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