I apologize for the long delay, Your Honor.
Closing ArgumentSince this is a civil trial, the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff, and it is that of a "preponderance of the evidence"; if the likelihood of the truth of a Plaintiff's claim is 51%, then the Plaintiff prevails on that claim.
Plaintiff’s case is based on facts and law. While our case would be certainly strengthened had the Plaintiff been permitted to call the witnesses introduced in our Opening Statement, their public statements are sufficient to establish the Defendant’s guilt. We shall apply these facts to the “common law” which should be familiar to the Court, and which resonate with the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the First Republic as well as the Constitution of the Second Republic.
Derivation of "Common Law" From the Two ConstitutionsBoth Constitutions have their foundation in the premier value of liberty—not just liberty for Nations appointed to an administrative position in government like the Defendant—but for all Nations, be they citizen or non-citizens, officials or laymen.
The Constitution of the First Republic was “established…so that all nations may have true liberty”, and “All nations are entitled to the liberties that can be provided. Liberty shall not be infringed upon without probable cause and legal justification.” (Preamble; Article VII/Subsection V).
The Constitution of the Second Republic, similarly, entitles all nations “to the basic freedoms allowed to respected individuals.” (Article VI, Section V).
Criminal acts and civil torts violate the liberties of the citizen and non-citizen Nations, and naturally both constitutions permit an aggrieved party to “petition the government for redress of grievances”.
Article VI, Section I in the Constitution of the Second Republic and Article VII, Section I in the Constitution of the First Republic both promise the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
None of the offenses which the Defendant is being accused would have been permissible under the first Constitution but not the second, or vice-versa. Government officials who solicit bribes, usurp power, act fraudulently, behave negligently, etc. violate the liberty/basic freedoms of those who are damaged by their actions. Since there is not/was not a specific penal code for these offenses, it is within the discretion of the court to determine the appropriate punishment.
The Defense has argued that the old constitution was rendered void and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for any crimes committed under it. But when there is a new constitution the prisons are not emptied so that thieves and murderers and other criminals are set free. The "common law" remains in effect since these offenses remain consistently illegal, as are the crimes the Defendant is charged with. Only political prisoners are set free or pardoned (or perhaps even take a leading role in the succeeding government), not those whose crimes would be consistently prosecuted in the new regime as well as the old.
In fact, after a change in government, the former rulers and their henchmen are often brought to trial (or they flee) for their crimes and atrocities, long after their positions have been eliminated and the legal system at the time the crimes were committed is no longer in existence. They have been charged with "crimes against humanity" and defenses like "I was only following orders" or "That government doesn't exist anymore" fail to exonerate the guilty. In this case, the Defendant has committed "crimes against liberty": he violated the liberty and basic freedoms of the Plaintiff.
The Defendant's culpability is exacerbated because he himself played a role in the creation of the new government and constitution, and should not be allowed to cover up his crimes by doing so. He prevented the Plaintiff from voting on that new constitution, knowing that the Plaintiff and others seeking citizenship would have voted against it. And after denying the Plaintiff his citizenship, he is arguing that that immoral and illegal denial should prevent the Plaintiff from having his day in court.
Statements of Facts For Reference(Parties named in Petition for Trial; all dates are 2016; quotes are from RMB)
(1) Plaintiff filed an application for citizenship with Defendant on 4/24, amending it on 5/16.
(2) Plaintiff was an superlative candidate for citizenship since he had distinguished himself as Libertatem’s Regional Delegate, inspired Libertitad (who now serves as a Senator) to move to Libertatem, and was an active RMB participant.
(3) Plaintiff noticed that Defendant was active on the RMB, and so posted friendly reminders on 5/17 and 5/28 that Plaintiff’s application remained unprocessed.
(4) According to President Miencraft on 5/29, Defendant had been on a “long disappearing act” prior to these incidents, causing applications “to potentially have disappeared, been lost, or forgotten” and on 6/5 that Defendant’s “inactivity is totally unacceptable”.
(5) Defendant was the Manager of Internal Affairs, charged with processing citizenship applications until his resignation on 6/13.
(6) President Miencraft confirmed that Defendant was in this office on 6/5, saying
“Roads will soon be no longer Manager of IA”.
(7) On 5/31 Defendant stated it “Doesn't really make sense to approve applications without an active constitution does it?” as his reason for not processing applications, although the Constitution of the First Republic remained in effect until 6/17.
(8) At the time of these events, the Defendant’s factbook page greeted “Welcome to the Office of Internal Affairs” and “Your one stop shop for Libertatem citizenship!” (see Exhibit One for full text).
(9) On 5/31 President Miencraft said “I'm not going to go around him and declare you a citizen.” indicating Defendant was still expected to do his job as IA Manager and that there was no alternative path to citizenship at this time.
(10) On 5/31 Plaintiff filed another application for citizenship with the Defendant.
(11) On 6/1, Plaintiff confronted Defendant, posting “Do your job or resign your post, sir.” with regards to processing Plaintiff’s citizenship application.
(12) On 6/6 Defendant denied Plaintiff’s application saying, “application denied. Happy? Reason? Ummm... I do what I want. Oh and espionage or something.”
(13) On 6/7, Defendant solicited Plaintiff for a bribe, saying “Your welcome to try again, but you attract more ladies with honey than vinegar, and im a fine fine dame.”
(14) On 6/13 Defendant resigned his post: “Guys, im sorry but i cant take all the applications, i quit, im done.” and indicating that many citizenship applications were awaiting processing.
(15) Libertitad reported on 6/15 that his citizenship application was delayed, lost, destroyed and/or ignored: “So my application for citizenship is in limbo. I really want to be a part of Libertatem because we share the same beliefs but it's not looking good.”
(16) On 6/17 the Constitution of the Second Republic was ratified.
(17) Plaintiff’s vote, Libertitad’s vote, and countless others were not counted towards this new Constitution.
(18) On 7/8, Plaintiff (Bad Libertopia) telegrammed Hyderbourg, Nova Condealism, and Humpheria that the Libertatem factbook still linked to Muh Roads’ factbook pages showing him as the Manager of Internal Affairs and soliciting Citizenship Applications. Plaintiff made copies of the text of these factbook pages, anticipating that the Defendant might try to destroy evidence (Exhibit A).
(19) On 7/15 (after the trial had started) the Plaintiff alerted his Counsel that the Defendant had deleted these factbook pages (Exhibit A).
Exhibit A:
www.nationstates.net/nation=bad_libertopia/detail=factbook/id=670326www.nationstates.net/nation=bad_libertopia/detail=factbook/id=670327Legal Claims Based on The Statement of FactsClaim I: Negligence“Negligence” is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.
Plaintiff acknowledges that the Defendant had wide (but not unlimited) discretion in the exercise of his duties. A reasonable and prudent person in the role of Manager of Internal Affairs might have asked additional questions, or put the application on hold for a period of time to gather additional information, or sought the advice and council of the President, or appointed a deputy to do the job.
(21) Defendant showed negligence in his duties as IA Manager by his long disappearances [4], his stated refusal to approve worthy applications [5], and his loss/destruction of cititzenship application documents [7,14,15].
(22) Defendant’s actions resulted in Plaintiff being denied citizenship [12] and specifically the right to vote (e.g. on the Constitution, Senate elections, the Judicial Amendment), map land claims, eligibility to run for political office, and other civil rights accorded to citizens.
Claim II: Bad Faith“Bad faith” is violating the basic standard of honesty in dealing with others, or entering an agreement without intending to fulfill it. Free individuals may choose voluntarily to enter into agreements or to abstain from those agreements. The Defendant voluntarily agreed to be the IA Manager which obligated himself to perform the role until the date of his resignation.
(23) Defendant showed bad faith by offering the hope of citizenship on his factbook [8] while leaving applicants “in limbo” [3,15] or rejecting their applications [7,12].
(24) Defendant denied on 7/17 that it was not even his job to approve applications, when clearly it was the understanding of the President that this was his role [5,6,9] and he himself was receiving applications [8,11,12,14].
(25) By deleting his factbook pages, the Defendant is attempted to destroy evidence and hide the truth of what he and the President understood his duties actually were [19, 20].
Claim III: Abuse of Power“Abuse or Usurption of Power” is the illegal encroachment or assumption of sovereign authority. The ability to amend or replace or nullify the Constitution required a supermajority vote of Libertatem citizens, not the unilateral opinion of the Defendant about whether the Constitution was “active” or not. When government officials usurp power, they take liberty and “basic freedoms” that belong to the people under the Constitution.
(26) The Defendant did have the legitimate authority to accept or deny an individual citizenship application for any reason, or for no reason, but he did not have the authority to deny all applications because he decided the Constitution was inactive. [7]
Claim IV: Solicitation of a Bribe“Bribery” involves the exchange of something of value or a change in behavior to influence the actions of an official in the exercise of his duties. The size or nature of the bribe is irrelevant to the basic charge. It is like the lady who is asked by the gentleman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars and answers “Yes I would” and then the gentleman says, “Well, how about for fifty dollars?” When she is offended and exclaims, “Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?” he explains, “We’re already established that, ma’am, now we’re just haggling about the price.”
(27) Defendant abused the power of his office by attempting to solicit a bribe from Plaintiff in exchange for citizenship [13]. Whether the Defendant was seeking money, a kind word, or some kind of transgender sexual favor—that is “just haggling about the price”.
Claim V: Defamation“Defamation” is the act of making untrue public statements about another which are damaging to his reputation. The Defendant damaged the respectability of the Defendant by falsely accusing him of being a spy, and by such an accusation, diminished his reputation and respectability. Since civil rights in the Second Republic are allocated to “respected individuals” the loss of respectability means a proportionate loss of basic freedoms.
(28) Defendant caused defamation to Plaintiff by groundlessly accusing him of espionage [12] which showed “actual malice”: a reckless disregard for the truth [2]. Had the Defendant believed his own allegation, he would not have invited the Plaintiff to “try again” with another application [13].
Claim VI: Malice“Malice” in the legal context refers to a party intending to do injury to another.
(29) The Defendant knew that by denying Plaintiff’s application for citizenship that it would deprive the Plaintiff of the right to vote, make land claims, seek political office, etc. and that Plaintiff wanted to vote (opposite to the Defendant) on the Constitution. These would be among “the liberties that can be provided” or some of the “basic freedoms allowed to respected individuals”.
RemediesIf the Court finds that there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the Plaintiff, we ask for the following remedies:
(30) That the Defendant have his citizenship and all related rights be revoked for 1 year after which he may reapply if he so desires.
(31) That the Defendant be barred from holding any government office in Libertatem for 5 years.
(32) That that Court shall order that in all official Libertatem records and archives, wherever the name “Muh Roads” appears that it be modified to “Muh Roads, who was found guilty of [C] on [D]”) where [C] are the charges proved and [D] is the date of the Court’s judgment.
(33) That the Counsel for the Defense be admonished for its client destroying evidence in the midst of a trial without proper notification of the Court and opposing Counsel.
(34) That the Court provide any further relief it may deem appropriate.