I’m going to step forward and take the position of prosecutor.
We wish to drop the charges of Retaining Multiple Naturalized Citizenships but it is still in the interest of region to have the states evidence submitted of what we believe is still impropriety with IP addresses and voter fraud based on on-going investigations.
The Defense submits that at this time there are no formal charges. The Viziers have yet to respond to a request to reverse a complaint based on Administration’s finding of innocence of operating multiple accounts (the only basis for this complaint), and the Conclave has yet to formally accept the complaint as admissible.
Since at this stage it is only a complaint not yet accepted by Conclave at pre-trial, I submit that the Prosecution is out of order. There are no charges at this time, and only the Viziers may reverse their complaint.[hr]
At this time I resubmit my request to the Viziers, as the basis for the complaint has been addressed and clarified. The complaint states:
— Begin quote from ____
“The allegations are the nations and Citizen Lavince and Aelitia are one and the same, influencing elections in TEP and committing Citizenship fraud.”
— End quote
This allegation forms the basis of the complaint, and has been proven false. Forum Admin have come to the conclusion of innoncence, and have stated they will testify to that effect. Further evidence can be presented if requested by the Viziers in their consideration to reverse.
This complaint was made approximately nine days ago, and in the intervening time I have been cooperative with all investigation and have proven my innocence. I submit I am able to continue to do so, and insist on the fact that only an unqualified assumption of my guilt would be able to refute the evidence I have presented.
The complaint was originally based on what was believed to have been two different accounts with one person in control, which that has been proven false. If multiple charges are brought against someone, they should all be dropped if one is proven wrong? That still leaves all the other issues of the complaint. I’m prepared to submit the findings of the investigation here if necessary.
The issue here is that there are no charges. The complaint was entirely based on the assumption that Lavince and I were the same person, which you agree has been disproven. The complaint begins with the allegation Lavince and I are the same person, and then goes on with a laundry list of offences all stemming from that allegation. To disprove the allegation is not just to disprove ‘one charge’, but rather to disprove the complaint.
It is now encumbent upon the Viziers to take action and reverse their complaint, or to Conclave to dismiss them, since there is no reasonable basis for the suggested ‘charges’.
Lavince and I are separate people, which each execute our rights to vote and conduct ourselves as we wish. There is no fraud or criminal impropriety. If there remain ethical questions as to our alliance, I would like to seek a settlement to them- however these questions have no reasonable criminal basis and cannot be settled within a court.
[hr]
Given the substantial change in situation and proven evidence in the ten days since this complaint was submitted, I request the Viziers submit a formal decision on whether they will continue the complaint. New and substantive evidence has been presented, and the basis for the complaint has been fulfilled. All evidence is available to the Viziers.
[hr]
At this point, everyone moves into finals and the holiday season. This will inevitably lead to delayed posting and reactions, which is contrasted by the unusually swift action taken by the Viziers, the Conclave, regional allies, and administration of NS and TEP not long ago to ‘temporarily’ remove me. I have cooperated to the point of undue hardship on myself, I have provided terribly personal information to disprove this complaint, and yet it is clung to. The burden of proof does not rest upon me, yet I have presented evidences and arguments enough to address every possible portion of this complaint.
I have proven I am able to disprove these allegations, and I have proven there is no clear or present danger from my existence in The East Pacific. I have never acted to destroy the Concordat, and I believe I have made that abundantly clear.
From the investigation we can show that a failure to disclose that really effected the votes in the Magisterium and shows possible voter fraud with the Delegate election. I’ll refer to the Viceroy if they wish to drop the case since it is no longer up to the Viziers if they can withdraw. I can look into if we can reach a settlement.
— Begin quote from ____
Article D, Section 3: The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.
— End quote
As a Vizier, I do not believe we filed a “complaint.” There is no complaint for us to reverse. A majority of the Viziers believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate had acted to destroy this Concordat. The Viziers acted to remove the Delegate and that removal was confirmed by a decision of the Conclave.
The Conclave then listed a series of charges that they indicated they would investigate and prosecute. It is now a case before the Conclave. The Conclave will resolve these charges and determine if the Delegate should be reinstated, permanently removed from the region, or anything in between.
The Vizier’s action to remove me is separate from this complaint. That is a temporary measure which was confirmed by the Conclave, while this complaint is a separate action intended to press criminal charges against me. The ‘temporary’ aspect of the removal measure has not been quantified, but remains temporary. This action was based upon an apparent belief beyond a reasonable doubt that I acted to destroy the Concordat by holding multiple citizenships, which was disproven.
Further, once the complaint is discharged, reinstatement as Delegate is a constitutional requirement. The removal does not invalidate the election, nor permanently remove the delegate, nor allow Conclave to decide otherwise.
The original post of this thread says the Conclave has “received a complaint” which then went on with an extensive list of offences. If the Vizier is suggesting that this complaint was not provided by the Viziers, and Conclave decided which offences they will “prosecute”, then this is a serious indignity to the Concordat, The Conclave, and any semblance of justice in this region.
[hr]
It is my argument that the Viziers have presented this complaint to Conclave, and are thereby bound to represent and potentially prosecute or dismiss it. This is in line with our regional precedence of the complaining party being able to essentially ‘drop the charges’, such as the Delegate did http://forum.theeastpacific.com/single/?p=8034968&t=5184025 and http://forum.theeastpacific.com/topic/5191120/1/#new.
Inversely, you argue that the complaint has now turned to the Conclave. This would be an injustice of unimaginable proportions, as the Conclave would then represent the prosecution (the complaint) and the judge. Certainly this should not be the case. The Viziers were recognized as the submitting party of the complaint, and are now bound to represent it or to appoint a person to represent it.
It is my argument that there is no Vizier “complaint.” The majority of Viziers believed that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. The evidence for this belief may come from many sources. Viziers act to defend the region. The Conclave (or the Magisterium) then determines whether the temporary act of removing the Delegate is confirmed. If it is not confirmed, the Delegate is returned to their position after temporarily being removed. If it is confirmed, the work of the Viziers is finished.
There is no Concordat requirement for any additional action.
In this case (which is the first use of this power by Viziers since the ratification of the Concordat), the Conclave has decided to review a variety of evidence to determine if something more needs to be done. The Conclave is the judge and jury.
— Begin quote from ____
This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the sole interpreter of this Concordat and the judge and jury of indicted citizens.
— End quote
The Conclave has selected an independent prosecutor.
It is correct to note that the first post in this thread says, “To have received the following complaint from the college of Viziers of The Sovereign East Pacific …” I disagree with that language. The Conclave received that complaint from a variety of sources. I do not agree that the Viziers made the complaint. The Viziers acted in accordance with their duties in the Concordat, none of which require the Viziers to submit a complaint to anyone.
(These are my personal views as a Vizier. I have not confirmed my views with that of the other Viziers. We’re in an unprecedented place, so we are all working to clarify our roles and responsibilities.)
The Conclave
The Conclave notes that Aelitia, subject of the current proceedings:
Article C, Section 6) of the Concordat states: “Section 6) The Conclave may judge the actions of any nation in the East Pacific for violation of this Concordat and indictable offenses according to the laws of the East Pacific and sentence those found guilty.”.
The Standing Orders of the Conclave, Section 2, state: “The following functions shall be executed by Conclave (…) III. Trials - Criminal - official charges brought against a citizen by The East Pacific.”
The Standing Orders of the Conclave, Section 2, Article 3, (a), state: “2.3.2- Once a motion for suit has been made, the Viceroy is shall schedule a pre-trial and a full trial date as soon as possible. The Viceroy shall at this point notify the parties involved via telegram and/or forum message with the dates as well as posting it in the public thread.”.
The Conclave received notification from the Viziers of 1) the procedure of Article D, Section 3 of the Concordat being activated and the request for a vote by the Conclave and 2) allegations of various possible offences and/or crimes by the sitting Delegate, Aelitia.
The law, nor precedent, holds any formal requirements as to the nature and form of the “motion for suit” mentioned by it’s SOC. The filing of such a motion, charges, or any other complaint can be done in any form. The law does not require the complaint be filed by the Delegate, or an official appointed by the Executive. Various forms of complaints and filings have been used before the Conclave (Marselesk / Plagentine v. TEP; John Doe (Old Federalia, et al.) v. TEP; Unibot v. TEP; TEP v. Govindia (2014)).
The Conclave received specific complaints and allegations by Citizens of TEP against another Citizen of TEP, and considers these sufficient as a motion for trial.
The law nor precedent requires those citizens lodging a complaint, motion, or any charges, to prosecute these charges themselves. Article C, Section 6) of the Concordat states that it is upon the Conclave to judge the actions of any nation in TEP.
It is not upon the subject of the charges to decide whether or not a complaint, motion, or any charges are disproven.
At this stage of the (pre)trial, guilt and evidence are not considered in view of a final judgement, but rather only as to the merit for a trial, given all circumstances and elements available to the Conclave.
The Conclave notes that an independent prosecutor, East Malaysia, has come forward. The Conclave accepts this application.
Pre-Trial schedule
The Conclave hereby:
The Conclave will rule on the merit for a trial by 19/12/2016.
The Conclave requests all other parties to refrain from further posting in this thread.
Viceroy of the Conclave,
Bachtendekuppen
With respect to Aelitia, there have been several new developments regarding this case in general. Several members of administration (Pack, Todd, myself) and one member of the Conclave (Bach) have been made aware of several pieces of evidence which relate to this case. The evidence, which has been requested and granted by administration to maintain the privacy of this issue, strongly indicates that at least Aelitia and Lavince are two different people.
While I and others believe the two are unique individuals, the evidence provided does not prove that Aelitia has never used Lavince’s account. As I am acting prosecutor, it is my duty to provide the evidence we plan to use in this case. I (at the beset of the viziers and administration) reserve the right to include any further evidence if needed. If the evidence contains sensitive information such as IP addresses, administration will blot out the last three numbers to maintain privacy.
On Electioneering
,
, Image E
Presented above are three images submitted as evidence to this accusation. The first two images show IP correlation between the two individuals (94% match) and evidence that the two are believed to be different people, respectively. We conclude from this evidence that while the two appear to be unique individuals, there is most likely a lot of talk with respect to The East Pacific between them. Image E is evidence where Aelitia is directly instructing Lavince how to vote in a Magisterium election (based on the timings, we were able to figure out it was this vote - had he not informed Lavince to vote and which way to vote, this vote would not have passed). Such an issue falls under “electioneering”
Throughout the election processes in The East Pacific, electioneering has been defined as “campaigning for votes in private chats, campaigning on the RMB, sending out telegrams, etc”. We now know this has occurred via the evidence supplied, and while we’ve never had to actually forge a ruling on this matter in the form of a court case, it is still something very concerning that has a well-documented past in TEP law. In TEP, one has traditionally been allowed to let people know about a vote or that a vote is going on. It’s been wrong in the past to tell people how to vote. That is, “no table talk”.
There have been several declarations on this issue of electioneering, commented on by past Viceroys, which I have outlined below:
Viceroy Barb explaining that if Pack had electioneered in the Magisterium Pack would be in serious trouble
Electioneering explained by Aelitia when he was Viceroy during a delegate election
The former Standing Orders of the Conclave informing people of the consequences of Electioneering
The fact that in the first eight hours of joining the regional forums Lavince was granted citizenship by Aelitia then join the Magisterium seems to indicate that Lavince may have been asked to join simply to act as “another vote” in Magisterium voting. The fact that just over 42% of Lavince’s posts were votes (either in delegate elections or Magisterium votes) also seems to confirm this.
Based on the above knowledge of Aelitia informing Lavince on how to vote, along with the post history of Lavince, could these two truly be referred to as separate entities?
On Voter Fraud
,
,
, Image D
This is a bold claim and is an extremely serious accusation. The first image presents their cell providers. The second and third images presented in this claim are pictures submitted by Aelitia containing phones of both users. The final image is Lavince’s vote during the November delegate elections. Note the IP address which points to a Bell Mobility IP, which is the cell service provider of Aelitia’s phone. In short, Lavince used Aelitia’s phone to cast a vote in a delegate election. This is proof of voter fraud, even if the previously-submitted evidence earlier in the thread is not brought to trial.
Past Precedence
We as a region have convicted individuals in the past for having one IP shared between two accounts. We submit the linked trial as past precedent. Note the individuals serving on the court at the time of this ruling were Aelitia and BGP. Butballs and Davinhia never shared an IP on our forums. Rather, Davinhia and Devright did, and this defense outlined by Davinhia paints and extremely similar scenario - the two are housemates who just happen to share an IP and live together - they didn’t even apply for government positions (note this was at a time where TEP required citizenship to participate in RP’s, so the fact that they wanted citizenship to RP is a plausible defense). Note the tone and demeanor between BGP and Aelitia in this case. Also, Zeorus, an arbiter at the time, expressed that he would need more proof on the two not being the same person, but even so, opined the event constituted a “significant risk” to the region, defined by secition 4.8 of the Criminal Code. This was later confirmed by Aelitia, who answered the inquiry in full.
After a review panel conducted by Aelitia began, evidence (which has now been deleted) was presented by BGP in the form of images. In this post, BGP, with full knowledge of Davinhia and Devright using similar and different IP addresses, concluded that “I believe that DevRight is indeed a unique individual. However, the close proximity in all roleplay on the NS forum combined with a personal relationship and matching IP addresses on our forum raises security concerns.” After the exhaustive investigation, presumably led by BGP, Aelitia adjourned the panel, noting that all involved individual accounts (Davinhia, Butballs, Devright) were not only denied citizenship, but banned from the region. To date, the three remain banned.
In short, a similar situation occurred roughly two years prior, and while the primary investigator believed the two citizenship-seeking nations were different people (and the rest of the conclave presumably did not have enough evidence to assume the two were different), the fact that they shared IP addresses was enough to not only deny them entry, but ban them outright.
Final Assessment
With proof of Aelitia instructing Lavince on how to vote, post history of Lavince, and the voter fraud evidence, can we truly assume the two nations to be separate entities with unique citizenships? If Aelitia is providing clear instructions on how to vote in legislation, can they really be counted as two unique citizenship nations voting? If the two nations swap phones or perhaps use the other nation’s phone for a vote, can it really be considered as two separate nations voting?
Furthermore, with the past precedent set when he was a viceroy, wouldn’t it behoove anyone, especially a former viceroy, to inform administration that the two may be sharing IP’s? Had administration or the government been informed of this occurrence, the current situation may have been different. The fact that they didn’t speaks volumes with respect to intent.
Therefore, with all evidence considered and the unique situation of two individuals working together as one entity with essentially two votes, we wish to apply the following charges to both accounts: Failure to Disclose, Retaining Multiple Naturalized Citizenships & Granting Multiple Naturalized Citizenships.
Plea Bargain Agreement
The prosecution will submit a recommendation to the Conclave for a reduced sentence if the accused enters a plea of guilty to the above offenses under the following terms:
[ul]
[li]A one-year ban from holding government office
[li]Lavince must resign as citizen but will still be welcomed on the forum
[/li][/ul]
…The defense recognizes that the function of a pre-trial is to determine the admissibility of the motion presented by the prosecution, and seeks to show that these charges are either inapplicable or not criminal in nature.
…The defense formally recognizes that the prosecution has submitted the criminal charges of: failure to disclose, retaining multiple naturalized citizenships, and granting multiple naturalized citizenships.
…The defense recognizes that the prosecution has outlined non-criminal allegations which are speculation into the nature of the affiliation of Lavince and I.
…The defense recognizes that the prosecution has submitted a ‘plea bargain agreement’, which must be declined based on innocence. The defence submits it is willing to discuss, without prejudice, other extra-judicial arrangements due to the non-criminal, ethical nature of Lavince and I’s affiliation.
… The defense recognizes that the Conclave will be making pre-trial deliberations based on this submission and all relevant evidence previously submitted to the Viceroy.
To Merit
…Lavince and I are separate people- this statement has been substantiated by forum administration and agreed to by the prosecution. We are individuals which each execute our rights to vote and conduct ourselves as we wish. There is no fraud or criminal impropriety. If there remain ethical questions as to our alliance, I would like to seek a settlement to them- however these questions have no reasonable criminal basis and cannot be settled within a court.
To the Need for Trial
…Enumerated point-by-point in testimony submission, the charges presented by the Prosecution are invalid. The defense submits that the charges pressed can be disqualified as charges under the respective laws and basic principles of justice, thus they should be disqualified from trial.
…The charge of “failure to disclose” must be disqualified as a charge since the act clearly states that an individual must be notified by a Compliance Officer that the individual is out of compliance, and fail to comply within 14 days to be subject to criminal charges. The defense submits that no Compliance Officer has contacted them to that effect.
[spoiler] SECTION VI. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE.
…6.1-The Eastern Pacific Police Service (EPPS) is charged with monitoring compliance with this Act.
…6.1.1- Any Vizier may choose to act as a Compliance Officer under this act, and nothing in this act shall constitute an activity requirement on any Vizier.
…6.2-If a public official appears to be out of compliance, a Compliance Officer will contact their TEP nation, as stated in their most recent citizenship application, via telegram and the name they use on the forum via private message.
…6.3-After contact from the Compliance Officer, the public official will have 14 days to apply for an exemption or comply with this Act.
…6.4-Failure to comply with this Act may result in a trial before the Conclave for an indictable offence, any sentence to not exceed banishment from The East Pacific for one year.[/spoiler]
…Secondly, interpersonal relationships are explicitly excepted from this act and therefore the charges should be further disqualified.
— Begin quote from ____
SECTION V. EXCEPTIONS.
…5.1-Interpersonal relationships that are unrelated to governmental associations do not have to be disclosed.
— End quote
…The charge of “granting multiple citizenships” must be disqualified as a charge since the act came into effect after the alleged ‘granting’ of ‘multiple citizenships’, and thus cannot be applied following the basic legal principle of non-ex post fact law and the rule of law/ the principle of Nulla poena sine lege. Nulla poena sine lege - Wikipedia
… Secondly, the charges should be further disqualified as the act explicitly prohibits “an individual to retain or grant multiple naturalized citizenships”. As I have been verified as a separate individual than Lavince, and I was aware Lavince was a separate individual, this charge cannot be applied- I did not grant myself a second citizenship.
…The charge of “retaining multiple citizenships” should be disqualified by the fact that Lavince and I have been certified as two individuals. Further, the defense submits that either individual was only ever in control of their own account at any time, extended evidence is provided below.
[hr]
Testimony Submissions
I hereby submit the following as testimony for charges submitted by the Prosecution in their pre-trial statement.
Failure to Disclose
I submit that have not been contacted by any Compliance Officer for any reason under this Act.
I submit that this Act specifically excepts the disclosure of interpersonal relationships.
I submit that, the charges under this Act are not applicable due to the above, innocence notwithstanding.
Granting Multiple Naturalized Citizenships
I submit that I knew Lavince was an individual.
I submit that I did not grant myself naturalized citizenship.
I submit that I did not knowingly grant any individual multiple naturalized citizenships.
I submit that I did not reliably have access to moderations tools which would allow me to grant citizenship.
I submit that I did not reliably have access to moderation tools which would allow me to check applicant against IP databases or other security checks to ensure that any applicant was an individual.
I submit that Forum Administration was responsible for the granting of citizenship masking.
I submit that I had every reasonable expectation that Forum Admin performed all necessary security checks on all applicants.
I submit that I was the primary author of the Citizenship Naturalization and Suspension Act in the month of September and this speaks to my innocence.
I submit that my innocence notwithstanding, the charges under the act are invalid as the actions which prompted the charges occurred months before the alleged illegal activity was made illegal by the Act.
Retaining Multiple Naturalized Citizenships
I submit that I am an individual and Lavince is an individual.
I submit that Forum Administration has verified that Lavince and I are individuals.
I submit that I hold one naturalized citizenship under the nation Aelitia.
I submit that Lavince holds one naturalized citizenship under the nation Isle of Farore.
I submit that I have presented and am willing to present all evidence to this effect.
[hr]
Response to “On Electioneering”
…The prosecution has argued that “electioneering” has taken place, which is refuted. The prosecution’s case rests upon speculation to the nature of Lavince and I’s affiliation or private conversations, and relies heavily upon non-official definitions or sources.
Further, the prosecution submitted this image- http://imgur.com/RFbDhF2 which they suggest is conclusive evidence as ‘electioneering’. The defense submits that no reasonable person could construe “aye, or present, doesn’t matter” as conclusive to any direction.
Finally, the reference made to the previous Standing Orders of Conclave is taken out of context. Not only have those orders been invalidated by the new Standing Orders and are thus not in effect, but the only reference to “electioneering” is under the “trial process” and described it thus- “attempting to sway the outcome of the trial outside of the trial thread”.
…The argument made in this portion exhibits no basis in law nor does it provide any evidence beyond speculation.
Response to “On Voter Fraud”
…The prosecution has stated that their “proof” of voter fraud falls to the mobile providers of myself and Lavince, however the prosecution was not aware that Lavince changed mobile providers on Nov. 30, from Bell Mobility to Virgin Mobile as a cost-saving measure. This is a bill from Bell Mobility addressed to Lavince issued Nov. 2 http://imgur.com/a/uJJFB. This evidence is being submitted in counter to the prosecution’s allegation of phone sharing. The defence submit that there is a difference between device and account sharing- neither of which occurred.
…Further, in their statement, the prosecution stated
— Begin quote from ____
“the evidence provided does not prove that Aelitia has never used Lavince’s account.”
— End quote
. This statement suggests that the burden of proof rests upon me to prove the allegations false beyond any reasonable doubt, but the reverse is true. It is encumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I or Lavince have used each others’ account. To which they will find impossible, as Lavince and I never used each others’ account.
Response to “Past Precedence”
…In the reference to the Davinhia case, the prosecution pointed to arbiter comments in the Review, and the conclusion of a Citizenship Review Panel as precedence for a similar situation. The defense submits that the major difference is the preponderance of evidence provided to administration and conclave to verify the claim that Aelitia and Lavince are separate individuals, verification which was not present in the Davinhia case. Secondly, the Davinhia matter was a citizenship review panel- an entirely different legal landscape than a criminal trial before Conclave, which is our current situation.
…In the consideration of a related review, an arbiter stated they wanted more information than text logs- http://forum.theeastpacific.com/single/?p=8042183&t=5211458 . The defense argues that this has been satisfied, and marks another significant difference in context.
… Further, the conclusion of the Review ordered a ban on Davinhia and provided an option for the accused nation to return and defend their case- http://forum.theeastpacific.com/single/?p=8042352&t=5211295
— Begin quote from ____
Original citizenship of Davinhia may be brought to appeal before Conclave, despite the revocation of citizenship; though only on grounds of disputing ALL citizenship claims which have been linked to this account and acceptance of such accounts (barring rational and credible explanation).
— End quote
…In short, the prosecution argues that the primary findings of an investigator and the panel were final and conclusive. The defense has shown this is not the case. Even in the case of Davinhia and Devright they were provided the opportunity to defend the allegations by providing more evidence, even after the ban was issued. This precedence, if anything, strengthens the case that the accused has the right to defend themselves and provide verifying evidence rather than drawing conclusions regarding to similar IPs.
Response to “Final Assessment”
…The prosecution relies entirely on speculation in this argument. Questions were posed based off of easily disproven evidence, characterizing arguments in a much more conclusive manner than the prosecution is able to prove.
…As to being considered separate individuals, the defense believe this is a fact and not up to interpretation. If, for illustration purposes, you imagine a husband and wife going to the voting booth; the wife is very involved in politics and informs her husband about current events, so he asks about who best to vote for - is it considered a single person voting? Does the fact that a person advises another person about politics make them the same person?
…The prosecution argues about intent, where I believe the fact I solely authored the Citizenship Naturalization and Suspension Act - which criminalizes the acts the prosecution has accused me of speaks a much greater extent to my intent. My intent was to bring my friends to the game to get more people interested in Nationstates and The East Pacific; not to hide and try to skirt laws. I never once denied affiliation with Lavince, nor try to hide our IP situations- when I was confronted about our IPs, I immediately invited administration to investigate further. I believe my openness and responsiveness in this matter speaks to my intent.
Conclusion
…The defense concludes this statement by stating that the defense has provided a case as to why there is no merit or need for trial to the accusations from the prosecution. It is reaffirmed that the defense welcomes discussion on the ethical implications of Lavince and Is affiliation, yet this does not substantiate any claims of criminality.
…The defense has been cooperative with prosecution, complainants, Conclave, and Administration and thus requests Conclave seriously consider the case presented for dismissal of these charges. Thank you.
The Conclave
On the merit for trial
The Conclave has taken note of the respective statements of the Prosecution and the Defendant, as to the merit of a full trial.
The Conclave has reviewed the evidence presented.
After due deliberation, the Conclave has ruled that no sufficient merit is present to warrant a full trial regarding the criminal charges presented in this case.
This decision was not unanimous. The Conclave further has taken note of the abstention of Arbiter Raven regarding this decision.
Therefore,
The case of TEP v. Aelitia is closed due to lack of merit as to a full criminal trial.
Viceroy of the Conclave,
Bachtendekuppen
And now? What say the Conclave with respect to the next steps in establishing a non-Vizier Delegate for the region?
The Concordat is very clear on the matter. The Vizier’s removal was temporary.
— Begin quote from ____
Section 3) The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat. This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.
— End quote
“This removal” refers to the temporary removal done by the Viziers. The complaint which initiated this process has been discharged as non-criminal, and I submit that a new election is not necessary.
Yes, it is very clear. Please note the second sentence. It was temporary until it was confirmed.
— Begin quote from ____
This removal must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a 2/3 vote of the Magisterium or a decision by the Conclave or the Delegate shall be reinstated.
— End quote
The removal was confirmed by a decision of the Conclave and hence, the Delegate shall not be reinstated.
Since then, the Conclave decided to start trial procedures. Subsequent to that, the Conclave ruled that no trial was needed. That’s it.
There is no part of the Concordat that says, “After having confirmed the decision of the Viziers, the Conclave may decide to not have a trial and that means the Delegate is reinstated.”
That’s not enough for me as a Vizier or a Provost. I need an affirmative statement from the Conclave about something.
I do sense that since this situation is unprecedented whether or not Aelitia is to be reinstated is a entirely different legal question in and of itself.
The Conclave has ruled that the reasons which the Viziers temporarily removed me had no merit, and thus could not legitimately fulfill the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement of Section 3. There is no legally reasonable doubt remaining.
Further, Section 3 sets it out that “The Viziers may temporarily remove the Delegate if the majority of Viziers believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat.” The first operative sentence sets out that the removal is temporary, and the second sentence goes to reference “this removal”, being the temporary one established prior. The temporary removal is immediately active but the Concordat requires it to be confirmed to continue.
Ultimately either ASBS or Aelitia needs to make a thread requesting a official opinion on it instead of just going back and forth in Aelitia’s trial thread.
Going to make this much less of a mess.
— Begin quote from ____
I need an affirmative statement from the Conclave about something.
— End quote
For goodness sake, let this be the official request of the Conclave to issue something to clarify the role of the removed and confirmed removed Delegate.
Dear Conclave: Please let us know how you interpret the status of the removed and confirmed removed Delegate.
— Begin quote from ____
This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the sole interpreter of this Concordat …
— End quote
The Conclave will take the request for review, concerning Section 3 of the Concordat, in review.
Another thread will be opened for this review.
This Pre-trial is closed.