Post by Kronprinzessin on May 18, 2020 14:01:12 GMT -5
Supreme Court of the Union of Democratic States
On the Subject of North Plegia’s Actions During his Time as Delegate and
Party Leader
Introduction:
On October 17th, 2018 Chief Justice Phoenix was contacted with worrying logs of a conversation between North Plegia and two others. In these conversations North Plegia appeared to discuss plans to use the office of the Delegate and the World Assembly Improvement Program (WAIP) to recruit for his party and used language suggestive of a potential seizure of power. The Supreme Court immediately convened, and decided to move forward with the investigation. Due to the nature of the accusations, the Court ruled to keep the case sealed from the accused until such a time it was deemed appropriate. The court then called upon the testimony of several others, which shall be detailed below.
Investigation
Individual Justices were assigned to question persons potentially involved to ascertain the charges of the investigation : Glaciosia interviewed Former Vice-Delegate NaeNae, whose interview responses cast general doubt upon North Plegias intent as Delegate and Proux Armata interviewed two then-party members mentioned in the report whose [lack of response?] caused the court to drop the charge of Fraud. The Court ruled to move forward with the investigation, considering the potentially calamitous consequences of not doing so. In front of the whole Court, three witnesses were brought. The first interviewed was North Plegia.
Conclusion
The Accused, North Plegia has shown a pattern of dangerous behavior, one which has the potential of causing great harm and destabilization to the Union. However, the accused has provided a plausible explanation to the worrying statements made. An aggravating factor is that the accused has previously been convicted of illegally taking the delegacy, a. The Court has found additional attempts to establish a power oligarchy through means expanding beyond elections and potentially distorting the mission of government organs, yet such acts are not clearly illegal. In the whole, the accused risked causing great harm to the democratic processes. However, intent and criminality cannot be proven sufficiently in the case and therefore the Court shall issue a public warning and condemnation of such behavior as follows.