The Conclave at Large hereby announces…
It has received a Civil Suit from Wallenburg (Plaintiff from hereon) against Aivintis (Defense from hereon). Defense has been accused of Treason-Espionage this November 4th, 2022. This August Body shell now begin the Pre-Trial Process.
The Pre-trial shall occur on November 11, 2022, 2:00am UTC. Conclave shall rule on the admissibility of this motion, determined by the merit and need for trial, and appoint the Presiding Arbiter. If the Conclave by unanimous vote rules the motion in admissible, the case is dismissed. This action is not subject to appeal. The Trial shall begin 2 days after Pre-Trial, November 13, 2022. This is to allow Plaintiff and Defense time to settle on their arguments. Note that the Trial Date is subject to appeal; if any of the parties may choose to appeal it it may be done.
Until then, All questions and concerns may be asked in this thread.
TO THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE: Please Telegram to my nation, Loreintor, all evidence that shall be used in your arguments. You may send as much evidence as you wish, however once November 9th comes, no further evidence shall be considered. Due to a lack of legislation regarding witnesses, I shall state that you must include witnesses as part of your evidence, as well as how they are relevant to the case in hand. In addition, in a motion to introduce the witness, two kinds of objection may occur. First, objection to witness’ relevancy. This can be done when the motion occurs. if successful, the witness shall be disregarded. Second, objection to testimony’s relevancy. This can be done when a witness’ testimony is irrelevant to a case. If successful, the testimony shall be struck down, and removed from the Trial Record. Until then, all witness testimony shall be considered to be a part of Trial Record, provided that their testimony corresponds to a question asked by either Plaintiff or Defense.
The following opinion is mine as an individual Arbiter, not representing the Conclave at large.
It is my belief that the Conclave (rather, TEP) cannot charge the Defense with Treason-Espionage now, as this is not a Criminal Case. The Plantiff may rightfully disagree with the perceived actions that may constitute Treason-Espionage, but at most the Conclave may, by our Standing Orders, mediate this dispute between the two citizens.
I am concerned that convening in trial now for this case may nullify any future attempt to try Aivintis for Treason-Espionage for this situation, as:
— Begin quote from ____
Concordat Article F.2:
Each Citizen shall not be tried twice for the same offence nor forced to self-incriminate…
— End quote
With the above, I am inclined to move to dismiss this case, and instead publicly petition Delegate [mention]SirShadow[/mention] or EPPS Commissioner [mention]Sammy23[/mention] to initiate procedures for a Criminal Trial, where the Conclave may better address the actual merits of Treason-Espionage as I believe everyone expects us to.
Trust if we proceed with civil suit, my focus will primarily be mediating concerns between the two citizens about why there’s call foul about Treason-Espionage and how things should move going forward, at best just recommending a Criminal Trial if I’m wrong and Concordat F.2 only means two trials as in two criminal trials.
— Begin quote from ____
i am concerned that convening in trial now for this case may nullify any future attempt to try Aivintis for Treason-Espionage for this situation, as:
— Begin quote from ____
Concordat Article F.2:
Each Citizen shall not be tried twice for the same offence nor forced to self-incriminate…
— End quote
— End quote
There are two possible interpretations of this:
-
This trial involves charging me for treason-espionage and delivering a verdict equating to that which would be given in a criminal trial. In this situation, F.2 applies, but trying me a second time would be redundant, and thus unnecessary.
-
This trial is purely a resolution of civil issues, and its result has no criminal bearing whatsoever. In this case, trying me a second time, this time as criminal prosecution, would not be redundant and may be necessary, in which case this clause does not apply, because it would not be trying me for the same offence twice. It would be two trials over the same event with different legal consequences. This, I think, is different enough for the clause to not apply.
The Conclave at Large has unanimously voted…
— Begin quote from ____
Throughout its long history, the Conclave has remained always willing to judge fairly, and to judge upon the rule of law. While the current situation, being an accusation towards a fellow Arbiter of committing treason, we still sought to judge fairly, with only the facts of our case and the laws of the land to interact with. As such, we of the Arbiters hereby declare the following verdict:
“On the Merit for trial”: Accepted. From the evidence presented to us, not only would a trial be acceptable, it would even be required. It simply raises too many legal questions to not answer. To deny this trial on these grounds would be a grave injustice.
“On the Need for trial:” Accepted. As seen above, we believe that a trial is necessary, to not only answer legal questions, but to establish how far the Treason Act is able to go. As such, we determined this trial to be necessary.
However.
"On the Merit of a civil trial’: Denied. The Conclave has two reasons for this:
-
Improper procedure. The Conclave believes that this does not fall under the purview of a civil trial, as the Treason Act must be prosecuted by the government as opposed to a citizen. Though Plaintiff is part of the government, they are pursuing this as a citizen.
-
Lack of harm proven. For a civil trial to occur, there must be at least a reasonable chance that the Plaintiff, or the one the Plaintiff was representing, was harmed by the actions of the Accused. Of all the evidence presented to us by Plaintiff, none of them have presented any idea that the Plaintiff was harmed in any way. Plaintiff is neither Vizier nor has access to the private meetings of the Praesidium, and as such has little chance to be harmed by the actions of the accused.
Due to these factors, we of the Conclave have decided to rule Plaintiff’s motion inadmissible.
Signed,
Halley,
Viceroy of the East Pacific,
Aurora,
Viceroy Designee of the East Pacific
— End quote
I thank Conclave for its time and verdict.
