Post by Elkish on Apr 18, 2016 20:20:30 GMT
Official Verdict:
The Federation of Phyrabia vs. The Illuminati Council
The Federation of Phyrabia vs. The Illuminati Council
Plaintiff Attorney: The Federation of Phyrabia
Defense Attorney: The Kingdom of Unidad y Prosperidad
Defense Attorney: The Kingdom of Unidad y Prosperidad
Introduction to the Analysis and Ruling
This was a very long case, it lasted roughly 3 hours, and it was very back and forth. The first thing I want to say though, is that both sides gave great arguments, more notably The Kingdom of Unidad y Prosperidad who gave an excellent argument in all of this. However, it is without saying that it was a tough accusation to defend, knowing that the nation being discussed was a criminal who was banned by the moderators of NationStates themselves. This post will be a comprehensive analysis of the case, and my views on it. The ruling itself will be below. Now without further a due, I will start.Analysis
The topics brought forth in the opening statements were focused on whether the Brotherhood of Phuckers (BoP) should have had his vote counted, based on his actions while he was in the region, and whether his conviction should have discounted the vote. The defense argued that he was not convicted during the period of voting, therefore his vote should count like any other citizen, while the plaintiff said that he came in and spat on our constitution, contributed nothing of value, and left. Then he added an additional layer to his accusation, by accusing him of violating Article IV Section III of the Constitution, which essentially means you cannot be a puppet state. I think the plaintiff definitely had a stronger opening statement, sense some of the claims that Phyrabia made needed to substantiated further, which he did later on, but based on the rights granted by the constitution, there was nothing against retroactive discounting of votes. Then they went on to argue about whether the felony charge should have discounted his vote. The defense brought a witness to the stand, Migaza, leader of The Unity Council. He claimed that BoP had no intention of leaving or interfering with the impeachment vote in The Illuminati Council, and that the only reason he was a felon was for spreading profanity. When the plaintiff requested hard evidence for the witnesses claims, the defense failed to provide it. He said that the witness testimony should have been enough. I would agree partially, sense a person who witnessed a murder would not be asked whether he/she had a videotape of the murder taking place. However, it's a mere telegram, so it's not much to ask for the telegram given by NationStates entailing the reasons regarding BoP's ban. Then the defense dismissed this by saying that telegrams are regularly deleted after your inbox fills up. Although that's true, this is a telegram worth archiving, and sense we don't actually have this said telegram, we don't know specifics behind the ban. Moving on, both attorneys discussed the situation regarding cloning. However no reliable evidence was presented during the discourse to prove that BoP was a clone, other than speculation. Then the discussion finally moved on to the constitutionality of BoP's actions, and whether he should actually be considered a member state. One one hand, the defense said that he voted before committing the crime, and there was no real reason why BoP's vote should not have been counted, knowing that he was technically a member state. Then on the other hand, the plaintiff claimed that the actions and more importantly, the intent of BoP should discount him from being considered a member state. I agree with the plaintiff on this, because his intentions were quite clearly to come to our region, skew the election in favor of the opposition to get the Chancellor impeached. This may be seen as bias by some, but there is no way his intentions could really be refuted, since we seem to have means, motive, and opportunity. I go into this with more detail below, in my ruling.
Ruling
After looking at all the evidence, I rule in favor of the plaintiff. The main thing behind my ruling is intent. Had the defense not brought up intent, perhaps this ruling would not have been made. The intentions of the BoP were to come into this region, rig our election to impeach the Chancellor, and was essentially never to actually stay. This claim was supported by a post made by BoP himself, when he said "Ok. I don't know if the impeachment thing happened, but I have advised all my Unity Council fellows to go back if they want. Sorry if the impeachment isn't happening." This quote struck me as all the proof I needed. I remember seeing this and thinking to myself, he never intended to actually stay in the region. I should also add, when he returned to the Unity Council, he had executive power, meaning that any argument in favor of him staying in The Illuminati Council, is almost non-existent. He apologized for the impeachment potentially not going in favor of the opposition. It's clear that he had influence over the Unity Council nations since almost all of them except for one, actually left after he made that statement. And it is clear, sense he wanted to impeach the Chancellor, that it was his intent to get all nations from the Unity Council to come to our region, rig the election, and to leave afterward. We know this because he advised the nations, who he knew he had clear control over, to leave, instantly after the vote of no confidence was over. Then to add on to all of this, he was a convicted felon who was banned for unknown reasons. Since we don't know the real reasoning behind his banning, we cannot say when the crime he committed actually took place, or why it happened. If it truly did happen during the course of the vote, perhaps he had clones who tried to gain WA membership, or perhaps he was being profane to others during the election, we don't really know. But either way, his vote should NOT count, and no merit should be given to him, based on his clear intent to rig the election in favor of the opposition. For this reason I rule:
The Illuminati Council - GUILTY of Counting the Vote of a Dishonest Criminal.
The count will be discounted, and the new vote count is:
Yes, he is unfit for office: 52 Votes - 65.8%
No, he is still fit for office: 19 Votes - 34.2%
The Former Chancellor will now get to finish his term, unless a new impeachment vote commences.
The Illuminati Council - GUILTY of Counting the Vote of a Dishonest Criminal.
The count will be discounted, and the new vote count is:
Yes, he is unfit for office: 52 Votes - 65.8%
No, he is still fit for office: 19 Votes - 34.2%
The Former Chancellor will now get to finish his term, unless a new impeachment vote commences.