Yoahtl v. Okx, Oct 2021
Case
With SpaceVolcano presiding, on 4th October 2021, GDAN on behalf of the Yoahtlan Government charged Okx with Unlawful Incorporation, Unauthorised claims, two counts of Murder, two counts of Theft, two counts of Unauthorised Pearling, Insubordination, and Treason. The Insubordination and Treason chargers were later withdrawn.
Okx was found guilty of Unauthorised Claims (4 weeks Exile Pearl), two counts of Murdering a Government Official (10 days Prison Pearl), two counts of Theft (3 weeks Exile Pearl + Restitution), and one count of Unauthorised Pearling (3 days Exile Pearl).
In total, Okx was sentenced to 10 days of Prison Pearl and 52 days of Exile Pearl.
Proceedings
GDAN:
I would like to sue Okx for unlawfully forming a town within Yoahtlan territory, claiming ownership of land without government permission. Killing myself twice and therefore also stealing any valuables on myself at the time, pearling myself twice without the approval of the proper authorities, and for committing insubordination by refusing to not overclaim land belonging to the sovereign state of Yoahtl when told to by the government. I would also like to seek to create new precedent to define a circumstance of treason and make it illegal, in this case treason being the act of unlawfully trying to remove land from the claims of the sovereign state of Yoahtl and the murder of a government official while they tried to secure our borders, therefore betraying his own nation.
SpaceVolcano:
The courts will hear the case of The Yoahtl represented by GDAN vs Okx
On the charges of
- Unlawfully forming a town
- Claiming Ownership of land without goverment permission
- 2 counts of Murder of a goverment member
- 2 counts of unauthorized pearling
- 2 counts of theft of personal items and gear
- Insubordination leading to attempted succession and treason.
GDAN:
I'd like to present evidence of my claims against Okx:
Unlawfully forming a town without government permission breaking council law 1.4, this law was also re-affirmed when it was updated by Ololtic proposal number 8.
https://www.reddit.com/r/civclassics/comments/pzewl1/the_republic_of_dumnonia_declares_independence/
Here it can be seen that Okx declares the area an independent town separate from government controlled Yoahtl. Since Yoahtl still recognises the land as Yoahtlan sovereign territory the closest definition that fits what Okx is declaring to be would be an autonomous town. Therefore, Okx has declared the existence of a town within Yoahtlan sovereign territory without government permission.
The following is the territory claimed by Okx in his reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/civclassics/comments/pzewl1/the_republic_of_dumnonia_declares_independence/ . Here we can clearly see he's claiming ownership of more land than the government has given him permission to build upon. This breaks council law 5.1. Linked below is what the government actually gave Okx permission to own within Yoahtlan sovereignty: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/867381280807452673/873592288679436379/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/867381280807452673/873592528543305788/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/867381280807452673/873592661787963402/unknown.png
Okx also agreed to these borders for his homestead, as shown here:
In the final line you can see Okx accenting to making these the borders for his homestead.
Okx had pearled and killed a government member twice at the time of this trial request, that member being myself a part of the council. I'd like to call witnesses Aki and icyski to testify that the first time I was killed they chased Okx across the map while he was holding my pearl.
Okx broke case precedent stating that you cannot pearl someone without the express permission of the alcuahtl/council, this is from the case precedent Yoahtl v. Link2006, 2017. As he pearled me twice at the time of the request for this trial.
By pearling myself twice Okx stole my items both times, the first time consisting of a god prot set, a god sword, a god pick and a god axe as the valuable items and the second time a single god pick.
I will be dropping the charges of insubordination as I realise that they're not relevant here.
SpaceVolcano:
Aki, please give your statement to the court
Aki:
I was asked to speak about the pearling of Gdan by Okx for the first time, so I’ll do so but provide some mindset to the court as to my decisions at critical junctures.
A day after the reddit post declaring secession of Okx’s claims, Gdan12 went down to the disputed east wayrest territory and began breaking Okx-placed bastions on my orders. When Okx approached, he asked gdans Alt who he was, and in response Gdan confirmed it was him. Okx told him to leave and when he didn’t, Gdan said that Okx began running towards him. I told Gdan at this point to stay but not to fight Okx, as to demonstrate a forceful refusal to relinquish the land but a continued desire for a peaceful resolution.
Gdan was pearled by Okx and myself and icyski, a yoahtlan citizen and trusted military members began to pursue gdans pearl following the /pplocate command. At this point Okx put a post on the subreddit in which he says that Gdan will be released once Yoahtl un claims east wayrest. Icyski and I, later joined by genericlaquey, follow Okx near Vinland and then as he we t wear towards MtS where he dropped gdans pearl and Gdan was freed.
I made the call to have Okx PoS in yoahtl for the pearling of Gdan after this point
SpaceVolcano:
icyski, please give your statement to the court
icyski:
I was in VC with Gdan and he was streaming himself standing in a Yoahtlan iceroad, Okx pearled him while he was streaming to the entire vc and so me and Generic chased him for a bit until he dropped the pearl and ran away
SpaceVolcano:
GDAN, any other witnesses or evidence to present?
GDAN:
Not atm
SpaceVolcano:
Thank you.
Orinnari, please give evidence in defense of the charges, as well as list any witnesses you would like to have the courts call upon following your evidence.
Orinnari:
Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The claimant has laid six charges against my client. I continue to recognise six as while he has since dropped the charge of insubordination, his intent to set a precedent of treason is for all intents and purposes also a charge of treason against my client. I shall now respond to each charge as enumerated:
“Unlawfully claiming a town”
The charge of unlawful incorporation is spurious to say the least; the claimant is attempting to stretch the meaning of (N6CB) Township (otherwise known as “Council 1.4”) to cover something entirely separate; in the claimant’s own words: ”it is the closest definition that fits.” I have two strategies to refute this charge: an e-lawyer argument and an intuitive argument.
Firstly, to get it out of the way, the e-lawyer argument:
Any group of players wishing to form a town may submit papers of incorporation to the Council of Yoahtl, which are then voted on and the Alcuahtl must sign off. A town may choose to be autonomous, which means that they retain their own legal structure and government. They also are exempt from participating in warfare unless they choose to contribute. They are, however, unable to vote for the Council and choose their own foreign relations except in the realm of trade. Non-autonomous towns retain the Yoahtlan legal code and can vote for the Council. They also cannot form foreign relations. All towns retain the rights to any developed settlements (excludes farms, roads and other minor infrastructure) in the case of inactivity. Existing towns may join Yoahtl as an automatically incorporated town and may choose autonomy at their discretion. Resimere and Pacem retain the rights to all their land in the case of inactivity as per their agreements upon joining Yoahtl.
- (N6CB) Township
This argument has four parts, which point out the semantics of the law:
The law describes “any group of players” so by definition does not apply to a singular player;
The law states that such a group of players may submit papers of incorporation, which suggests that it and its procedure is not the only method of incorporation (such as with Ashelor’s incorporation via Ololtic proposal) and that incorporation isn’t necessary for a town’s existence, just its legal recognition;
That by definition, incorporation means to unite, merge with, or be admitted into, not to sever, withdraw, or secede from;
The law states that towns can “retain their own legal structure and government” which shows how prospective towns can already have these things, particularly given its distinction from the separate “existing towns” clause, which by the way it’s written appears to reference foreign nations or other foreign autonomous entities that wish to join Yoahtl as an automatically-incorporated town.
Secondly, and perhaps more convincingly, is the intuitive argument which also has four parts:
The law is clearly intended for players wishing to establish a formal relationship with Yoahtl, within Yoahtl, whereas my client wishes to secede from Yoahtl, having no desire to be a devolved or otherwise subservient government, territory, or jurisdiction;
That my client’s declaration of independence came after his request for incorporation was rejected (https://i.imgur.com/uXS00Oi.png); that when juxtaposed the two acts are vastly different: the first was relevant to (N6CB) Township, the second was not;
The Alcuahtl and Deputy Alcuahtl have both stated to the effect that my client is free to declare independence with the original claims of his homestead, thus showing how the charge of unlawful incorporation is a complete non-sequitur;
The claimant’s definition of “town” is itself suspect. If we were to, say, consider another homestead, say the claimant’s own homestead, we’d see that homesteads, as a category, grant their owners a substantial degree of autonomy: that one can mine out and obby-trench an entire biome and refer to it, even if jokingly, as “New New Yoahtl City”, then it might be safe to assume that homesteads are, in essence, already a form of town, which is given further credence when, in the claimant’s own evidenced words to my client:
“the land is yours to do with as you want” as opposed to the precedent set by this court with TheOrangeWizard v 14uu, Aug 2017 that construction underneath one’s own plot must receive government authorisation;
that in some circumstances laws effectively find no difference between towns and homesteads.
“Claiming ownership of land without government permission”
I also have four arguments against this:
That the property and land my client has claimed (in addition to his homestead) was developed by him during his time as a councillor, thus was done with the permission of the government. The claimant himself admits this here (https://discord.com/channels/278045721742147586/670060843274338335/859603887085060127): “...gov members can give themselves any gov owned land and have it be theirs privately”;
The law (7RNH) The Great Coup of Okashima shows a moral precedent of the Right to Revolution, which can be defined as “When a government no longer serves the people, there is a near-universal moral understanding that the people can either overthrow or leave that government.” The Okashimans did not have a legal right to overthrow f1sh98 since the Treaty of Okatu was very explicit in giving f1sh98 full ownership and control of the territory. The Okashimans however found sympathy in their moral right to overthrow f1sh98 and were successful due to the quirks of Ololtic law superseding council laws and decisions, overriding the Treaty of Okatu. My client however does not wish to overthrow the government of Yoahtl, only leave Yoahtl;
The secession of Ashelor from Yoahtl shows the normalcy of secession when there isn’t necessarily a legal right. The Treaty of Terestai, which incorporated Ashelor, then a one-man nation, as a non-autonomous town, thus analogous to a homestead, was signed as a matter of Ololtic law, which is one of the highest forms of law in Yoahtl. The Treaty of Terestai did not have a secession clause. Nonetheless, on 12th October 2020, Ashelor unilaterally nullified the treaty thereby seceding from Yoahtl. The claimant has, in voice chat, stated that this was legal because the council’s acquiescence to the secession was an implicit, retroactive vote of assent, despite the fact that the council is not empowered to nullify Ololtic law;
That my client has played and built in the areas he’s claimed since at least December last year. I therefore argue there’s an additional layer of moral right to my client’s claims to the territory.
“Two counts of murder of a government member”
Yoahtl v Link2006, Nov 2017, which the claimant also cites in his evidence states:
No matter the charges, unless you are being directly attacked or the town is being griefed, or it is a hostile foreigner, no player other than councillors or the alcuahtl or any person occupying a position of authority to pearl legally authorized by the council and alcuahtl may pearl people.
The precedent clearly permits players to defend themselves and their property from attack, which matches with the spirit of Section 2 of the Bill of Rights in the Third Charter. Since the claimant travelled to my client’s claims and began breaking bastions, I argue that my client’s actions fall under self-defence.
I argue it was unwise to meet a non-violent secessionist with the destruction of their farm-bastions, expecting them not to defend their property, then citing your title as if my client’s self-defence was some kind of hate crime. Indeed, the fact that this was escalated to the point of deploying UDF forces to deal with a domestic claims dispute could be said to violate 14uu v 5point0, Nov 2017 which obligates maturity in circumstances of extreme imbalance.
“Two counts of unauthorised pearling”
The first count of unauthorised pearling I argue should only be considered if the extra land my client has claimed is ruled to have been unlawful, otherwise the context changes from “citizen allegedly pearled a member of their government” to “Yoahtlan government allegedly invaded another nation and was allegedly pearled for it.” As to the second count, I argue was incidental since the claimant was released immediately, thus no additional harm was done.
In regards to the first count of unauthorised pearling, I believe my client acted reasonably, pearling the claimant for understandable reasons and released him within a fairly reasonable timeframe. He also apparently dropped the pearl before being chased into Mount September which would’ve no doubt insisted that the pearl be surrendered to its jurisdiction and handled by its courts.
“Two counts of theft of personal items and gear”
My client has drop-chested the items and is willing to disclose their location on the condition that the claimant cease any and all attempts to violently subjugate my client, which includes damaging and destroying my client’s property. I believe that it would be unreasonable to expect my client to return the items if the claimant would then use those items to continue committing violence against my client.
“Treason”
The charge of treason has been laid against many people in the history of Yoahtl on Civclassics. It has been laid against iOminous by AltRaid; against Aki by Sventhar; against Charlieseeese by Aivius; nonetheless these charges never stuck. Treason is an exceptionally hefty charge:
Treason is rarer than you may believe. As much as it may be thrown around as a political buzzword, it is seldom that individuals commit crimes that can be used by a prosecutor to make a case for treason to a jury. People who might come to mind, such as Aldrich Ames, an American CIA agent who sold-out American spies in the Soviet Union in exchange for money, was in fact not charged with treason but espionage.
That quote is relevant to American law not Yoahtlan law, that is true, but I hope it puts into perspective the kinds of crimes that ought to be considered treason and by extension the kinds of crimes that shouldn’t. The claimant has gone out of his way to layer as many charges against my client as possible, only relinquishing one of those charges presumably after reading my comments in the #public-gallery-archive channel, which by implication suggests that the claimant believes in good faith that the remaining charges, including the desire for a precedent of treason, to be reasonable and proportionate. I am simply unable to convey how thoroughly I disagree with that.
My client has a genuine belief that his claims are legitimate, regardless of lawfulness, whereas the claimant has attempted to shield himself behind a thin veneer of lawfulness and authority. The claimant is attempting to enforce an interpretation of the law that Yoahtl itself has historically rejected: that what is lawful is necessarily good and what is unlawful is necessarily bad. Yoahtl’s laws are deliberately written to be vague, if written at all, or left to the discretion of the courts. This is because strictly interpreting and enforcing the law is often destructive and counterproductive to the civilisation experiment, leading to nations like Mount September and Icenia which have vast codified criminal codes which do little to nothing to prevent people actually committing those crimes and instead become a form of entertainment, hence why technically unlawful acts in Yoahtl, like Ashelor’s secession, or the lack of recent censuses, etc, go unprosecuted.
Therefore I question whether the events that have transpired really amount to treason; akin to the most egregious treacheries; akin to the most horrific war-crimes; akin to the most brutal coups; akin to feeding vast amounts of information to your nation’s enemies; etc. I think not.
SpaceVolcano:
Orinnari, thank you. We will move to a step by step cross examination. Starting with the prosecution.
GDAN:
I have no questions.
SpaceVolcano:
Thank you. Orinnari, you are now allowed to cross exam the prosecution or either witness. Please ping once your questions are submitted.
Orinnari:
Questions for GDAN:
The bastions that you damaged/broke, what were they protecting?
Questions for Aki:
What were the reasons behind your order? The claimant has stated in other channels that it was to protect Yoahtl's borders. If that's true, what threat did you believe my client's bastions posed and how would replacing his bastions with your own remove that threat?
What were the circumstances of the UDF's deployment?
What is the UDF's opinion on this situation now?
You and your deputy have offered my client the freedom to declare independence with his original homestead claims, correct? If so, is that offer still on the table? If so, is that offer still viable? As in, how would that kind of arrangement be done, and do you believe the council would object to, or even obstruct the arrangement?
What is Yoahtl's interest in East Wayrest?
Is Yoahtl's objections to my client's claims (excluding the original homestead) limited to East Wayrest? I understand the claimant has brought charges for all the territory my client has claimed in addition to his homestead, but if my client were to drop his claims on East Wayrest, would Yoahtl be content with that?
Has anyone else ever attempted to incorporate as a [non-]autonomous town of Yoahtl by seceding from Yoahtl?
Would you be willing to accept my client's offer of disclosing the location the drop-chest containing the claimant's items on the condition that authorisation for further molestation of my client's claims be ceased?
SpaceVolcano:
Thank you. GDAN please respond to the first question.
GDAN:
The bastions that I damaged/broke were stopping the government from placing their own bastions, so I guess they were protecting the area from being formally claimed as Yoahtlan in Okxs' view as his view is that bastion control of an area trumps all other claims to the land
Orinnari:
(That doesn't answer the question, the question is what were the bastions protecting, and GDAN has answered with "area")
GDAN:
Yes, the bastions were protecting Okxs' viewpoint that in his opinion he owned the area due to bastion control
Orinnari:
Were the bastions there prior to his declaration of independence?
GDAN:
SpaceVolcano, I have finished answering the questions presented in the first line of questioning
Orinnari:
Would like to note my objection for the record. The bulk line of questioning was suggested as an efficient means to posting several questions at once while I'm away during American peak hours. The claimant answered his question during British peak hours, given he's British himself, and I submitted another question. He's attempting to delay having to answer my questions fully until the next line of questions when he could answer them right now. This is a frustration of justice and a violation of my client's right to a speedy trial.
EDIT: I would also like to note how the claimant's tactics here correlate with my client's pearling. Since my client is unlikely to be released during these proceedings, the claimant has an interest in keeping these proceedings as long as possible since that's more time my client spends pearled.
SpaceVolcano:
Thank you gdan. Objection noted, however answers and responses are being submitted within the customary 24hr windows and all parties have been keeping the courts updated with potential delays.
Aki:
Allowing for the placement of bastions on a group not approved of or created by the government would be ceding the land to Okx and would have put any pvp engagements on the land squarely in favor of Okx. This isn't to mention that future developments in the land would be interrupted, and the travel of our allies and citizens would have been gravely interrupted.
I fail to see the relevance of the question here and its relationships to the charges above. If the line of questioning is attempting to intuit if the mutual defense clause of the UDF charter was evoked, no such evocation was made.
This is also, in my opinion, largely irrelevant to the discussion or charges listed. I doubt that Okx's trial or charges would have changed if the UDF had a different opinion or expressed their opinion more clearly.
This is not correct. We have given Okx permission to leave with the land originally agreed upon as seen in Gdan12's posts above.
These are all asking the same thing so I'll answer them all the same. If Okx came to us as said he would accept the original deal as set forth by the council, I would be generally pleased and supportive of that. It's still viable and up for discussion. I believe the council would be favorable to such a discussion and vote, but many an expert has tried to predict the future with great failure. If you are trying to intuit my or Bg's influence in the council, I would say that is largely irrelevant, since the majority of the council supported the original deal set forth by Gdan for Okx.
Irrelevant to the legal question at hand
While EW is a large sticking point, we also object to the Sigfriccus claims on the south near Vinland and the larger NS land not included in the deal by Gdan. If all disputed land were dropped I would be happy.
I fail to see the relevance here, as Okx didn't seek to create an autonomous or nonautonomous town, he sought to create his own nation and seized Yoahtlan territory for it.
While it's quite moot now, doing so would seem to cede land ownership to Okx, so most likely not.
Orinnari:
Thank you for answering those questions, I do have some more:
Have the UDF (or any member[s] of the UDF) expressed an interest, agreement, or otherwise consented to the idea to UDF (or [a] member[s] of the UDF) playing the role of arbitrator / mediator? If so, why was that route not taken?
Were you aware that the "Sigfriccus claims on the south near Vinland" are owned by my client as an autonomous town and originally brought into Yoahtl under the Merger with Vinland treaty with my client? If so, why is Sigfriccus considered contested territory?
Given how the claimant is refusing to cooperate: the bastions that the claimant damaged/broke, what were they protecting? As in, what property (structures or infrastructure, etc) if any, were the bastions protecting?
Why do you answer that my client's bastions would be ceding land to my client? Is it your belief that bastions serve no other purpose than to project political sovereignty over one's claims?
Aki:
I fail to see the relevance to the charges above, and I think it’s appropriate to discuss this with each nations leader rather than here
I’m aware the conditions that brought Sigfruccus into Yoahtl, but they were not a part of the deal given to Okx, so it was contested.
The bastions existing at all on a group that wasn’t consented to by the government is the issue. I don’t find anything it was protecting as overriding the law or security.
Because Okx stated in a vc that he only recognizes who owns land based on who has bastions there. Using that framework, allowing for the bastions to exist would de facto be giving Okx ownership in his mind.
SpaceVolcano:
Orinnari, please post any additional questions now.
Orinnari:
No further questions. I’m not getting actual answers for most of them anyway.
SpaceVolcano:
thank you.
GDAN, any additional evidence or facts to submit before closing statements?
Orinnari:
Sorry for the interruption, but I would like it noted for the record that the claimant no longer wishes to pursue a charge or precedent of treason. He mistakenly believed that his retraction of the insubordination charge was also a retraction of the treason charge, probably because the two were combined in your honour's case acceptance message (https://discord.com/channels/278045721742147586/348687557455904778/894631160410423346). Here is proof of the claimant's retraction here
(https://discord.com/channels/278045721742147586/831717128813543454/897229369003610143) and here (https://discord.com/channels/278045721742147586/831717128813543454/897230371412930620).
GDAN:
👍
SpaceVolcano:
Thank yoiu
GDAN:
SpaceVolcano, You can move onto the next section. I don't think I have anything to say outside of my closing statement
SpaceVolcano:
Orinnari, any additional facts or evidence you wish to submit?
Orinnari:
Likewise, I don't have anything to say here that wouldn't be better served put into context in my closing statement
SpaceVolcano:
Thank you. GDAN, Please present your closing statement.
GDAN:
I’d like to ask that the court consider the evidence I have submitted supporting my 5 claims against Okx.
I believe that I have sufficiently supported my first claim, unlawfully forming a town within the sovereign territory of Yoahtl and that the defences argument rests upon trying to twist my words to say he is unlawfully “incorporating” a town, which I have not said he is trying to do. For this charge I believe pearl time of anywhere between 6-18 weeks would be sufficient due to the serious nature of trying to form an autonomous entity, that would exist outside of our laws, within our sovereign borders.
For the second claim, claiming ownership of land without government permission, I believe I have also presented sufficient evidence. As is shown by the fact that Okx claimed land outside of the most recent agreement with the government as to what was defined as the borders of his homestead. As this could be taken to be an unlawful expansion of his homestead and is therefore somewhat less serious than the formation of an autonomous entity outside of Yoahtlan law I would like to ask for pearl time between 6-10 weeks for this charge.
For the third charge, 2 counts of murder of a government member, I believe I have presented sufficient testimony as evidence. I believe that it is also clear that Okx was not acting in self defence against an unlawful aggressor as he is the one who aggressed against Yoahtl by trying to unlawfully secede, and he is also the one who began the combat between the two of us. Therefore I’d like to ask that the precedent of roughly 4-5 days of prison pearling for murder be taken into accounts and Okx be sentenced to a single week of pearl time for each count of murder.
For the fourth charge, 2 counts of unlawful pearling, I believe I have presented sufficient testimony as evidence.I believe it is clear that these pearlings did not occur within the realms of the law, which would be to either have government permission or in the case where Okx had been engaged by myself in combat first (which I did not) or if I was griefing his homestead (which I was not). Therefore, I’d like to ask that Okx is sentenced to release the pearls (if he has not already) and for him to serve 1-2 weeks for each case of pearling due to the nature of pearling someone being more serious than just plain murder.
For the fifth charge, 2 counts of theft of personal items, I believe I have presented sufficient evidence and that the defendant has admitted to this crime via letting us know he has the items drop chested if we seek their return. Therefore I’d like to ask that the defendant is sentenced to return the following items:
1 set of God gear diamond armour, 1 god sword (U3,S5,FA2,KB2),1 E5U3ST diamond pick, 1E5U3ST netherite pick and 1 E5U3 diamond axe.
These are the only items of note that were taken to my knowledge, if the defendant admits to any other items of note being taken I’d like to ask for them to be added to the list.
I would also like to ask that the defendant is given an additional 3 weeks pearl time as I believe this is the most recent precedent from Okx v. spokey_dokey.
SpaceVolcano:
Thank you GDAN
Orinnari, please present your closing statement
Orinnari:
Thank you, before I do my closing statement however, I'd like to ask your honour whether you'll be considering recent yesterday's events in your judgment. If so then I shall include a mention of the events in my closing statement, thus the prosecution must then get a chance to mention it too, it's only fair. I ask if your honour would consider the events due to the preemptive injunction to remove my client's citizenship.
SpaceVolcano:
Is that charge listed here? No. So yesterday's events have nothing to do with the trial.
That would be a separate trial with different charges levied.
Orinnari:
Fair enough.
I do not believe the claimant has proven any such violation of (N6CB) Township. The claimant is simply attempting to stretch the meaning of the claw to cover secession which I believe is well outside the scope and intention of that law. Indeed, when asking our Alcuahtl whether anyone else had attempted to invoke (N6CB) Township by seceding, he testified by saying: "I fail to see the relevance here, Okx didn't seek to create an autonomous or nonautonomous town, he sought to create his own nation and seized Yoahtlan territory for it." This is a completely irrelevant charge; that if the claimant wishes to charge my client with attempted violation of Yoahtl's sovereignty, he should charge him with that. The length of the pearl time too is worrying. It's not uncommon for newfriends to declare independence from their host nations, particularly when those host nations hold a lot of land: does this court really wish to set a precedent of a 1.5-4.5 month long pearl sentence for this?
The claimant has not objected to my client's ownership of the structures built by my client, but instead has focused on the land and has framed my client's land property claims as an illegal expansion of his homestead. I have argued that my client's property rights extend to the land as well as the structures, but it's up to your honour to decide whether that's true and if so to what extent. However, even if your honour decides that my client's property rights do not extend, or do not adequately extend to cover his territorial claims, I nonetheless very much believe that 2 months pearl time for what amounts to the lack of a red stamp quite excessive.
I have argued and shall continue to argue that "murder of a government member" is a silly concept: having a title shouldn't make you a protected class. The claimant has argued that his actions were "lawful" and my client's "unlawful", however this is a slippery slope. People should not be punished for having a genuine belief of being under attack. If someone logged in while their house was being derelicted, would we begrudge them killing the derelictor, believing them to be a griefer? Would we pearl them for a week for doing so? My client has shown an undeniable belief that his property is his and believed the claimant (and others) to be griefing his property (which they were). Can we begrudge him for defending himself and his property?
I have already given evidence that the second pearling was released immediately, an incidental/accidental pearling. Indeed I myself have accidentally pearled people... twice, not even self defence but just playing. Should I serve 2-4 weeks in a pearl for this? As for the first pearling, I simply wish to reiterate from my opening statement: "The first count of unauthorised pearling I argue should only be considered if the extra land my client has claimed is ruled to have been unlawful, otherwise the context changes from 'citizen allegedly pearled a member of their government' to 'Yoahtlan government allegedly invaded another nation and was allegedly pearled for it.' [...] I believe my client acted reasonably, pearling the claimant for understandable reasons and released him within a fairly reasonable timeframe. He also apparently dropped the pearl before being chased into Mount September which would’ve no doubt insisted that the pearl be surrendered to its jurisdiction and handled by its courts."
The claimant argues that my client has committed theft because his items haven't been returned. However, since my client was pearled, Yoahtl has not returned my client's items. Indeed, my client is unable to visit his own property because they have been bastioned over. My client offered to give the location of the drop chest, clearly having no desire to use the items himself in return for being left alone. Even when the claimant refused, the items are still there. There has been no indication so far, at least to my knowledge, that my client's items will be returned. This is again an example of the same (if not worse) conduct being treated differently.
I'd like to highlight that the claimant is asking for a maximum pearl-time upwards of 9 months because my client declared independence then acted in self defence when people came to kill him, take his property, and nullify his claims that he's been playing in for approximately a year if not longer. With these and the injunction that removed his citizenship, I hope the court can understand my client's deep apprehension (to put it mildly) towards Yoahtl. My client's request for incorporation was refused so he seceded, then Yoahtl invited (not invoked) the UDF to handle the situation, but despite my client's desire for UDF mediation, Yoahtl was unwilling to allow the UDF to resolve the situation. Yoahtl has shown zero interest in resolving this issue amicably: since my client's pearling, Yoahtl has abandoned its stated desire for an amicable solution, reneging on the deal repeatedly stated to still be on the table (which Aki also testified to): "If Okx came to us as said he would accept the original deal as set forth by the council, I would be generally pleased and supportive of that. It's still viable and up for discussion. I believe the council would be favorable to such a discussion and vote, but many an expert has tried to predict the future with great failure."
One last thing: the way in which Yoahtl has handled Dumnonia has been drastically different from the way in which it handled Ashelor and Gempire. It shows that what makes Dumnonia "illegal" is not its declaration of independence, but whether the Council agrees after the fact. The same thing happened with Ashelor's secession and Gempire's declaration of independence. The fact that Dumnonia has been treated differently gives further reason for my client to be apprehensive of Yoahtl's supposed fairness.
SpaceVolcano:
This will be a three part ruling: first the charges and verdict with a brief explanation, followed by the in depth ruling for each charge, then the final sentencing.
Charge 1: Not guilty
Okx did not form a town, he declared the formation of a Nation independent from Yoahtl
Charge 2: Guilty
Land beyond the initial offering of the homestead was seized from Yoahtl by Okx
Charge 3: Guilty Okx did unlawfully murder two members of the Yoahtlan Goverment
Charge 4: Guilty on the first count/not Guilty to the second count
The first count of pearling was an intentional unauthorized pearling
The second count of pearling may have been incendental.
Charge 5: Guilty The items and gear were stolen and have not been returned.
Explanations of Guilty Verdicts:
Charge 2
Okx claimed land in his post beyond what was given to him by executive decision
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/632393362976276480/900104582200426496/unknown.png
The claimed land is Yoahtlan territory and by creating a nation within the sovereign bounds, okx seized the land beyond what is pictured unlawfully.
Charge 3
The Goverment of Yoahtl was responding to the situation within its borders and Okx did not act in a matter of self defense, but in a matter of aggression.
Charge 4
The first pearling was intentional as it was not immediately dropped, and okx while still a member of Yoahtl had not been authorized by any government member to Pearl Gdan.
Charge 5 Theft of personal items and gear, Okx still has possession of the items unlawfully
For these crimes you have been found guilty of Okx you are sentenced to as enumerated
Charge 2 - 4 weeks of exile pearl
Charge 3 - 10 day of Prison Pearl
Charge 4 - 3 days of exile peal
Charge 5 - 3 weeks of exile pearl and repayment of fair market value of the stolen items. As in accordance with precedent.
Totaling - 10 days of Prison Pearl, followed by 7 weeks 3 days of exile pearl. This time is to include time already served.