Good Evening,
I'm glad we could finally make it to this point after what is I believe our most prolonged lawsuit. I will also say this is very important, no matter who wins or loses. That is because this case has established numerous precedence for the organization of future cases. Numerous objections and how they are gone about, the idea of redirects and recrosses, expert witness testimony, and even small aspects like a sidebar. All are established within this case. Let this not only be a mark for future cases to see how these procedures are done but a mark that sets that path for even greater things to come to our Judicial System.
Nonetheless, let's get into the verdict
Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff has come to court to argue the following points:
1. Supersuperking broke part of the procedure for initiating a VoNC as stated in the VoNC Reform bill: "The process begins with Parliament's joint decision to initiate a vonc against an accused government official being presented by the Speaker."
2. Despite the situation surrounding the VoNC, and the speaker's alleged lack of action in announcing the VoNC himself, the law is as stated and it should be followed and preserved to its letter.
3. TedHastings was the DSoP at the time the Speaker had asked him to announce a VoNC; therefore, the Speaker has never delegated those powers to a Member of Parliament but rather the Deputy Speaker, which they are allowed to do so.
4. It will set a poor precedent if ruled in the Defense's favor as it could lead to individuals overstepping their powers.
Defense:
1. Supersuperking was doing his constitutional duty by representing the people and maintaining democratic practices.
2. The Speaker was not fulfilling their constitutional duties and when Supersuperking approached the SoP and DSoP, he was met with inaction. Moreover, someone had to step forward and take action.
3. Koalition had granted Supsersuperking permission
4. Although TedHastings was the DSoP at the time the Speaker asked him to announce the VoNC, as the witness stated, it has to be an official transfer of powers.
Verdict:
Now, the big argument throughout this case is essentially between law and morals. It was legally incorrect for Supersuperking to make the announcement as they did not have the proper power/jurisdiction. This is something I think even the Defense has come to admit in the very end. However, it is more morally right for him to have done it as it protects democratic practices and procedures. I think this is even a point that the Plaintiff could agree with; however, their stringent argument towards the law is the more accurate one. As much as I understand the situation our Parliament at the time was put in, procedures can not be ditched to try and make a poor situation better. In reality, all it does is make it worse. The Defense had asked if, "it is worse to follow a democratic process toward a danger to democracy or break a democratic process to ensure democracy." Well if you were to follow a democratic process, follow the law, ride a good path, and somehow end up going down a bad road. You learned about a bend in that road, you learned about a loop, a problem, which needs to be fixed. Therefore, you fix it and continue down the road. If you break a democratic process in hopes of fixing another, did you really fix it? You yourself have now created a bend created a problem to try and have a good result; yet, what happens to the problem created? So, it is my opinion that one must all follow the law, follow the rules, and follow the good path. When things get bumpy and bad, which they will, that is the time to act and fix things. You can not start off-center and expect the road to fix itself as you build, it will still always be off-center in the beginning.
Additionally, the idea that because Koalition gave someone permission to do something so therefore it is alright is a terrible mindset. Koalition has powers that he can use to officially order things. This is something that is in the law, this is something that actually exists. The idea that whatever the owner says goes, defeats the whole purpose of having a government, politics, economy, literally everything. Obviously, I have much respect for Koalition, but his word is not the almighty word that overrules everything. He has an emergency veto and that is the sole way he can influence the server from the owner position.
Finally, in regards to the point about TedHastings and whether or not the Speaker at the time had actually delegated powers to him, there is nothing written (that I know of) that states specifically how the transfer of powers works. therefore, it is hard to rule in either direction as there is nothing to look back on.
Final Verdict: I hereby rule in favor of The Plaintiff. I will be granting no relief as the VoNC has long passed. However, this has been a very important case for establishing precedent. Not only the ones I mentioned above but also the idea that a situation does not change law and its verbiage unless specified within that law.
I will take this moment though to say one last thing, as I do believe it is a good time to do so. I do agree with the Defense and I do ask that Parliament look into these bills and ensure they are well up to date and secure. I do believe a bill was released after this situation, one that clarifies this whole case; however, I could be mistaken. Nonetheless, look into and fix that which needs fixing.
I want to thank both parties for their hard work, dedication, and patience throughout this long and unusual case. It has been a pleasure to rule over it. If anyone has any questions about the verdict, they are more than welcome to ask.
That is all,
Thank You
Court Adjourned
