[2502.HC] ProfessorHenn v. Belschaft

High Court
1

Greetings to the High Court.

I am submitting a criminal case for consideration by this body, against Belschaft, with the charge of electoral fraud.

Belschaft is a member of a Discord server called “Max’s Chosen”, a community restricted solely to current and former Delegates of Game Created Regions (GCRs). On January 27th, 2025, the following exchange took place in the server’s general chat, #chillin-with-the-villains:

image
image1324×997 153 KB

This is a channel open to multiple individuals proscribed by the Coalition for illegally importing voters into elections, including Scardino, Lamb Stone, Funkdelia, and Davelands.

These repeated attempts at interfering with the outcome of the Delegate’s election, even if the outcome was not severely altered, constitute electoral fraud.

2
High Court of the South Pacific

This is a case before the High Court of the South Pacific considered under the following identifying information:

Docket Number
2502.HC

Reference Name
ProfessorHenn v. Belschaft

Request
Electoral Fraud

Submission: 04 Feb 2025

3

I have appointed @Roavin as defence counsel.

1 Like
4
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2502.HC] ProfessorHenn v. Belschaft

Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved that:

  1. This case has probable cause.

  2. Belschaft is indicted on the charge of Electoral Fraud.

  3. Belschaft is invited to present a defence no later than 2025-02-17T14:00:00Z on their own or through a defence counsel.

Submission: 04 Feb 2025 | Determination: 09 Feb 2025
5

Your honors,

before even addressing the lackluster evidence, the Court has erred in finding probable cause. For an action to be considered Electoral Fraud, the Criminal Code requires “underlying corrupt purpose”. Petitioner did not show any underlying corrupt purpose, nor did the Court discover it as part of the case, ergo there could not have been probable cause to indict my client in the first place. This is a grave mistake by this Court and an injustice to my Client. The probable cause requirement for an indictment in the Judicial Act is a crucial safeguard against wrongful prosecution, protecting members from being dragged through legal proceedings without legitimate grounds, from reputational harm, and potential unwarranted punishment. To allow this indictment to stand would set a dangerous precedent.

For now, we will eschew appealing the indictment as a process violation as per Judicial Act 7.3, under the assumption that the Court will swiftly conclude with the obvious determination of Not Guilty.

Addressing the presented log snippet, it is clear that no reasonable viewer could conclude that this is, in any way, a serious attempt at fraudulently manipulating the Delegate election. In fact, this log snippet itself demonstrate the satirical manner of my client’s actions, with statements like “manically cackle”, “100% of the fun, 10% of the work”, and “causing people to chuckle”.

The context where the above log snippet takes place makes this obvious as well: Petitioner claims that the channel in question is open to multiple people that have been proscribed in the South Pacific, and while that may be true, the channel is also open to multiple members of Souith Pacifican security infrastructure. The log snippet itself shows Penguin, former Delegate, former CRS member and current member of the Coral Guard, being present and active in the channel. Most notably, another member in that channel is Kringalia, who not only is a currently sitting CRS member but also the election commissioner for the very election in question. Other notable mentions include current Coral Guard members Amerion and Griffindor13. Any serious attempt at undermining the electoral processes of the South Pacific would obviously be conducted out of the immediate sight of those members responsible for ensuring the safety of the South Pacific (and in particular, out of sight of that election’s EC).

It is notable that Petitioner did not provide the regional telegram that my client mentioned in the log snippet, even though they, as a World Assembly member residing in the South Pacific when that telegram was sent, clearly had received it. The reason is clear: the telegram further reinforces the obvious satirical nature of my client’s actions. Here it is in full:

Screenshot_2025-02-08_210009
Screenshot_2025-02-08_2100091567×845 235 KB

The notion that a reasonable person could interpret this in any way other than satire is patently absurd.

Even if the Court were to take this absurd view, this cannot possibly be judged to be Electoral Fraud. As mentioned in the opening, no underlying corrupt purpose has been demonstrated, which the Criminal Code requires. Petitioner did not show, and the Court did not discover, that any individuals actually fulfilled my client’s satirical request. Neither did Petitioner show, nor the Court discover, any further coordination that would be required for such a scheme. No mens rea and no actus rea means that no crime was committed.

To convict based on this would be an outright miscarriage of justice. The evidence does not support Electoral Fraud, nor does the evidence support this indictment in the first place. I urge this Court to correct its mistake and find my client not guilty without hesitation.

2 Likes
6

Will the plaintiff present any further arguments for their case or refute any of the arguments presented by the defence counsel?

7

Your Honor,

The plaintiff intends to provide a response no later than 2025-03-09T23:00:00Z. Will the Court find this agreeable?

8

The Court finds this agreeable.

9

Your Honors, and may it please the Court,

Thank you immensely for your patience in this post. It is greatly appreciated.

If we assume that the accused’s telegram was intended to be satire, then a reasonable effort should have been made during the election to clarify that. As far as any normal voter saw, an older player with a history of election interference sent a telegram explicitly asking for their vote to be RON.

If we assume that the accused’s messages in a server open to multiple proscribed individuals is satire, then the question remains of what the accused was intending to satire. The accused might not have taken any further actions following those few messages, but in the nature of text-only conversations and knowing who had access to see them on that day, there exists a very real possibility that proscribed individuals took steps to interfere with our elections, steps they might not have taken if the accused did not post in that channel.

Corruption is broadly defined as dishonest actions for personal gain. The accused did act dishonestly by requesting a free WA nation, with no other qualifiers, in a server that contains some of the Coalition’s enemies. The accused’s personal gain by performing such actions is for personal amusement by way of making a mockery out of our political system.

10

Could you provide clarity on what is the relevance of the defendant having send a telegram “explicitly asking [voters] for their vote to be RON”? What significance does that have with respect to this case?

11

Your Honor,

With respect to this case, it was used by the defense as a reinforcement of the “obvious satirical nature” of the accused’s actions. We contend that this is not a sufficient defense against electoral fraud, as neither the telegram nor the messages were quickly clarified to be satire, and not a serious attempt at interfering with the outcome of the election. We did not include it in the original filing as we did not feel it was relevant to the charge of electoral fraud.

12

Your Honor,

At its convenience, could the Court inform the region as to who will act as Presiding and Secondary Justices in this case?

3 Likes
13

Your honors,

Plaintiff’s response is absurd on its face, and built on a fundamentally flawed premise: The burden of proof does not rest on me or my client to show that these statements were satire (or even to explain the object of that satire). Rather, the burden lies squarely with Plaintiff to demonstrate that there is probable cause that a crime was committed. No such demonstration has taken place.

Plaintiff mentions “a very real possibility” that proscribed individuals took steps to interfere with an already ongoing election. That “possibility” is nothing more than speculation; any individuals with the means and desire to interfere did not need my client’s words to do so. Plaintiff offers no proof that such interference occurred, or was planned, or that they were enticed by my client.

Plaintiff also advances the bizarre notion that satire must be explicitly labelled. No such requirement exists - not in law, not in precedent, and certainly not under the Charter’s free speech protections. Over the past 22 years, the South Pacific has enjoyed a rich tradition of satire, much of which was not labelled as such. If Plaintiff’s theory were adopted, the Court would find itself to be very busy indeed issuing indictments to Pencil Sharpeners 2, Kringalia, Tsunamy, Auphelia, and countless others over the past two decades.

Plaintiff’s reference to my client’s supposed “history of election interference” is both misleading and irrelevant. This refers to a singular incident 11 years ago whose only related court case was dismissed and does not constitute probable cause today.

As for Plaintiff’s claim that personal amusement qualifies as corruption, the argument is so obviously absurd that it hardly warrants a response. Enjoying oneself is not a criminal act, nor is it evidence of a corrupt purpose under any reasonable interpretation.

And so once more, we are left with the fact that there is no evidence of election interference, no proof of an underlying corrupt purpose, and no basis for probable cause. The indictment against my client was a mistake, and the only just outcome is a verdict of Not Guilty.

1 Like
14

Your Honors,

I hesitated to file this brief, as I am not convinced that the Defendant’s conduct warrants significant punishment. But that is a matter for the sentencing phase of this case, not relevant to the instant question of guilt or innocence. That latter question turns on the proper interpretation of the Criminal Code’s prohibition on electoral fraud. With respect, I am concerned that the arguments presented thus far–by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant–have painted a misleading picture of what that provision requires. And I am likewise concerned that, should the Court adopt the parties’ framing of this case, it will entrench an erroneous interpretation of the Criminal Code and open the door to future electoral manipulation. Hence, I file this brief in the interests of ensuring that an alternative–and I believe correct–reading of the electoral fraud provision is presented to the Court.

Fundamentally, the Defendant’s entire case is a red herring. It rests on the argument that the Defendant’s efforts to recruit proscribed foreigners to vote in the Delegate election does not (and apparently never could) amount to electoral fraud simply because the Defendant found that otherwise unlawful undertaking to be amusing. Plaintiff has attempted to respond to this argument on the merits, which has resulted in both parties’ briefs focusing on issues of satire and personal amusement. But all of those issues are irrelevant. Our electoral laws are not so easily evaded. On the contrary, the text of the Criminal Code makes clear that the Defendant’s “just for kicks” defense is as meritless as it is dangerous for the future of our electoral security.

Defense counsel has suggested that Plaintiff has failed to identify the actus reus and mens rea that constitute the Defendant’s crime. Maybe they did. But Defendant’s arguments are no better on that score; they have likewise obfuscated the relatively straightforward elements of electoral fraud.

I’ll begin with the actus reus. What act is criminalized by the Criminal Code’s prohibition on electoral fraud? The answer is simple–“recruit[ing] people to vote a particular way.” It is difficult to review the evidence in this case and conclude that Defendant did not recruit people–again, including proscribed foreigners–to vote in a particular way–for RON. That is all that is required to establish a prohibited actus reus. Contrary to the Defendant’s argument, the text of the Criminal Code does not require that the Defendant’s recruitment efforts be successful to constitute electoral fraud. Nor should the Court read such an atextual requirement into the statute. Doing so would only embolden prospective fraudsters–either their recruitment efforts will be successful and the election will be swayed in their favor, or their efforts will be unsuccessful and they will be immune from prosecution. Such a regime would be nonsensical, and our law does not require it.

Moving on to mens rea. The Criminal Code requires that an individual’s recruitment efforts be undertaken “with an underlying corrupt purpose.” This mens rea element is essential to the rational functioning of the prohibition on electoral fraud: without it, genuine campaigning–which obviously involves “recruit[ing] people to vote a particular way”–would constitute electoral fraud. And it is this element on which the Defendant hangs his “satire” defense. Apparently, the Defendant reads the mens rea clause as requiring the Court to ask whether an individual was being “serious” in recruiting people to vote in a particular way. But that is not the right question to ask. The right question is whether the underlying result that the individual intended to bring about in the world–i.e., the “purpose” for their actions–is “corrupt.” In this case, one underlying result that the Defendant sought to bring about was having foreigners, including proscribed individuals, cast ballots in the election for Delegate. That “purpose” is “corrupt.” Indeed, it is precisely the type of conduct that the electoral fraud provision was designed to prevent. And the evidence is clear that the Defendant did subjectively intend to bring about a state of affairs in which proscribed foreigners voted in our elections. The Defendant makes no effort to dispute that fact. Whether he did so “seriously” or just for kicks is of no consequence. Soliciting proscribed foreigners to vote in our Delegate election is a corrupt purpose, whether or not it is also amusing to the perpetrator. If it were otherwise, blatant electoral fraud would be permissible so long as the perpetrator “manically cackle[s]” at their crime. That is not the law.

15

Your Honors,

In response to Welly’s brief, it is important to begin with a foundational point: even if every word of the brief were correct (which is not the case), that would not change the underlying truth that this indictment was wrongful from the outset. The absence of probable cause renders any discussion of interpretation moot. Nonetheless, I will respond in the interest of clarity.

Welly’s brief profoundly misrepresents the core of our argument. It frames the defense as an admission of unlawful conduct, followed by an appeal to humor as a mitigating factor. This is categorically false, and a reversal of the structure of our defense. We are not arguing, “Yes, my client broke the law, but it was funny.” We are arguing (correctly) that no unlawful act occurred at all, and that this distinction is not merely rhetorical; it is the entire basis of our position. The facts and context show that the act itself lacks the corrupt purpose and serious intent necessary to constitute any crime at all.

The argument about actus reus presented by Welly is false for this very reason. Our defense is not that my client recruited with humor, but rather that the humor is one of several factors that show why no recruitment took place, and no reasonable observer could conclude otherwise.

The argument about mens rea is false in a similar way, though significantly more dangerous. While correctly stating that the Court must examine purpose, the brief then discards the contextual factors required to evaluate it, by focusing on a purely literal reading of my client’s message. One line, stripped of context, is never sufficient to establish intent - especially in cases involving speech. By asserting that my client intended for proscribed individuals to vote, Welly ignores context, tone, the openly performative nature of the remarks, and the complete absence of any resulting action. The messages were performative, not conspiratorial, and any reasonable observer will conclude that.

Welly claims that their brief is intended to protect the integrity of our electoral laws. Instead, if the Court were to adopt the arguments as presented, by completely disregarding context for any individual lines, it would do two things. First, the Court would strip itself of its agency of statutory interpretation that has powered South Pacifican Courts for over 2 decades now. Second, it would immediately criminalize any and every joke ever made about anything within the Criminal Code. That’s obviously absurd.

16

Your Honors,

I intended to file only one brief in this case. But the Defendant’s latest submission concedes the crucial point, which I believe demands emphasis. Specifically, Defendant’s counsel effectively admits that if the Defendant acted with the purpose of recruiting proscribed foreigners to vote in the election for Delegate, then the Defendant acted with an “underlying corrupt purpose.” As the Defendant’s brief further admits, that is true even if the Defendant also thought it would be amusing if proscribed foreigners voted in the Delegate election.

Nevertheless, the Defendant now argues (as he must given those crucial admissions) that he never intended to recruit anyone to actually vote for RON in the Delegate election.

That claim is directly contradicted by the evidence. In the chat on Max’s Chosen, the Defendant states that “I’ve managed to double [RON’s] number of votes via sending one TG but I’m still a lot off actually having any meaningful impact on the election other than causing people to chuckle.” In other words, the Defendant’s regional telegram had caused people to vote for RON. It was that fact–that people actually did vote for RON–that the Defendant found to be amusing. And his posts on Max’s Chosen expressly solicited proscribed foreigners’ help to increase the number of votes for RON and, apparently, to increase “the fun.” As he put it, “if anyone fancies popping into TSP and voting for RON I owe you one.” It is clear from these statements that the Defendant actually wanted people, both TSP residents and foreigners, to cast votes for RON. By the Defendant’s own admission, that was what he found funny–the prospect of votes actually being cast for RON. And because some of the voters that Defendant tried to convince to vote for RON were proscribed foreigners, his “purpose” in recruiting those voters was “corrupt” within the meaning of the Criminal Code.