Laki v. Young Texan

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Dear Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court,

I am writing to you today as a plaintiff. Before I begin, I would like to make it clear that the safety and health of the Republic of Atlasia, as well as my oath to the Republic and the Constitution, are my top priorities. My commitment to the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law is unwavering.

As a Senator, it is my duty to uphold the Constitution and defend the Republic of Atlasia against all threats, both foreign and domestic. It is with this duty in mind that I have brought this case before the Supreme Court. The actions of Southern President Young Texan, as described in the following complaint, constitute a clear and present danger to the stability and integrity of our Republic.

I trust that the Supreme Court will carefully consider the evidence presented and uphold the principles enshrined in our Constitution, so allow me to make my case.

Southern President Young Texan has openly threatened to use nuclear weapons against New York, invade Lincoln, and make the South secede from the Republic, all of which are direct violations of the Constitution. Furthermore, he has been using bribery and intimidation tactics to manipulate both the game moderators and fellow politicians in the South to achieve his goals. I refer to the YT logs as an example.




Texan's plans to hold multiple offices, including that of Southern President, Federal Senator, and Senator of Internal Affairs, simultaneously is a clear violation of the Constitution's requirements and his intention is further made clear here when he announced to run for that at large senate seat.





His scheming to control the Attorney General and Vice President in order to back me for president, and then use that power to commit treason and secede from the Republic is a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the democratic process.

If Texan is allowed to continue with his plans, it will have disastrous consequences for the Republic of Atlasia. He has discussed backing me for president and through that way attempting to control the Attorney General and Vice President, so that he gets the power to commit treason and secede and possibly start a civil war. He has also discussed rendering our military useless, selling federal buildings, transitioning them into regional authorities, and exiting the Republic, which would be a direct violation of the Constitution.

I implore the Supreme Court to take action against Texan's illegal activities and protect the Constitution of Atlasia. The Republic is in danger, and it is up to the Supreme Court to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that the Constitution is protected. This includes impeachment from current offices being held and conviction from treason.

I'll refer to some texts from the Fifth Constitution I believe he's in violation with

In Article IV of the Fifth Constitution, Section IV the following is described

Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the Republic of Atlasia, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason against the Republic of Atlasia shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The Southern President's discussions about backing myself for President and using cabinet positions in order to commit treason and secede from the Republic may be considered an act of levying war against the Republic.

In Article VII of the Fifth Constitution, Section III the following is described

Section 3.
The Republic of Atlasia shall guarantee to every Region in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The Republic of Atlasia has a duty to protect itself and every region in this Union from an invasion as well as from domestic violence. Southern President specifically mentions plans to invade the North (and nuking New York).

In Article VIII of the Fifth Constitution, Section I the following is described

Section 1.
This Constitution, and those laws, treaties, and other acts made by the Republic of Atlasia in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the executive and judicial officers of this government and of the several Regions shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of the several Regions notwithstanding.

The Southern President's actions are in direct conflict with the Constitution of Atlasia and as an elected official, he is bound to uphold and follow it, given the fifth constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the executive and judicial officers of this government, and including of the several regions shall be bound hereby.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Senator Laki

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Brief from the Petitioner

Given the link is broken, i want to provide the updated link of the YT logs, to back up the claims of fellow senator and former GM member NewYorkExpress, where bribery, intimidation and manipulation were used to get his way in the GM stories, forcing the GMs to agree even if they indicated they were unwilling to agree.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Plaintiff's Brief in Laki v. Texan

To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court:

I hereby appoint Lakigigar to represent all legal affairs dealing with the Commonwealth of Fremont.

I, Lakigigar, have been appointed by the First Minister of Fremont Ishan to represent the legal affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont. As such, I am writing to request to join this case as a plaintiff and to represent Fremont in this matter.

The Commonwealth of Fremont is concerned with the allegations made against the defendant, the Southern President, in this case. As a representative of the Commonwealth's legal affairs, I believe it is our duty to ensure that the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Atlasia are upheld and that any attempts to subvert or undermine the integrity of the Republic are met with swift and just punishment.

Specifically, Fremont has a vested interest in the outcome of this case due to the potential criminal actions committed by the Southern President, including but not limited to, threatening to invade "the north", threatening to nuke New York and thus destabilizing the Regions and Republic, using bribery and intimidation to get what he wants from game moderators as well as other elected individuals in the Republic of Atlasia, and scheming to be the Southern President, a Federal Senator and Secretary of Internal Affairs at the same time.

As such, I, Lakigigar, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Fremont, request to join this case as a plaintiff and to represent Fremont in this matter. We believe that the allegations made against the Southern President are of great concern to the Republic of Atlasia, and we stand ready to assist in any way we can to ensure that justice is served.

Respectfully submitted,

Lakigigar
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Dear Justices of the Supreme Court,

I am writing to object to the appointment of Mr. Reactionary as the lawyer for the defense in the case of Laki v. Texan. Mr. Reactionary is a member of the Peace Party, which is the same party as the prosecutor in this case. Furthermore, he is not only a friend but also a fellow senator of the prosecutor.

This creates an inherent conflict of interest that cannot be overlooked. Mr. Reactionary's loyalty and allegiance to his party and personal relationships may cloud his judgement and compromise his ability to represent the defendant to the best of his abilities.

As a public plaintiff, I urge the court to consider the potential bias and conflict of interest that Mr. Reactionary may bring to this case and take appropriate action to ensure that justice is served impartially and fairly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Lakigigar

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the prosecutor in the case against the defendant, I am demanding that the defendant or his lawyers immediately disclose the entire content of the SEXIT (Southern Exit) chat to the Supreme Court and the prosecutors, which contains crucial evidence necessary to prove the defendants guilt in the charges brought against the defendant.

This evidence is particularly important as it contains detailed plans to invade the North and commit treason to the Republic, which are serious crimes that cannot be overlooked. The information contained in the chat is necessary to show that the defendant is responsible for these actions and that he should be held accountable for their actions.

In accordance with the landmark case United States v. Nixon (1974), which establishes that executive privilege cannot be used to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial," the defendant cannot use any privilege or immunity to withhold the evidence in question. Failure to comply with this demand will result in legal action being taken against both the defendant and his legal team, including the lawyers.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that spoliation sanctions may be imposed if evidence is destroyed or tampered with. As a regional executive, the defendant has a responsibility to cooperate fully with the legal process and provide any evidence that is necessary for a fair trial.

I therefore urge the defendant and his legal team to consider their actions and release the SEXIT chat to us immediately. The proof that SEXIT exists, which the defendant's lawyer Reactionary confirms to know the existence of the private chat group, and a screenshot of the SEXIT chat, proving that "New York is getting nuked" originates from the SEXIT chat on Discord, have been provided as evidence.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

ADDENDUM:





Both the defendant and his lawyers are confirmed to have participated in the SEXIT chat.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the prosecutor in the case against the defendant, i want to provide more context to the images provided in the opening statement, to avoid confusion.

The following discord images all are from the SEXIT chat and is the entire conversation that started on May the third until the early night of Fifth May.






The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.





There is evidence from the various "oaths of allegiances" as well, which i will provide as well.





The prosecutor will make an additional post later today.

Laki

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If I may, I am rather curious about this pact or alliance between YT and other players. Do we have any information on those conversations?

The oath itself is referencing this proposed act introduced by YT, where elected politicians in the South have to swear their allegiance to God which is a violation of freedom of religion. The oath to the executive ("all who lead the southern nation") could result to a conflict of interest when someone swears allegiance to an individual rather than upholding the constitution and the law. The oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the Southern Nation would be a violation of the Fifth Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia pursuant to Article VIII of the Fifth Constitution, Section I which states that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law, and the executive and judicial officers of this government and of the several Regions shall be bound thereby.

I, UlmerFudd, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Delegate of the southern chamber, and will to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutions of the Republic of Atlasia and of the Southern Region, so help me Dave.

In the previous version of the "oath", defending the constitution of the Republic of Atlasia was required.

which in the current version is no longer the case

I, UlmerFudd, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of Burgess to the Southern House of Burgesses, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Sovereignty and Constitution of the Southern Region so help me God.

Using UlmerFudd as an example.

However, the SEXIT chat clearly proofs that multiple people were conspiring to commit treason against the Republic of Atlasia. I'll address that in an additional upcoming post, where I'll respond to the defendants demands.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Dear Justices of the Supreme Court,

I would like to respond that I criminally charge Southern President Young Texan for acts of treason, specifically for rebellion as defined as the use of military forces to overthrow the Federal or any Regional government of Atlasia, and for his disregard for federal laws and the federal constitution as evidenced by his detailed and extensive long-term plans to install a Southern Rebellion by threatening to secede, threatening to use nukes, threatening to invade the North, eroding the democratic institutions of the South and pressuring multiple people, including elected politicians as well as the game moderators to get his way.

I would also like to criminally charge the people in the SEXIT chat which are Young Texan, Reagente, Fhtagn, Reactionary, RFayette, UlmerFudd, Listman38, Muaddib, TPH, and TheSaint250 for aiding a rebellion as defined in the Consolidated Criminal Justice Bill as the fully knowing and intentional direction of funds, military aid, or strategic advice to a person or group seeking to engage in rebellion.

The crimes were committed in the Republic of Atlasia, which consists and includes all of the following regions: South, Fremont, and Lincoln. In case of a formal indictment by the jury, I request that the people suspected to be part of the rebellion be ineligible to be part of the jury.

Additionally, I request immunity and protection for the key witness in this case, LouisvilleThunder, who also was part of the SEXIT chat".

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

ADDENDUM:

[LAKISYLVANIA]

As the prosecutor in the case against the defendant, I am demanding that the defendant or his lawyers immediately disclose the entire content of the SEXIT (Southern Exit) chat to the Supreme Court and the prosecutors, which contains crucial evidence necessary to prove the defendants guilt in the charges brought against the defendant.

Defense counsel will provide the prosecution with any relevant evidence once we are informed of the following items:

1. A formal presentment of the specific criminal charges to which the defendant is facing in this trial, as is required under Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Atlasian Constitution.

2. A declaration by prosecution as to the Region in which such crimes were alleged to occur, as is required to determine venue under Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Atlasian Constitution.

3. A formal indictment from a Grand Jury against the defendant for any alleged crime that is a felony, as is required under Art. I, Sec. 11 of the Atlasian Constitution.

Having provided the defense council of the information requested, I must request total disclosure of all evidence that pertains to this case, including any evidence that may be in your possession that supports the charges brought against you and your cliënts.

I would like to remind you that under the doctrine of discovery, the prosecution has a right to inspect and copy all evidence that is material to the case. Therefore, I request that you disclose all evidence as soon as possible. Additionally, I believe it is within the court's jurisdiction to determine what evidence is considered relevant and material to the case, and I trust the court will do so accordingly.

Failure to comply with this demand will result in legal action being taken against both the defendants and his legal team, including the lawyers.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that spoliation sanctions may be imposed if evidence is destroyed or tampered with. As a regional executive, the defendant has a responsibility to cooperate fully with the legal process and provide any evidence that is necessary for a fair trial.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Additionally,

I would like to respond that I want to criminally charge Young Texan, Reagente, Fhtagn, Reactionary, RFayette, UlmerFudd, Listman38, Muaddib, TPH, and TheSaint250 for secession as described in the Criminal Justice Act of 2016, which is a crime against the Republic of Atlasia.

(f) Secession. This shall be defined as the declaration or threatened declaration of independence from the Republic of Atlasia by any territorial entity within the bounds of the Republic of Atlasia or by any group of persons within the bounds of the Republic of Atlasia, except according to the provisions set forth in the Constitution thereof.

In case the defence would argue that secession happened according to law as set forth in the provisions in the Constitution thereof, after passage of the amendments below in january.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION

7. The South shall become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Atlasia for a new economic and political partnership.

I would like to respond that secession did not occur according to law as set forth in the provisions of the Constitution of Atlasia. While the South did pass an amendment with more than 3/4ths approval to become sovereign after making a formal offer to Atlasia for a new economic and political partnership, I do not consider the South to be sovereign as it did not make a formal offer to Atlasia for a new economic and political partnership, as stated in the Constitutional Amendments Resolution. In my view, an offer is only an offer if there is a recipient.

Given the amendment that passed in April, I do not believe that a formal offer was made and directed towards and with approval of the Republic of Atlasia. Therefore I consider the offer as not being made yet as of now and thus as not sovereign.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that secession and sovereignty are not the same. Even if the South were to become sovereign, it would still be illegal under the Criminal Justice Act of 2016 to declare or threaten independence from the Republic of Atlasia without following the provisions set forth in its Constitution.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Dear Counsel for the Defense,

We must remind you that in light of an active security threat that endangers the Republic of Atlasia and the lives of its citizens, we believe that the information we have requested is essential to ensure the safety of the nation and its people. The evidence in question contains information that goes into detail about a planned insurrection, which we believe poses a significant threat to the stability and security of the Republic.

We also refer to United States v. Nixon (1974), which establishes that executive privilege cannot be used to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial." As this case involves the security and well-being of the nation and its citizens, we believe that the evidence in question is not only relevant but crucial to the case at hand. The defendants cannot use any privilege or immunity to withhold the evidence in question.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the court issue an order compelling the defendant to disclose the information we have requested. We also remind the defendants that failing to comply or destruction of the evidence would result in legal action being taken.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Lakigigar
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

All discoveries have been provided, of course, if new discoveries arise i'll still bring them up. Secondly, i want to remind the court before objections are being taken place of Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2016, Criminal Liability - part III

Section 4 (Criminal Liability)
iii. In cases in which it is certain that a criminal act has been committed by a member of a group of persons, but that it is not certain which of those persons has committed the criminal act, then it shall be possible to convict all said group of persons of the criminal charge in question, provided it can be demonstrated that there was no attempt by that group of persons to prevent the criminal act from taking place.

In cases in which it is certain that a criminal act has been committed by a member of a group of persons, but that it is not certain which of those persons has commited the criminal act, than it shall be possible to convict all said group of persons of the criminal charge in question, provided it can be demonstrated that there was no attempt by that group of persons to prevent the criminal act from taking place.

In this case, we know that the users in the SEXIT chat were conspiring to commit treason against the Republic of Atlasia, by either or both a rebellion, aiding a rebellion or secession efforts. And we know that there were no attempts by that group of persons to prevent the criminal act from taking place, with the exception of Senator LouisvilleThunder.

I additionally ask if the prosecution can confirm that only Southern citizens are being prosecuted for crimes that occurred while in the South. If the prosecution plans to non-Southerners or charge Southerners for crimes that occur outside the South, it may be necessary for separate legal representation given the different needs of the defendants

In Article V, Section 3.2, the Fifth Constitution states that if a crime is not commited within any region, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Senate may by law have directed. The prosecutor believes that the crimes took place in the Republic of Atlasia against the Republic of Atlasia, and not specified within any region.

Article V, Section 3.2

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the Region where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any Region, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Senate may by law have directed.

Lakigigar
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

Edit: I have edited the comment to remove the reference to the "images" as well as the link to the "Facebook chat". Please, I ask everyone to remember that however heated and wild Atlasia might get, you all still bound by the rules of the forum and we have rules against this for a reason.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Objection to the amicus brief respondent from the prosecutor

First and most importantly, there is no such rule that private messages on Facebook should not be taken into consideration

Secondly, taken this into consideration would mean that all "conspiring" etc... in the future would move to Facebook, as messages outside Discord would not have to be taken into consideration for anything.

Thirdly, if you don't want private Facebook messages to be taken into consideration, than i'd simply suggest not to talk about Atlasia on Facebook. And secondly, not to leak Facebook messages to other users on Discord.

The solution can be very easy. If people suggest Facebook is not part of the game, than don't talk about the game on Facebook. It cannot be simplier than that.

Lakigigar
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

I contend purposely releasing names of individuals, those of whom have not consented to their names being shared, is doxxing. Private or public, you are still sharing it, they consented to you seeing it and no one else.

I object, no names of individuals were released at any time.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

I contend purposely releasing names of individuals, those of whom have not consented to their names being shared, is doxxing. Private or public, you are still sharing it, they consented to you seeing it and no one else.

I object, no names of individuals were released at any time.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

Object all you want, but that is how low you are going. I'd like it to be noted for the record, this very special prosecutor has not ruled out releasing names of individuals to parties that did not receive consent.

This is a slippery slope.

I repeat, no names of individuals have been released at any time, neither do I know any names of those individuals, neither will i ever release names of individuals under their consent.

Secondly, i suggest you to stop those accusations like these

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

This is something i have never said, so unless you can proof i have said that, i will criminally charge YoungTexan for perjury which is a crime against Atlasia.

Section 2 (Crimes against Atlasia)
i. The following shall be crimes against Atlasia:
(i) Perjury. This offence shall be defined as "any person who takes an oath before a competent tribunal or officer that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, wilfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true."

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

When did he take an oath before a tribunal?

If the defendant chooses not to testify, their decision cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. This is based on the principle of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or speak in court.

However, if the defendant voluntarily chooses to speak during the trial or at any other time, their statements can be used as evidence against them. In such cases, it is generally expected that the statements made by the defendant should be truthful. Providing false or misleading information can potentially be considered perjury, which is a criminal offense.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

given this is an example of perjury: lying while having taken an oath before a tribunal that anything you will say is the truth, and nothing else than the truth.

When did he take an oath before a tribunal?

If the defendant chooses not to testify, their decision cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. This is based on the principle of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or speak in court.

However, if the defendant voluntarily chooses to speak during the trial or at any other time, their statements can be used as evidence against them. In such cases, it is generally expected that the statements made by the defendant should be truthful. Providing false or misleading information can potentially be considered perjury, which is a criminal offense.

Are you really arguing that everyone is always under oath and subject to perjury at any time? Wouldn't that make you subject to perjury for pretty much everything you've done in the game?

This is a judicial thread, i assume that as the defendant of the lawyer, the prosecutor, the defendant etc. you intend to speak the truth.

All i will say, is that it is an obvious lie and that I never claimed or said that. If it will really be considered perjury, that will be up for the judges (or jury) to decide, but in my belief it is.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Amicus Brief:

Private Facebook messages should not be allowed to be taken into consideration here and should not be considered part of the game . I ask for the court to not only throw out such evidence out but make it clear that messages/posts outside of Atlas and Discord never be admissible in any future case .

Not to mention he just said he was open to doxxing.

I never said that. That is a lie.

I removed profile photo's from Facebook to protect privacy of the users. There are no real life names involved in the leaked picture either. This is no doxxing.

Secondly, i want to note that given this is a private conversation between fhtagn and Mr. Reactionary that there is no way i could've gotten access to it, if neither one of those two leaked it somewhere theirselves or unless someone got access to their facebook accounts by hacking/knowing their password.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

You said you were open to sharing private facebook profile info with the justices. That could definitely be considered doxxing. You don't always need a name just a photo can be searched online to find a specific person.

This is what you said is it not:
 but if requested (or in case of objections) i can provide that privately to the court.

Whats another improper ex parte communication with the court from this prosecution, am I right?

Well, Windjammer - just like you btw - is also a friend in life. We both live in Europe IRL. So obviously i talk to him almost everyday (just like with you), not just about Atlasia but also private life or about Gathering Storm.

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

Remember that Atlasia is a game (with 170 registered people, and usually fewer people who are active). Unless you somehow will argue that i'm not allowed to chat with Windjammer at all anymore.

I've been talking to you as well, i don't think it is a proper lawsuit case, if the lawyer of the defendant talks on a daily base with the prosecutor as well. I consider that improper ex parte communication.

With regards to privately including the images of the FB leak, i'll not do that. I think it's very clear at this point that we're talking about a conversation between you and fhtagn on Facebook, so there would be no need to proof that. I'll repeat that i'll not doxx people and don't intend on doing so, to clear out confusion.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/76.15

28 CFR § 76.15 Ex parte communications.

(a) Generally. The Judge shall not consult with any party, attorney or person (except persons in the office of the Judge) on any legal or factual issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate. This provision does not prohibit a party or attorney from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.

(b) Sanctions. A party or participant who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to any appropriate sanctions. An attorney who makes a prohibited ex parte communication, or who encourages or solicits another to make any such communication, may be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, exclusion from the proceedings.

At this time counsel for the defense asks the court for the following:

1. Monetary sanctions against the prosecutor in the amount of $1,000 Atlasian dollars payable to the Southern Department of Justice.

2. An order enjoining the prosecutor from further improper ex parte communucations with any justice on the court until the conclusion of the trial.

3. An apology from the prosecutor admitting that his actions were improper, wrong, and in violation of federal law.

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General, CPU Blue Heart

I respectfully object

No party or attorney representing a party shall communicate in any instance with the Judge on any matter at issue in a case, unless notice and opportunity has been afforded for the other party to participate.

There was no discussion with regards to any matter at issue in this case, while secondly

This provision does not prohibit a party or attorney from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.

the provision doesn't prohibit me from inquiring about the status of a case or asking questions concerning procedures.

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Let's review the record.

(image)

...

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.

(images)

You've claimed you didnt discuss any matter at issue in the case with the Chief Justice, and yet you admit that the matter you discussed with the Chief Justice were these three (3) screenshots you yourself introduced as evidence under discovery. Screenshots you confirmed today were indeed evidence you intended to introduce at trial.

Please reconcile this. Are these screenshots evidence or not?

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ Ricardo

Again, I object.

These messages have been sent to multiple people associated with the Labor Party, and the ones sent to Windjammer have been sent hours and hours before the lawsuit even started.

Secondly, that alone is not evidence in the case. I explicitly added this was added for context, and at that point what Adam Griffin has sent was virtually public knowledge. The messages have been sent by Adam Griffin and have been directed to YoungTexan. Last time i've checked, you weren't the lawyer defending Adam Griffin and neither is Adam Griffin currently being criminally charged? This is unrelated to the lawsuit case and not an instance of an "ex parte communication".

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It has come to the attention of the prosecution that the defense has engaged in actions that can be characterized as witness tampering, in violation of the law. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, specifically (b) which states that "A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she harms another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness or informant," we firmly believe that the defense's conduct amounts to intimidation and retaliation against a crucial witness in this case.

In particular, the witness known as LouisvilleThunder (LT), who has provided valuable testimony in support of the prosecution's case, has recently been banned from a private communication server, namely the Conservacord server, due to their involvement in this legal proceeding. This act of exclusion from a platform where communication regarding the case takes place is concerning and can be viewed as an attempt to suppress their testimony and intimidate them from further participating in the proceedings.

it is important to note that the defendant Fhtagn holds a position of authority as an owner within the private communication server in question. This elevated status within the server potentially provides them with increased control and influence over the platform and its members, including the ability to limit or manipulate access to certain channels or discussions. Similarly, the defendant Young Texan (YT) holds the role of an admin within the server, granting them significant administrative powers.

Moreover, it has come to our attention that one of the lawyers representing the defense also holds an administrative position within the same server. This dual role as both a legal representative and an admin may create conflicts of interest and raises concerns regarding the impartiality and fair representation of the defendants.

The combination of these factors, including the defendants' positions of authority and the overlapping roles of defense counsel as an admin, raises serious questions about the potential for abuse of power and the fair treatment of witnesses and participants in the legal proceedings.

Additionally, it has come to our attention that the defendant, Fhtagn, has engaged in persistent and unwarranted harassment directed at the prosecutor. This harassment has taken place both privately and publicly, with insulting remarks and derogatory comments being directed at the prosecutor, creating an atmosphere of hostility and attempting to undermine their credibility and professionalism, eventually leading to what can be considered contempt of court or obstruction of justice.

These actions are not only unethical but also detrimental to the pursuit of justice and the fair administration of the legal process. Witness tampering and harassment not only obstruct the truth-seeking purpose of the trial but also infringe upon the rights and well-being of those involved, compromising the integrity of the entire legal system.

The prosecution strongly condemns such behavior and urges the court to take appropriate measures to address these violations. It is crucial that witnesses are protected from intimidation and that the legal process remains free from undue influence and harassment. We trust that the court will carefully consider this matter and take the necessary steps to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

Addendum:

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.439

§ 11.439 Witness tampering.
(a) A person commits a misdemeanor if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he or she attempts to induce or otherwise cause a witness or informant to:

(1) Testify or inform falsely; or

(2) Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing; or

(3) Elude legal process summoning him or her to supply evidence; or

(4) Absent himself or herself from any proceeding or investigation to which he or she has been legally summoned.

(b) A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she harms another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness or informant.

2.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Let's review the record.

(image)

...

What the "He's of course saying that now" refers to i'm unsure about. You are not providing context. AG means Adam Griffin here. It probably refers to something in the minds of "Labor wasn't aware of what Adam Griffin has sent to Young Texan", which is discussing party politics. Windjammer is registered as part of Labor. In conversations I had with other people of Labor, they all were not aware of Griffin's post/offer to YT.

The images provided in the last screenshot are the following which was posted by Adam Griffin and directed towards Young Texan. This is added for context.

(images)

You've claimed you didnt discuss any matter at issue in the case with the Chief Justice, and yet you admit that the matter you discussed with the Chief Justice were these three (3) screenshots you yourself introduced as evidence under discovery. Screenshots you confirmed today were indeed evidence you intended to introduce at trial.

Please reconcile this. Are these screenshots evidence or not?

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ Ricardo

Again, I object.

These messages have been sent to multiple people associated with the Labor Party, and the ones sent to Windjammer have been sent hours and hours before the lawsuit even started.

Secondly, that alone is not evidence in the case. I explicitly added this was added for context, and at that point what Adam Griffin has sent was virtually public knowledge. The messages have been sent by Adam Griffin and have been directed to YoungTexan. Last time i've checked, you weren't the lawyer defending Adam Griffin and neither is Adam Griffin currently being criminally charged? This is unrelated to the lawsuit case and not an instance of an "ex parte communication".

Laki
Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Atlasia
Representative of the Legal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Fremont

If it is irrelevant and not evidence it should never have been introduced as part of a discovery request and should be deleted therefrom immediately. As it stands you posted potentially prejudicial material (a private message) relating to the defendant in this case in the case thread along with other evidence (which was clearly instructed to be shared confidentially as we intend to move to exclude some) after having had an improper ex parte communication with the Chief Justice about said material.

You keep saying "public knowledge" but Im not quite sure you know what that means. Were you not the first person to post this on Atlas? And in this thread? Just because you and the Chief Justice were both aware of the existence of this private message does not mean that it is "public knowledge".

It is added as part to provide context to the evidence given the private message was leaked in SEXIT.

Secondly, this is not prejudical material, as the defendant (YoungTexan) was the recipient of this message, while the defendants lawyer (you mr. Reactionary) was the one who leaked it to me, as part of a wider chat group, involving you & me. We were all aware of that message already long before anyone else, including the judge or the Labor party.

Laki

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Lol.

I just want to point out that if kicking people out of private Discord servers as retaliation for participating in legal proceedings isnt allowed, as prosecution suggests, perhaps he should reverse the ban against me in PaxCord, which this prosecutor himself carried out since I refused to throw the case as he unethically requested.

(image)

You were never part of "Peace discussion without R", so you weren't kicked in that chat. Secondly, I informed you over potential conflicts of interest as I did here.

Dear Justices of the Supreme Court,

I am writing to object to the appointment of Mr. Reactionary as the lawyer for the defense in the case of Laki v. Texan. Mr. Reactionary is a member of the Peace Party, which is the same party as the prosecutor in this case. Furthermore, he is not only a friend but also a fellow senator of the prosecutor.

This creates an inherent conflict of interest that cannot be overlooked. Mr. Reactionary's loyalty and allegiance to his party and personal relationships may cloud his judgement and compromise his ability to represent the defendant to the best of his abilities.

As a public plaintiff, I urge the court to consider the potential bias and conflict of interest that Mr. Reactionary may bring to this case and take appropriate action to ensure that justice is served impartially and fairly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Lakigigar

You objected to that as you did here. You indicated you believed there was no conflict of interest.

Defense objects to the motion to change counsel.

Being friends with the opposing lawyer isnt grounds for dismissal provided the lawyers maintain their ethical duty to zealously advocate for their client. As Southern AG my client is the Southern Region, and its officeholders in the course of governance. We still have not had a formal presentment of what criminal charges are at issue here but presumably they involve official acts of one of its officeholders. Im comfortable with performing zealously notwithstanding my friendship with opposing counsel just as Im sure he is with me. IRL and in game I have been  on the opposite side of the courtroom against friends. Its common. As long as the defendant does not object to my representation, I deny any conflict of interest that would not equally apply to the prosecutor.

Additionally, the Deputy AG may fill in for me at any point such a conflict may end up presenting itself, just as General Turner may assist Laki.

Accordingly, we ask the Court to deny the motion to change counsel, as no conflict of interest is present.

Thank you.

- R, Southern Attorney General/ CPU BlueHeart

As chair of Peace, I have the authority to make decisions regarding party membership, including the removal of individuals from the party, which is outlined in the party's bylaws, rules or constitution. If you want to start the proper procedure of expulsion, just sign a petition in the responsible threador change party registration.

Bylaws

STRUCTURE

• The Peace Party shall be organized by a Chair and a Vice-Chair.
• The Chair is responsible for organizing conventions, running votes, and the general day-to-day operation of the party.
• The Vice-Chair is responsible for recruitment and shall take over for the Chair if that person cannot or does not fulfill their duties.
• The members of the Peace Party shall be all those Atlasian citizens considered by the Registrar-General to belong to the Peace Party, with the exception of anyone who has been expelled.

THE MEMBERS
Any group of two or more members may at any time petition for a vote on any of the following subjects:

• endorsing one or more candidates in an upcoming election
• a specific proposal for modification of the platform or by-laws
• dismissal of the Chair and/or the Vice-Chair
• expulsion of one or more members
• dissolution of the Peace Party

All members are eligible to participate in any vote conducted by the Peace Party provided they have been a registered member of the Peace Party for at least seven days preceeding the beginning of the convention at which such vote is being conducted.

THE CHAIR
The Chair shall run all votes and threads of the Peace Party, except for votes on their own dismissal, which shall be run by the Vice-Chair.
The Peace Party shall assemble at Convention the second week of every February, June, and October in order to complete tasks including, but not limited to, the following:

• electing a new Chair, Vice-Chair and Whip
• endorsing candidates for President, Regional Senate, At-Large Senate, Subregional Senate, Lincoln Governor and General Court, South Governor and Chamber of Delegates, and Fremont Prime Minister and House of Commons.
• affirmation or modification of the platform and by-laws

February conventions shall be held in the South. June conventions shall be held in Lincoln. October conventions shall be held in Fremont.

The Convention Order of Business will be as follows: 1. 72 hour delegate Sign-in, 2. ByLaws Consideration, 3. Endorsements for any upcoming election, 4. Platform Consideration, 5. Leadership Elections, and 6. Nominations for the Next Convention's City. The chair shall have the power to postpone endorsements and proceed to other items if they believe additional time is needed for candidacies to develop.  

Votes shall consist of a 72-hour nomination period (where applicable) and a 72-hour voting period. More than one vote may be held at the same time.
If the Chair resigns or fails to fulfill their duties for a period of 72 hours, the Vice-Chair shall automatically become Chair.

THE VICE-CHAIR
The Vice-Chair's main duty is to recruit members and candidates for the Peace Party.
The Vice-Chair shall also remind all eligible members via PM of upcoming elections and any relevant endorsements.
If the Vice-Chair resigns or fails to fulfill their duties, the Peace Party shall elect a new Vice-Chair.

THE WHIP
The Whip's main duty is cooperating with party members to develop consensus on matters of policy.
The Whip shall also be tasked with ensuring that Peace members of the Senate of Atlasia be present for all votes, or announcing leaves of absence when a member is unable to vote.
The Whip shall be considered the leader of the Peace Caucus within the Atlasian Senate, even if they are not a member of this body.

GENERAL
Peace Party members are automatically endorsed, except in the case of more members running than there are available seats in a given election , for the presidential election, or if two or more members object to an automatic endorsement within 24 hours of the chair calling for such objections. If there are more candidates than available seats, a primary will be held, using a public IRV vote to determine the endorsement in which all members registered with the party 72 hours in advance and in the case of a regional or subregional election, registered in that specific region or subregion. If sufficient objections are raised to an automatic endorsement, the same electorate will vote to approve or reject the endorsement. Non-party members may petition for the endorsement of the Peace Party if there are more available seats than Peace Party candidates, prompting a nationwide majority vote to determine the endorsement. A nationwide majority vote will also be held for the presidential election, and any candidate may seek that endorsement.
Elections for party offices will be held by a public IRV vote.

• All yes-or-no votes will require a simple majority, except for dissolution, which will require two thirds.
• If all party offices are vacant at the same time, elections shall be run by the first available member.
  

As is stated in the bylaws, i'm responsible for the general day-to-day operation of the party and it's normal that I do have the right to have interactions with people within my party that would exclude the lawyer of the defendants / defendant of the party i have to prosecute.

Secondly you as lawyer of the defendant / defendant have also excluded me from certain groups, so if you believe I did something unlawful here, than I immediately request you to add me back in that group as well. You're accusing me of something you've done as well.

All i'm doing is my job.

Laki.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I privately told you that I was open to readding you back to Paxcord whenever the ongoing lawsuit case is over, if people within Pax are open to that idea, as well.

I secondly want to add that i defended you from others despite some always having objections over the course of these months over your presence in the party, including outside pressure from people outside Peace: Labor and DA.

As long this lawsuit is ongoing, a return to Paxcord will not be possible. This ensures that all parties can independently and ethically handle the case.

As the prosecutor, I respectfully request silence, an end to the debate, and your cooperation in awaiting court orders. Let us maintain a respectful and orderly atmosphere as we proceed with the proceedings and adhere to the instructions and decisions of the court. Thank you for your understanding.

Laki