|OUTDATED LEGAL INFORMATION!|
| Court Ruling of Applied Rights of Executive Impeachment Trials of December 2011
|Supreme Court: 11/25/11 - 12/7/11|
|Full Case Name||Court Ruling of Applied Rights of Executive Impeachment Trials of December 2011|
|Esteemi Evantsu, Hik10er|
|Executives may be removed for any reason whatsoever and are entitled to no additional rights (including those available to citizens in a standard trial). Executives do not have a right to view evidence against them in an Executive impeachment.|
|Red v. Ascencia|
During an attempted impeachment trial of Red Triumvirate, the Executives attempting to remove him from office brought up evidence against him but refused to show it to him on the basis that it was private information and that it wasn't necessary to share. This evidence included letters that had been sent to other Executives by members of the Triumvirate complaining about the presence of Red in the Executive Branch. Red then asked if he could view the letters anonymously and was still refused to have access to them.
A) Does an Executive, during an impeachment trial, have the right to view evidence presented against them?
B) When Red asked for anonymous excerpts from the letters, is he entitled to see them under Article 15?
C) Do the Constitutional guarantees under article seven of the rights of those at trial apply to an impeachment trial in the Executive Branch?
On 12/7/11 (3:0):
A) Technically no, the Executive Branch can remove and impeach someone by whatever specifications they want. However, it is wise for the Executives taking an impeachment trial against another to present the evidence so it makes it more clear that they are presenting a good reason for trying to remove them from office.
B) No, based on the precedents established by Red v. Ascencia, there is a right to privacy maintained and this applies to these private letters. The Executive Branch can force testimony or the release of the letters should it desire to do so still.
C) No, those only apply to court proceedings. Clearly an Executive doesn't get counsel in an impeachment trial and they do not reserve the other rights that are fundamental in court. The Executive Branch functions on a different system.
By Chief Justice Stavrok:
When the court was asked "Does an Executive, during an impeachment trial within the Executive Branch, have the right to view evidence presented against them?" and "Does a person have a right to view private messages involving them but not intended for their viewing?", this court has concluded that both of these the answer is that they do not legally have these rights.
In response to the first, an Executive under impeachment does maintain some rights, but not the same as those at trial in court. The Executive Branch is fundamentally different from the courts and it operates on its own rules. Because the Executive branch is elite and supposed to be able to easily remove people from office the Executive branch doesn't need justification for removing someone from office. However, because Executives will not just vote to remove a fellow Executives from office, it will be necessary to show the Executive branch (which does include the one who might get impeached) any evidence. So it is almost unnecessary that it needs to be a right. If the information was confidential such as a sheet of site trafic results, it would be even more important that this right doesn't exist. Showing that data to Executives will proper clearance would be appropriate, but if the one at trial is not, then it would be potentially harmful to show that information. Hence, the court says no.
The answer to the second was easier to determine due to precedent. Due to the rulings in Court Ruling of Article 15 of October 2011 ("If something is reasonably private to an individual or group within the Triumvirate, people in the Triumvirate do not have the right to know about it. If something is unreasonably private then the people have a right to know it."), we adhere to that precedent. The Executive Branch can, due to the powers defined to them in the case of Red v. Ascencia force testimony if needed.