Court of the Damned

You repeatedly tried to close embassies. I had to cancel a dozen times. I told you not to keep being so heavy handed. You stirred up conflict non stop with everyone. You're logic is so painfully flawed and you can't even see it. Your actions have hurt Hell's activity, and driven off valued residents. Badgering everyone till they avoided NS is hardly helping. Closing the embassies is what broke the camels back, but let's not pretend that's why you need to go.

You are welcome to appeal. Good luck with that considering I was the one defending you to the countless people who complained and warned me.

Fencillia wrote:

I am going to be challenging both that and my ban/permanent suspension of Speaker, which Stalker does not have the ability to single-handedly do as enforced by the Constitution.

As such, I'll wait in this region until you three decide on whether or not you'd like to hear my case. If you decide against, however, I'll leave of my own volition.

EDIT: VII. Cases may be brought to the Court of the Damned by anyone across NationStates, including non-citizens. The Court of the Damned is free to dismiss these cases. - Manuscript. This allows me to challenge Stalker's actions, even if he has illegally removed my citizenship.

It also allows the court to dismiss such cases, which in my opinion it should since allowing all 300,000 NationStates nations to bring cases to the court would be an unreasonable burden.

As to your removal:

Fencillia wrote:

EDIT 2: In addition to this, me being banjected means one of two things, either:
A: My citizenship in turn has also been revoked despite the fact it requires a Removal of Citizenship motion to do so, which was not at all done,
or B: I was banjected in spite of Article 1, Section 2, clause III. Every citizen shall have the right to join Hell sponsored platforms, participate in government functions, and other Kingdom activities.

I don't see a single protection from ejection codified in law, The Manuscript merely references instances in which ejection may occur as a consequence for certain actions. At no point does it restrict ejection to only those instances or in any other way constrain, limit, or define the authority of the Governor in regards to ejection.

WA Residency conferring citizenship and how that interacts with ejection is an interesting question that likely needs further legislation. As stated above there are seemingly no restrictions on ejection, meanwhile those who are not of the Fifth Circle are only citizens while resident with their WA, ergo once a WA resident is ejected they are no longer a citizen and any protections a citizen possesses are no longer applicable.

Clause III is so broad that I would rule it unenforceable if the question was brought. "Other Kingdom Activities" could cover practically anything, including privileged or confidential discussions and military operations that would compromise Hell's security if opened to all citizens. It also at no point specifies residency within the region as a right of citizens, you could argue it's implied, but one can post on the Hell RMB and vote in regional polls (with the proper configuration) both without being a resident of the region, even regional officer powers are usable from outside the region for the most part.

Fencillia wrote:

Correct, however, I still by a technicality am Speaker, though suspended, as you have not executed Order 66.

In addition, I was a member of the World Assembly when I was removed from the region - that is the other potential criteria for citizenship, and I therefore had and still have a right to interact freely with Hell.

Either way, given I have appealed this decision, it is up to Margala, Kyraina, and Altmoras to decide where Hell goes. The Manuscript clearly states all of the things that happened aren't very much within its bounds, but banjecting me for challenging something when I could do so, after doing something that I'll admit was not allowed but was also of no consequence (how many embassies did I close without your permission, again? 0, because you vetoed all the other ones) seems to be exceptionally overkill to me. Not to mention blaming me for the death of the region when I was the one who was having to constantly badger you about 'hey, would you mind fixing X and Y because I don't have permissions to do so' or 'ADE has no Appearance permission' or 'There's spammers in the discord, can I have ban permissions to remove them' et cetera, which were definitely seen and either got ignored deliberately or were addressed way after when they should have been. Also calling me 'insufferable' and saying you've wanted to banject me for months shows you are far from impartial - given I as a citizen at the time (who is challenging my removal of that status) had the right to an impartial case, that doesn't do.

Anyway, I've got things to do. I await Margala and Altmoras' responses on this matter as I'm aware Kyraina is in full support of this decision despite its unconstitutionality.

If Kyraina and Altmoras are clear on their position, then it would not matter much on what opinion I have on this as the Court has spoken if majority agrees to the decision

There's no question of whether the multiple offences of attempting to close embassies occurred or not since you have confessed publicly in doing so and the King stating it as the reason for the banishment

Instead of providing opinion on whether or not it was correct or wrong, I will rather say that this whole spectacle has brought to light the ambiguity of the Manuscript:

1) The Manuscript states that the King determines the fate of those violating the Kingdom's Law through the Court Of The King

2) The Manuscript also lays constitutional procedure for the removal of citizenship

3) The Manuscript is silent on what powers and authority the Court Of The King has in delivering punishments

4) The Manuscript does not prevent the King from sending demons to exile and stripping their demonic powers, ranks and titles

The King has reasoned that the removal of citizenship is a separate constitutional mechanism. The Manuscript also does not state that they are the same thing either while also granting the King authority to determine citizenship and not defining what punishments can the Court Of The King even impose

Meaning as Altmoras pointed out and I further add: The King could banish someone for violating kingdom law or lower their rank in the hierarchy enough that they no longer fulfill the requirements of citizenship and hence, no longer a citizen. And government officials have also no immunity or protections granted by the constitution (you get ejected, you lose citizenship which also requires residency)

The King interpreted the Executioner status as having broad authority to impose final judgments (including banishment) which I have been informed was originally intended as such when drafting the Manuscript which you are now against (although such things should be defined). There is no limit placed on the King on banishing citizens or any resident. Btw there is also no procedure on lowering someone's rank, the King determines it through merit

Anyway as this logic goes, the King exiled you which indirectly also removed your citizenship since you are no longer a resident

This would have rendered the constitutional procedure of citizenship removal redundant but given that it is being interpreted as a separate mechanism for citizenship removal, then it would stand that the King can, and has, the authority to indirectly revoke citizenship and banish any official for violations through the Court Of The King

Before the Manuscript, the King held sovereign authority and it seems that the manuscript doesn't replace that system but is a continuation of it, as it repeatedly emphasizes the constitutional importance of the Monarchy so we can interpret that the powers historically belonging to the Crown and Aristocracy of Hell still remain unless the Manuscript limits those powers

The Constitutional Ambiguity requires future clarification. But assuming the majority court reasoning stands, then it means this Court Of The Damned will be laying out several future precedents for constitutional interpretation:

1) We have transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. The Crown and the Hell Elders held certain powers, if the Manuscript does not explicitly limit those powers, then those powers may still exist

2) The Court Of The King possesses broad punitive powers and the King's authority over the Court Of The King and over Rankings and Titles can have constitutional consequences for citizenship

3) The Court of the King may impose punishments, including banishment for violations of Kingdom law

4) The Removal of Citizenship motion stated in Article Six is not the only means by which one can lose citizenship

5) Ambiguous constitutional provisions will eventually be interpreted by the courts. If the drafters of the Manuscript do not define relationships between the different powers, then the courts can interpret the meaning to fill those gaps (The Manuscript contained ambiguity, the courts resolved it by favouring executive powers of the Crown)

6) Government officials are not protected from the King's judicial authority unless the Manuscript specifically grants them immunity

7) If the Manuscript gives the King a power and does not clearly limit it, the Court Of The Damned cannot invent a limitation

If we uphold the King's decision, then this shall shape future constitutional practice and we have basically stated that:

"Our job is to only interpret the Manuscript as written, If the Kingdom wants to limit the King's powers, put those limits into the Manuscript"

Margala wrote:

The Constitutional Ambiguity requires future clarification. But assuming the majority court reasoning stands, then it means this Court Of The Damned will be laying out several future precedents for constitutional interpretation:

1) We have transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. The Crown and the Hell Elders held certain powers, if the Manuscript does not explicitly limit those powers, then those powers may still exist

2) The Court Of The King possesses broad punitive powers and the King's authority over the Court Of The King and over Rankings and Titles can have constitutional consequences for citizenship

3) The Court of the King may impose punishments, including banishment for violations of Kingdom law

4) The Removal of Citizenship motion stated in Article Six is not the only means by which one can lose citizenship

5) Ambiguous constitutional provisions will eventually be interpreted by the courts. If the drafters of the Manuscript do not define relationships between the different powers, then the courts can interpret the meaning to fill those gaps (The Manuscript contained ambiguity, the courts resolved it by favouring executive powers of the Crown)

6) Government officials are not protected from the King's judicial authority unless the Manuscript specifically grants them immunity

7) If the Manuscript gives the King a power and does not clearly limit it, the Court Of The Damned cannot invent a limitation

If we uphold the King's decision, then this shall shape future constitutional practice and we have basically stated that:

"Our job is to only interpret the Manuscript as written, If the Kingdom wants to limit the King's powers, put those limits into the Manuscript"

Very eloquently put. This is generally my reasoning, with the slight asterisks that while the King currently holds the office of Governor, they're technically two separate posts and the latitude the King enjoys is conferred by a combination of the powers of both offices, veto power for example is a Governor authority, whereas determination of rankings falls to the King.

Additionally, non-manuscript law passed by the Elders would likely also bind the King-Governor owing to the bestowal by the Manuscript of "highest authority" to the Elders, as well as the Elders' many explicit protections and authorities with the Manuscript such as protection from ranking change by the King.

I'm not going to response to another wall of text, it will only lead to another wall of text. Judges have ruled, I consider the matter settled.

I believe both sides had ample time to present and respond to their arguments along with hearing responses from the Judges. The Court cannot drag on an endless cycle of arguments and litigation unless the defendant has any new genuine constitutional reasoning

Unless any of my fellow Judges wish to add further reasoning, Margala shall pen down the final ruling in one day's time and formally conclude the case which shall be then presented to the Infernal Kingdom

I would also respectfully request that His Infernal Majesty, The Mad King of Hell, trustfully permit the Court itself to determine when proceedings before the Court of the Damned are concluded and when parties should be removed from the courtroom. Doing so preserves independence and orderly administration of the judiciary

Yo gangalang.

Court Case # 1 - The Appeal Of Dengist China:

An appeal from The Court Of the King by former speaker of the Senate Dengist China

Presented before:

Head Of Injustice Kyraina
Judge Altmoras
Judge Margala

The Appeal:
The appellant, Dengist China, appealed the decision of the Court of the King following his banishment from Hell and the resulting loss of citizenship. The appellant argued that the King's actions were inconsistent with the Manuscript of the Damned and exceeded the constitutional authority granted by the Manuscript

Reasoning Of The Court Of The King:
The Crown maintained that the Court of the King possessed the authority to impose banishment, that such authority was historically exercised by the Crown, and that the Manuscript neither restricted nor abolished those powers

Deliberation:
The Court notes that the dispute arises from the constitutional ambiguity of the Manuscript.

The Manuscript provides no limitation upon the authority exercised through the Court of the King, nor does it provide immunity from banishment for any government official or citizen.

The Court further notes that the King relied upon the original constitutional intent of the Manuscript as one of its principal drafters in explaining the scope of the Court of the King. While the Court's duty is to interpret the Manuscript as written rather than the intentions of its authors, the Court finds that such interpretation is consistent with the constitutional text and the historical powers exercised by the Crown.

The Court also finds no constitutional basis upon which to overturn the judgment of the Court of the King.

Judgement:
By majority vote, the Court of the Damned holds that the King's judgment, issued through the Court of the King, was not contrary to the Manuscript of the Damned.

Precedents Established:
This Court hereby establishes the following constitutional principles:

I. The constitutional procedure governing Removal of Citizenship is a separate constitutional mechanism and is not the only means by which citizenship may cease.

II. The Court of the King possesses broad punitive powers, including the power to impose banishment, where such authority is not limited by the Manuscript.

III. Where the Manuscript grants authority but does not define its limits, the Court of the Damned shall not impose limitations absent from the Manuscript.

IV. Powers historically exercised by the Crown and the Hell Elders are presumed to continue unless limited or withdrawn by the Manuscript.

V. The duty of the Court of the Damned is to interpret the Manuscript as written and not to create new constitutional limitations

The Infernal Decree:
The Appeal of Dengist China is hereby dismissed.

The judgment rendered by the Court of the King is affirmed.

This matter is concluded, and the proceedings of this case are hereby brought to an end.

So decreed by the Court of the Damned, and entered forever into the Infernal Archives

Dated: 5th July, 2026