Red v. Ascencia



Case File

Seal of the Judicial Branch
Supreme Court: 7/18/11 - 8/31/11
Full Case Name Red v. Ascencia
Type Civil
Court Membership
Associate Justices
Stavrok, Esteemi Evantsu, Hik10er
The Executive Branch has the power to force testimony from one of its members and there is a right to privacy in the Triumvirate.

Majority Opinion Stavrok

Red v. Ascencia was an important case in determining the basis of "implied powers" of the Executive Branch. Through this case the Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch had the implied power to question and force testimony from an individual should they need to and that the information must be at least revealed to those Executives with access to confidential information if the Executive Branch decided it must be divulged.

Case FactsEdit

During Zerouh's going away party, which took place on the Supreme Court site and involved several prominent members including Ehtya, Arnold Ogamon, Stavrok, Ascencia, Red, Ermier, and others along with Zerouh, Ascencia said to Zerouh publicly "Zerouh, finally, I can ask you... What can you say about the 'The Missing Executive'?" to which Zerouh responded "I have no comment on the matter.". After this event, Red approached Chief Attorney and new Major Executive Arnold Ogamon who was also curious. Arnold attempted to start an Executive Branch trial to figure out what the Missing Executive was, which was permitted at the time, but Ascencia had made a deal with fellow Executives Ehtya and Zamorak Agent that allowed him to be tried in the Supreme Court. After a short time, Red decided to lead the case against Ascencia. Ascencia requested the Chief Attorney's defense in court, a right of Executives, and Red and Arnold began debating whether or not Ascencia must tell.

Plaintiff (Red)Edit

Red, serving as the sole plaintiff, based a large portion of his argument over the fact that the Constitution states the Major Executive and other Executives with access to confidential information both were able to force Ascencia to tell them. Red cleverly dodged the arguments against his case by Arnold Ogamon (defending Ascencia) by stating if there was a right to privacy, Ascencia frequently violated it in his job as Head of Intelligence.

Defense (Ascencia)Edit

Ascencia barely involved himself in the case and Chief Attorney Arnold Ogamon defended him in the case. He built the case on a right to privacy and that if Ascencia were forced to reveal this, it would violate his and, more importantly, Zerouh's privacy. Zerouh clearly intended for this topic of the "Missing Executive" to be private and concealed, otherwise he would of spoken about it and Ascencia would have known more about it.

Ascencia also took some part in arguing that the information was not something he had the liberty to share, he even gave an example of this during the trial stating " It's not my info to give away. I shouldn't answer questions involving Zerouh's personal stuff. For example: Ehtya tells me his girlfriend is leaving him (he didn't actually tell me that). Then the EB demands I tell them about Ehtya's girlfriend. The information isn't mine, it's Ehtya's. Ehtya should b e the person to give it away, not me. It's not my fault I know and it's not my role to give it away. It's wrong to do it because it involves Ehtya personally."

Arnold was able to prove to the court successfully that Ascencia was Zerouh's closest affiliate in the Triumvirate and that Ascencia and Zerouh shared the most between each other than they did with others. This was important in showing the court that Zerouh had confidence in Ascencia.

Case ProceedingsEdit

This lengthy case was full of argument and debate. Ascencia was called in for questioning where he revealed the information he had about the Missing Executive was not relevant, but, very sensitive. He also stated that Zerouh directly asked him not to tell anyone. The court concluded that from Ascencia's testimony and small amounts of evidence for this, that this was all accurate. There was tension between Red and Ascencia and Ascencia was very openly angry about his situation. He frequently behaved in a poor manner towards Red, the Justices, and even Arnold. He avoided Arnold's advice to allow Arnold to lead the case and Ascencia stepped in and blatantly gave some very vivid statements before Arnold was able to step back in. However, that was not used against him and contributed very little in deciding the outcome of the case.


Case QuestionsEdit

A) Does the Executive Branch have the power to force testimony of confidential or private information out of an individual?

B) Is there a Right to Privacy as implied through the Constitution?


On 8/31/11 (3:0):

A) Yes, it is necessary for the Executive Branch to be able to gather information in order for it to properly serve its role as the leading and active branch of the Triumvirate

B) Yes, but it is not unlimited and it cannot be used in unreasonable cases to protect the truth

Court OpinionEdit

Written by Justice Stavrok:

In this case there were many viable points to both arguments. Accordingly the court has ruled in favor of both parties. The Constitution does provide a right to privacy, this can be found in several sections. However, the Constitution also describes the power and the need for the Executive Branch to be able to perform as best as it can. While Red's argument was that Ascencia must release the information to the Executive Branch and Ascencia's argument was, as best this court can define, that individuals (especially Executives, and even more especially senior executives, the head of intelligence, and perhaps the major and minor executive).

The consequences for the Executive Branch not being able to get the information it needs to best serve and protect the Triumvirate far outweigh the tolls on individual privacy. Yet there still must be a safeguard.

This court finds and concludes that should the Executive Branch need to force testimony from a person they may do so. The consequences on privacy of individuals are something that should be considered by the Executive Branch which is why this court agrees that under the Executive powers listed in article two, the power to force testimony is granted and, with a majority vote of the Executives which will include the target should they be a member of the Executive branch, the Executive branch may order a person to release any piece of information they possess. The exceptions apply still when the information is necessary to conceal from the newer eyes of the Executive branch for security purposes. The other point is the future need of information and whatever it may pose, the Executive branch can always take upon the matter again even for the same information so long as it is not done in an unreasonable fashion. Due to all of this, the Executive Branch has the power to decide if and what Ascencia must tell them regarding this matter of the "Missing Executive". At that point the Executive Branch is free to decide how it pleases if that information shall be classified or publically released.

And with that, I hereby close the trial of Red v. Asecncia. TDL, please archive as usual and formally list this case with the others. This one was a lot of fun, I really enjoyed Red, Ascencia, and Arnold arguing and the whole political scene that went into it. If Zerouh was watching this, I'm betting you three would make him very proud. You three have shown his work still lives and that we are a live union of people working together to figure things out for the better future.

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.