[CIVIL ACTION/INJUNCTION] Hobbesistan v. Eastern Alksearia, Nociav, Wallenberg

[th]MOTION FOR CIVIL TRIAL[/th]

DEFENDANT

  1. Eastern Alksearia
  2. Nociav
  3. Wallenberg
    REASON(S) FOR SUIT

DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
VIOLATING THE CONCORDAT OF THE EAST PACIFIC

STATUTE(S)

(Only link I could find to the old concordat, sorry!)

CHARGES ADVANCED BY-
(indicate with “X”)
(X) Hobbesistan

DO YOU HAVE TEP CITIZENSHIP?
(indicate yes with “X”)
(X)

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FILED
(Verify Sending to Viceroy with an “X”)
(X) REFER TO FOLLOWUP

Good evening and may it please the court. Please forgive the unconventional formatting, but I believe the circumstances necessitate it.

I am writing this civil petition as I feel my rights as a citizen of the East Pacific have been violated by this Conclave. Specifically in relevance to the judicial review regarding the 2019 Concordat. In it, this esteemed court invalidates every version of government after the July 2019 concordat. The court allowed all their arbiters except one to remain lawful arbiters, however, even this is unlawful under the 2019 concordat, nullifying the ruling and potentially meaning all Arbiters involved acted unlawfully themselves.

All referenced sections are from the 2019 Concordat this court has just ruled is now the law of the land. We will start with the court’s decision to recuse Halley as they are “no longer legally an Arbiter”

Article C, Section 2:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 2) The Conclave shall be composed of four Arbiters.

— End quote

The phrasing of this cannot be mistaken. The conclave shall have four arbiters. As in, cannot function with less. Furthermore, if Halley is ruled not legally an arbiter, someone else is:

Article C, Section 9:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 9) Arbiters are appointed for six month tenure. Arbiters shall then retain their seat after their term until a citizen is nominated to replace them.

— End quote

If this court ruled Halley is no longer a legally serving arbiter, then whoever was last appointed to Halley’s spot under the 2019 Concordat is, and should’ve been entitled to a say in this decision. The court having evidently not even attempted to track this “rebirthed arbiter” down is both a show of bad faith, arguably a violation of the Concordat they ruled in favor of, and arguably invalidates the ruling to begin with.

The court cannot apply this language to itself; as all Arbiters currently serving are now at minimum a year and a half past their original “legal” terms and riding purely on the clause saying they retain their seat until replaced, without also applying it retroactively to whoever was the last person to legally hold Halley’s spot.

Without including this person, this Court is acting both unethically, unlawfully, and potentially with malicious intent.

Article C, Section 11

— Begin quote from ____

Section 11) In the court proceedings of the Conclave concerning final decisions, the total number of votes cast may not exceed 3. The Standing Orders of the Conclave shall determine which of the four Arbiters shall cast these votes in any circumstance, each of whom may only cast one vote.

— End quote

Furthermore, the change in language regarding “Trials must be in open session” has been invalided by this court, and now defaults to the language of July, 2019, making its own clause:

Article C, Section 6 of invalidated Concordat:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 6) The Conclave may rule on the actions of any Citizen to be in violation of this Concordat or of the indicted offences as prescribed by the laws of the Region and sentence those found guilty pursuant to statutory limits. Trials in the Conclave shall be in open session.

— End quote

The new phrasing clearly implies criminal trials must be open session, However, now that the court has defaulted the region back to the 2019 Concordat:

Article C, Section 7 of Current Concordat:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 7) Trials in the Conclave shall be in open session.

— End quote

This language was clarified in 2020 language to allow the Conclave to conduct more business in closed sessions, including, recently, judicial review. As this language is now nullified, it seems most business of the Conclave should now be open session. I am requesting all forum records of Conclave discussion and voting pertaining to this ruling pursuant to this, as the Conclave is now a party to the 2019 constitution.

CONCLUSION

  1. The Arbiters mentioned in this suit violated the Concordat of 2019 by ruling without the as of yet unknown fourth arbiter present. As all Arbiters currently serving would be serving under the clause allowing them to continue to serve until replaced; as all “Surviving” arbiters had re-appointments under the now invalid legal system, the Conclave must accept this would apply retroactively to that fourth arbiter as they are applying it to themselves.

  2. To put this in other words, if Halley’s appointment is no longer legal, the last person to legally hold that spot is now the Arbiter who “maintains his/her spot until replaced”.  That person who is now legally an Arbiter again had every right to be involved in this discussion and was excluded from it, at worst violating the Concordat and at “best” putting the integrity of this court into question.

  3. If Halley’s spot was truly empty, then this Conclave can not legally or morally act without that fourth arbiter present. Particularly on a matter of such graveness as quite literally uprooting this region’s prior three years of government.

  4. By failing to find and include this Arbiter in their ruling, or if there was no prior Arbiter ruling without the Concordat’s required numbers for the court, the ruling should be ruled invalidated as a violation of both the standing rules of the Conclave and a violation of the Concordat of the East Pacific (Of July, 2019)

  5. I argue I, Hobbesistan, have prima facie to file this civil suit as I may very well be an Arbiter again and not know it. Indeed, I was one of the last arbiters appointed under the old system and I was the Viceroy who posted the 2019 amendment that is now cited as law. Either myself or, ironically, Zukchiva seem to be one of the last ‘legal’ arbiters unless I’m missing people, which is likely.

  6. In any case, it would seem prudent it is this court’s responsibility to track down this last “legal” arbiter instead of simply presuming there isn’t one while applying the same “until reapppointed/removed” rule to themselves. To act otherwise would be both a violation of the Concordat and a double standard that I’m sure this court does not wish to be seen imposing when making a decision with such gravity.

  7. If there is indeed no valid legal predecessor to Halley, being mindful that any immediate prior appointment may also be unlawful as this Court has ruled any appointments after October of 2021 are now unlawful, then this Court should provide their exact ‘breadtrail’ of secession, including why and how they found that conclusion. And even then, this ruling is arguably unlawful as the Concordat requires four arbiters.

Regardless, the Court would do itself and the justice it is intended on serving right by recusing its former decision until such a time as the former arbiter who is, seemingly, now a current arbiter again is successfully located and brought in. Barring their absence or unwillingness, it would seem natural to ‘backtrack’ arbiters under legal constitutions until a willing fourth is located.

Without that fourth, this Conclave is doing nothing but acting illegitimately as the intended reason for requiring four arbiters and only allowing three to vote - allowing that fourth to be a relatively unbiased avenue of appeal, has been removed in what is definitively the most ground-shaking ruling in the Conclave’s history.

I am withdrawing this for a more concise appeal.