privately message a sitting Arbiter and attempt to persuade them of the defendant’s character is an escalation and deeply inappropriate.

The prosecution appreciates Xoriet’s status as a former WA Delegate and general stateswoman. However, her primary affiliation for the majority of the last decade has been the New Pacific Order, which shares an alliance with Lone Wolves United. Further, JoWhatup has joined the New Pacific Order in the aftermath of his initial trial. With that in mind, the prosecution does not believe a reasonable mind could conclude she was merely engaging in innocent commentary on the trial, both due to the contents of her outreach and that it was privately directed at an Arbiter.

We live in a global Nationstates. No region is truly isolated, especially not a GCR. To affirm the trial court’s position that a lapse in citizenship can allow a defendant to escape from justice has grave implications. Infiltrating, couping, or attempting to otherwise subvert and harm the legitimate government of The East Pacific should have consequences. It should be immaterial to the Court whether the defendant was a citizen at that precise moment. One should not be allowed to be a citizen, withdraw and undermine us, and then return free of liability for their actions. It would be an injustice to rule to this end. Beyond that interest, our laws are clear. The combined Citizenship and Criminal Liability Acts make no requirement that one be a citizen to be held liable for their actions, and indeed the former provides an express right of The East Pacific’s government to penalize those for actions abroad which are done in service of harming our region.

Would we absolve an individual who had been a citizen of TEP (with no “OOC” background) who left for Cordone and, two years later, publicly renounced their membership in this proscribed entity and was given a second chance here, only for us to discover that they had conspired with Cordone leadership to infiltrate TEP for the nefarious interests of Cordone while they were not a citizen of TEP? Do crimes against TEP not apply to current and former citizens if they simply abuse a technicality? Precedent and the aforementioned legal establishment of jurisdiction assert otherwise.

While the verdict reads “it would be unreasonable to extend the power of TEP’s laws to also involve other regions”, it did not clearly or explicitly express belief in the Defense’s assertion that LWU knew all along they were being infiltrated, that this anti-TEP rhetoric was all a feint, and that the true infiltration was being perpetrated against The South Pacific (again, the evidence flatly and objectively shows crimes committed against TEP; this TSP excuse is only if we are to choose to believe the defendant’s argument: a defendant who has a history of deception in an organization fueled by theft and lies), I would like to call Q back to the witness stand, if the court permits it, to list off the multitude of raider operations that were foiled through the use of the Haitianstates alt, to challenge the assertion of the defense that they suspected the alt all along and to sew doubt in the legitimacy of this ridiculous TSP defense. Please let me know if this will be allowed.

6

During routine citizenship checks initiated due to addition of citizens to the roster after successful telegram verification, Soramra (among other citizens) was found to be in violation of the WA declaration policy (resigned 8 hours ago without notice) and was summarily removed from the citizenry, as is customary and accepted procedure.

The Prosecution is uncertain of the future of these proceedings in light of this development and awaits the direction of the Conclave.

EDIT: The Prosecution awaits potential rectification of this lapse by the defendant.

EDIT #2: Soramra’s citizenship has been restored after correction of WA reporting within 48-hour window.

7

I wish to clarify for the record that I was the Arbiter referenced in the prosecution’s statement regarding contact from Xoriet. While I did have a conversation with Xoriet during the trial period, the prosecution’s characterization of this (as an attempt to influence the outcome of the trial and to persuade me of the defendant’s character) overstates what occurred. The conversation was primarily a casual catch-up with only an incidental mention of Jo and LWU. Xoriet did not try to persuade me of anything.
The conversation itself was never shared, only the fact that it occurred (and that LWU/Jo was mentioned in between some small talk) was shared in TEP-security related discussions. This information was not shared with the purpose of it being presented in this trial.
I believe this clarification is necessary for an accurate factual record.
I do not see grounds for my recusal at this time. However, should either Party feel this qualifies as ‘materially involved’ under § 3.4 SOC, I will recuse myself from this case.

8

If this information was relevant to the credibility of the witness and the case made by the prosecution, it should have been presented in the preceding trial. I see no reason to prolong the appeal process by returning this witness to the stand.

I invite the prosecution to continue, or rest their case so that the trial may proceed.

I thank Arbiter Bachtendekuppen for his clarification. I can confirm the defendants citizenship was restored by the citizenship office within the 48-hour window, and this trial will therefore continue.

9

May all parties please note I am extending the trial date by one week, due to the slow progression of things on my end. I apologise to both parties for the delays.

10

If the court will not hear further testimony from the witness then the Prosecution has nothing further and rests our case.

11

The court recognises that the prosecution has rested their case and have called all witnesses.

The defence may now present their case.

12

I thank the Presiding Arbiter for the opportunity to make my case. I also thank Arbiter Bachtendekuppen for his clarification, though I do believe that, with the conversation between the Arbiter and Xoriet being directly presented in the case, along with having sponsored the Appeal in the first place under 2.19e of the Standing Orders of the Conclave, his recusal would be appropriate. It is unclear to me whether sponsoring an appeal under 2.19e constitutes “bring[ing] a matter before the Conclave”, though that would be my personal reading of 3.4. Regardless, I believe that the Prosecution bringing up the conversation as part of their case does constitute material involvement, be it apparently a milder case than I had initially feared when I read the Prosecution’s argument.

I will note before moving on that I’m left with a question I find deeply unsettling: where does the Prosecution’s knowledge and mention of the Arbiter and Xoriet’s conversation originate from? “TEP-security related discussions” is broad, but I see only two options: either the Arbiter spoke to the Prosecution privately and directly, discussing the case and mentioning conversations apparently considered related to the case, or the Prosecution used their access to security channels to reveal this information as part of the case. The latter possibility disturbs me greatly, as a possible abuse of authority or worse, an actual crime. I will leave it be for now, and focus on the trial, but I firmly believe these are questions important to the East’s wellbeing.

In the interest of avoiding a retreading of the same arguments that were made during the original trial, I’ll focus on the prosecution’s arguments for an overturning of the verdict. I believe, firmly, that I have demonstrated my innocence of the crimes alleged in the first trial. It is unclear to me how the Prosecution understands the previous verdict as “acknowledg[ing] lawbreaking”. The verdict does not appear to state anything of the sort, merely that the question of whether lawbreaking took place is superseded by the question of whether there would have been a law that applied to me that I could have broken.

The Prosecution’s argument that the East’s jurisdiction applies to the entire world is, frankly, bizarre. That proscription may be instated against non-residents may be true, but this is not an application of TEP’s criminal law against non-residents. It is an application of TEP’s law to TEP’s government, establishing a procedure empowering the East’s legally established organisations to take action against said non-residents upon their attempt to gain resident status, on the basis of security, not TEP law. Nowhere does it indicate that proscribed non-residents have a legal obligation to the East. It is explicitly on the basis of regional security, and not in order to “punish” non-residents, as the Prosecution seems to assert.

The Prosecution, I will note, does not appear to have any evidence to substantiate that an infiltration took place beyond Fedele’s word that it did, in a channel with a suspected spy in it. This evidence does not exist, because the infiltration did not take place to the best of my knowledge, as I verified personally and explicitly at the time. Moreover, the Prosecution’s argument that “the actions undertaken were [not] abroad in their totality” is incoherent. There is absolutely nothing, not even Fedele’s word, to believe that A) there were any “actions” on my part, only inaction if one believes that I did believe something was taking place, and B) that I was not abroad at the time, which, put bluntly, makes no sense. Either the Prosecution believes I held residency at the time, for which they have supplied no evidence and which the Prosecution seems unwilling to outright assert themselves, or they are suggesting that the theorised “infiltration” ran on for years and into my regaining citizenship, at which point the case simply devolves into baseless speculation.

The Prosecution’s points on “foreign interference” (though, given the clarification since, that hardly seems like a correct characterisation) are largely irrelevant to me or my case. What Xoriet did or did not say to Bachtendekuppen is irrelevant to me, it does not indicate guilt, nor do I see why it is appropriate to bring up here. The Prosecution’s sole correct observation is that I did join the New Pacific Order - I was assured that The Pacific did not put citizens on trial for five year old logs with no evidence to substantiate that something occurred, and nothing I’ve seen indicates that The Pacific is gripped by hysteria, paranoia and witch-hunting. The only foreign interference that I can see any basis for are not conversations Xoriet had with Bachtendekuppen but rather the blatant interference in our election by “Q”, someone with a long and storied history of undercutting our treaties, stomping our aims in the World Assembly, and antagonising our members. But I digress.

The Prosecution seems very concerned at the possibility of someone escaping conviction on the basis that they are not a citizen, but this is not how the ruling appears to me. Whatever crime can be committed against the East without actually being present in the East isn’t entirely clear to me, and the Prosecution doesn’t appear to be interested in elaborating on it. Plotting to infiltrate the East Pacific, as the Prosecution appears to cite as an example, still makes little sense to me, since it still requires them to actually be present in the region in order to infiltrate much of anything. There appears to be little justice, in my eyes, in attempting to convict people retroactively for having known about others claiming to be committing crimes at a time during which they had no legal obligation to report anything. Trying to require that all those seeking a fresh start in the East Pacific must have always been loyal to us is to assert that those who come here in good faith after leaving regions hostile to us do not deserve a second chance. That does not make sense to me, and it certainly does not sound just.

And again, this is not actually applicable to this case. No crime occurred that I know of, and Lone Wolves United, a diplomatic partner of ours, has not demonstrated any hostility towards the East. During my tenure as its Khan, I actively worked with TEP in good faith. Since joining the East, I have worked for TEP in good faith. There never was an infiltration of the East during my tenure as Khan that I was aware of. There is an irony, I think, in the fact that the Prosecution’s sole piece of evidence is to take Fedele’s word that an infiltration was taking place five years ago, and the only way to keep holding on to that belief is to proclaim my word, both of five years ago and now, must have been the lie.

I rest my case.

1 Like
13

The court recognises that the defence has rested it’s case. We may now proceed with closing arguments.

14

The Prosecution requests a brief extension and can present our closing arguments later this week.

15

May all parties be aware I have extended the trial date until April 21.

16

Given recent, broader developments pertaining to Xoriet’s interference in other GCRs, her forced and shameful resignation from NPO, as well as new reports that she used her moderator permissions to leak from The Praesidium directly to high-ranking government officials from The West Pacific, including Bran Astor, of all people, I cannot see her actions in regards to these proceedings as “mild”. I think we can all see her intentions clearly. I also suspect the defendant may have been aware of them. I also find it highly inappropriate, perhaps even attempted obstruction of justice, that the defendant requests that an Arbiter recuse himself in this setting. I refuse to accept that a hostile foreign entity in close collusion with the defendant (or perhaps the defendant himself, via proxy) can effectively break our judicial process in this fashion. I also find it ironic that the defendant lambasts Quebecshire for “antagonising [us]” when the defendant’s historical involvement in foreign policy is likely partly responsible for that happening in the first place. It would seem the defendant had private and selfish reasons for encouraging alienation of the defendersphere, which ironically seems to grow day by day due to the unhinged and unfettered aggression of its opponents. I do not deny “Q” or defendersphere-adjacent actions against our WA programs and commendation candidates, or other unconstructive past behavior by the former, but I do not believe this adversity simply emerged in a vacuum. And I think a few people had very specific reasons for fostering / encouraging it.

Since the inception of these charges, I have persevered to bring what I fundamentally and genuinely believe to be justice to the outcome of this trial. For what I believe to be the sake of TEP’s betterment and long-term survival, I have weathered direct insults from former cabinet members, repeated harassment from questionable outsiders, and members of our own government referring to my efforts as a “joke”; meanwhile, onlookers watched in bewilderment. Still, I refuse to be cowed, and will not abandon my region or my principles. Have we been infected on such a level that we take the word of an infiltrator over a dedicated security official who sacrifices his sparse and valuable time and risks his image for our own protection? Do we seriously believe that nothing insidious is happening here? Since this all began, the defendant’s organization, LWU (to which he owes his loyalty first and foremost, and with whom he carpetbagged to NPO when the getting got hard in TEP (to where he carpetbagged after the getting got hard in Laz)) has fallen from grace hideously for very similar offenses, losing their connections with TO, TWP, and Lazarus; I expect this downhill trend to continue, elsewhere if not here.

These are trying times. I urge the court to consider the broad implications of acknowledging lawbreaking followed by exoneration via technicality. I urge the court to consider the broad implications of choosing to believe - again, choosing to believe - JoWhatup’s ludicrous “we were infiltrating TSP, not TEP” defense. I urge the court not to indirectly invite an influx of characters, now not welcome elsewhere, to our region and government by letting one of their ilk off the hook for an obvious violation of our laws and sovereignty. Do not forget the evidence, which, for the last time, I remind you the Defense affirmed is unadulterated, where the individual who became our delegate and subsequently directly attempted to overthrow us using brute force five-and-a-half years ago, and who remains hostile to this day, states that he “recently got citizenship again in The East Pacific”, and the defendant himself states “I don’t want too many people in on it.” Do not forget that reports of this invoked our security apparatus at the time. Do not forget that the defendant and that LWU hid this from us for years, like they’ve hidden so many things from so many others, hoping it would never surface and never impede JoWhatup’s tilt at supremacy in TEP’s government.

JoWhatup’s former and current status as a citizen and precedents regarding jurisdiction established in our legal code are more than sufficient for conviction of Omission. In my mind, of High Treason, but at the very least Omission. I urge the court to consider the message that will be sent by an Arbiter being forced to recuse himself because a party invested in the protection and the agenda of the defendant interfered in our politics. I assert, again and again, that there are firm legal grounds for punishment of the defendant and that the court has every right to put its foot down against this absurdity and put the defendant in his place, and I fear that failure to do so will cast a long shadow over this government, damage confidence in our laws and process, and send an overwhelmingly negative message internally and abroad.

Finally, I rest my case. Godspeed.

17

The defence may now make its closing argument.