Ruling Domais & Wang Yao v Clorinda

[Domais]

We alleged the following against Clorinda:

Count 1: Blackmail;

Blackmail is defined as "(1) Any person who threatens to, attempts, or uses damaging information against a person in an effort to force them to take, or to refrain from, certain actions, shall be guilty of blackmail."

First, the wording of the criminal and legal definition of blackmail does not require the defendant to say “if you don’t do this, I will do this”, rather all they must do is use damaging information against someone “in an effort to force them to take, or to refrain from, certain actions, shall be guilty of blackmail.”

There can be little doubt that Clorinda was seeking the removal of Domais as Prime Minister. The mere fact that they posted a recall thread is proof of intent to want someone removed from their position. After all, that is the point of a recall thread.

Next, we must show that Cloridna “... threaten[ed] to, attempt[ed], or us[ed] damaging information against a person.” We identify two separate posts that have the intent of blackmail.

The first post, https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3898/#post-26660, shows that Clorinda “...threaten[ed] to, … [use] damaging information against a person.” With permission from the Speaker let me quote the said post “[r]emove me then? Consider this a recall from the perspective of a private citizen. I don’t mind sharing our entire DM history here.” This is a clear threat to leak private messages which must be damaging otherwise why would you say such a thing? After all, if they are not damaging they do not help your argument.


Secondly, Clorinda “...use[d]damaging information against a person…” with the intent of “... forc[ing] them to take, or to refrain from, certain actions…”. This is shown by this post in the Assembly https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3898/#post-26661. Again with, permission from the Speaker, we would like to detail said post: It starts with Domais talking about Delegate Tubbs and how long he thought he would be in office, Clorinda states how he wouldn’t recall Tubbs, and then it shows a joke made by Domais “It would be amazing if we could incite [sic] JLto do it. It would be too perfect.” This post was contained damaging information against Domais. It is damaging because it entails the recall of the Delegate who is extremely popular.

We would like to mention for the record that only one of those two mentioned things needed to be fulfilled for this part of the definition.

Finally, we must prove that Clorinda had the intent of “... forc[ing] [a person] to take, or to refrain from, certain actions…”. We argue that he intended for the Prime Minister to resign with said post. This can be gleaned from the fact that Clorinda was unlikely to succeed in his recall motion, see: https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3898/#post-26645, https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3898/#post-26645, and https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3898/#post-26645. This was done in order to force Domais to resign instead of going through a recall vote that Domais could have lost, something that would have set a damaging legacy to his name if it was successful.

We recognize that Clorinda did state after Domais’s resignation that he did not think that he should have resigned but we feel that this is irrelevant because it was posted after the alleged blackmailing occurred. That it was made solely to cover himself from any criticism of his actions.

Moreover, we would like to present the following post, https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3958/#post-27201, which Clorinda has admitted to the crimes alleged “Blackmail? Sure.” We also recognize that Clorinda has recanted this admission but we would like it to be known in the record of this case.

Therefore, believe that Clorinda has committed blackmail against then Prime Minister Domais.

Count 2: Treason:

Treason is defined as "(1) Any person who engages in conduct with the intention of:

a. illegally removing or altering the Mandate, the Government or the Delegate

... shall be guilty of treason." We believe that the allegation laid out in count 1 is itself sufficient to be treason as Clorinda was seeking to illegally alter the Government.

We would like to note that if the court finds Clorinda not guilty of count 1 then it logically follows that Clorinda is not guilty of count 2 but the opposite is not true. Guilt in count 1 does not automatically mean guilt in count 2. Rather, it strongly suggests guilt in count 2.

 

[Wymondham]

The court asks @Domais & @Wang Yao to clarify who will be representing the plaintiff if the court decides to conduct a criminal review.

 

[Domais]

As I am more knowledgeable in the law and Wang Yao has to prioritize their activity as Managing Director, I will.

 

[Wymondham]

The court has unanimously voted to accept the petition for a criminal review.

Therefore, notice is served upon @Domais, @Wang Yao & @Clorinda that a criminal review has begun. In accordance with Section 1 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the plaintiffs & defendant are referred to the The Criminal Procedure Act.

In accordance with Section 2 (1) a. of the Criminal Procedures Act, @Clorinda now has 7 days to present evidence in their defence and commentary on all evidence submitted to the Court thus far. Clorinda is also reminded of their right under Section 2 (3) of the Criminal Procedures Act to be represented by another person, who they must identify to the court.

 

[Clorinda]

Before I or anyone else responds in my defense, I would like to humbly ask the court if it would be in accordance with the law or court precedent that I may have two individuals representing me. If not, allow me up to a day to deliberate and choose someone fit.

 

[Wymondham]

Before I or anyone else responds in my defense, I would like to humbly ask the court if it would be in accordance with the law or court precedent that I may have two individuals representing me. If not, allow me up to a day to deliberate and choose someone fit.

The defendant may only be represented by one individual per Section 2 (3) of the Criminal Procedure act

(3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant may each be represented by another person who they may identify at any time. Each of them may be represented by only one person at any given time.

I would note that the Defendant has have until the 27th to respond to the charges and evidence in the review; thus, as long as the defendant submits their response by the 27th they are welcome to take as long as they wish to deliberate.

 

[Clorinda]

For the time being, I’ll be representing myself.

Charges of Blackmail and Treason are levied against me, I will dissect them piece by piece, starting with the lesser charge of Blackmail.

By its definition codified in Lazarene law (the Criminal Code Act), an individual found to be guilty of Blackmail is determined to be “…Any person who threatens to, attempts, or uses damaging information against a person in an effort to force them to take, or to refrain from, certain actions, shall be guilty of blackmail.” The plaintiff claims that by posting a recall vote against them and sharing a screenshot describing their willingness to incite a private citizen in Treadwellia’s removal as Delegate that I, the defendant, am guilty of this charge. The plaintiff cites the same screenshot and the defendant’s posts as their only source of evidence, which in itself is circumstantial at best. The plaintiff claims that their role in the screenshot was “..a joke made by Domais”. One can only wonder why the aforementioned “joke” was not shared publicly if that’s all it was. It was not the defense’s desired outcome that the plaintiff would resign following a clearly split recall post, nor is it the defense’s fault.

Second of all, if the plaintiff truly found an issue with the material released (considered what the accused had released as Blackmail), why would they follow up with “Hmm I am tempted to post our the entire conversation of what you cropped. However, I think we can both agree that posting the whole thing would be, damaging to both me and you…” and “So I was thinking that just posting up until the part before we talk about leo…”? The defense would like the court to note that two days later the accused, Clorinda, consented to the release of these conversations but the plaintiff chose to never publish them.

Lastly, the defense would like to acknowledge the prosecution’s willingness to paint the following post as an admission of guilt. While it is true that the accused responded to the plaintiff’s initial case with “Blackmail? Sure. Treason? Nah…”, the defense would like to clarify that this was not in fact an admission of guilt but instead recognition of the case against the accused. The accused clarified on Discord that they saw their restriction from holding office by the CLS as enough to bring forth a blackmail charge, and that it was plausible, despite disagreeing with and disavowing the charges brought before them. Overall, the prosecution provides a lack of real evidence and relies on speculation and guessing the accused’s intentions, in addition to seemingly seeking to weaponize this honorable court in some form of vigilante justice against the accused.

Now onto the charge of Treason. The prosecution itself notes that “…if the court finds Clorinda not guilty of count 1 then it logically follows that Clorinda is not guilty of count 2 but the opposite is not true. Guilt in count 1 does not automatically mean guilt in count 2. Rather, it strongly suggests guilt in count 2.” Enough said there. It is clear that by posting a recall I did not seek to overthrow or illegally alter the government, instead opting to remove then-Prime Minister Domais legally, albeit in the heat of the moment.

Evidence regarding Domais’ direct Discord messages to Clorinda regarding the publication of their conversations can be found below.

 

[Wymondham]

In accordance with Section 2 (2) b. of the Criminal Procedure Act, @Domais & @Wang Yao have until 1st April 2022 to present further evidence and commentary on all evidence submitted to the court thus far.

 

[Domais]

We would like to note that the screenshots provided by the defendant are not relevant because Plaintiff and Defendant created the posts in question after the alleged instance of blackmail (They had to be from after the alleged event because of the defendant's question of taking back the resignation). Only what is relevant is at the time of the event, so a few hours before these screenshots.

"The plaintiff claims that their role in the screenshot was ‘..a joke made by Domais’. One can only wonder why the aforementioned ‘joke’ was not shared publicly if that’s all it was. It was not the defense’s desired outcome that the plaintiff would resign following a clearly split recall post, nor is it the defense’s fault." The law clearly says "damaging," so it does not matter if the post in question was a joke or not. That is just context. The right question is, was it damaging? The defendant agrees that it was damaging. In life, there are many things said between two people in a joking manner that, if published, would be damaging. Domais did not incite JL to recall the Delegate is proof that the communication was a joke.

We have no comment on the section relating to the “Blackmail? Sure. Treason? Nah…” and would like the justices to refer to the relevant section in the complaint.

We, of course, disagree with the last sentence of the section before introducing the defendant's evidence.

In summary, the defendant has introduced many arguments to this court but they are largely irrelevant or have been rebuked herein. The defendant has also presented evidence in the form of screenshots. Still, such screenshots are irrelevant to the case at hand because they happened after the alleged event of blackmail and treason. We would like to note that the defendant agrees that the post was damaging. Thus, we believe the defendant is guilty of the crimes alleged in the complaint.

 

[Wymondham]

On April 1 2022, the criminal review concluded, the court has now unanimously decided upon the verdict and sentence for each count and regrets the time taken to announce the following:

Verdict
As to the first count, Blackmail, the court finds Clorinda Guilty
As to the second count, Treason, the court finds Clorinda Not Guilty

Sentence
The court firstly notes that there is neither statutory instruction nor guidance from the assembly on the matter of sentencing criminal cases, therefore the court wishes to repeat the request made in McChimp v Vedan that the Assembly considering issuing either statutory instruction or guidance to the court on the matter of sentencing.

Clorinda has been found guilty of blackmail, the court's initial inclination in such a matter would be to impose a lengthy, but not permanent, ban on serving in public office and a relatively short ban on participating and voting in elections or voting in the regional assembly.

However, the court considers Clorinda's intention, that of attempting to illegally force an elected official from office, to be an aggravating factor when determining the sentence for this crime. Therefore, Clorinda is to be permanently banned from holding regional office and banned from participating or voting in elections and from voting in the assembly for 12 months.

Obiter Dicta: The court firmly believes in the principle of reform and rehabilitation and would therefore consider it advisable that the Assembly exercise it's power to reduce Clorinda's ban from voting to 6 months should Clorinda formally and publicly apologise to the assembly for their actions with an admission of impact. The court would also consider it advisable that after 2 years, the Assembly review Clorinda's ban from holding office should Clorinda apply to have said ban reviewed. The court makes no recommendation on whether the Assembly ought to end Clorinda's ban on holding office should such an application be made after two years, such a decision would be a matter for the assembly two years from now. It is intended that the ban on holding Regional Office be served consecutively to the ban on holding office already imposed by the CLS. Therefore, the 2 year period stated in this recommendation is defined as commencing as soon as the ban imposed by the CLS lapses, at which point the ban imposed by the court would come into force.

 

[Clorinda]

The defense would like to petition the court to clarify whether or not Clorindia and Clordina are the same individual as the sentenced Clorinda.

Not sorry btw.

 

[Wymondham]

The defense would like to petition the court to clarify whether or not Clorindia and Clordina are the same individual as the sentenced Clorinda.

Not sorry btw.

The court would like to apologise to the defendant for the typo's, they were all intended to read as Clorinda and have now been corrected. The court would also like to thank the defendant for inadvertently reminding the court to add the following explanation to the Obiter Dicta:

It is intended that the ban on holding Regional Office be served consecutively to the ban on holding office already imposed by the CLS. Therefore, the 2 year period stated in this recommendation is defined as commencing as soon as the ban imposed by the CLS lapses, at which point the ban imposed by the court would come into force.

The above has been edited into the final judgement