While I understand Mr. Vausienne’s intent to say that FIO has no mandate to release the required documentation, the simple fact of the matter is that the Federal delegation to the Kyonoke Inquest bound the Federation to that Inquest’s proceedings. In this case, the Federation is bound by the Inquest’s proceedings, as specifically requested by the Federation itself.
I of course applaud the Federal delegation’s dedication to transparency, and hope that it was not working at cross purposes to other instruments of the Federal government in seeking full, universal disclosure of Hope For All Act-defined materials.
As ever, the Arataka Research Consortium’s objective is full compliance with HFA requirements, and additional actions will follow as our legal strategy plays out.
(edit: and as a small aside? Never had I ever imagined standing in an auditorium with so many Capsuleers, chanting “Hope!” as the Hope For All Act was overwhelmingly passed. It was simply remarkable.)
The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, and the President remains accountable to the law. Withholding intelligence information gained by the FIO at the discretion of the Office of the President is well within the bounds of the law, especially when the release of such information may imperil the lives and safety of intelligence agents who continue to bravely serve the Federation and defend our democracies.
As for the Hope for All Act itself, I am unaware of any part of the legislation in question which makes non-compliance of its statutes a criminal or indictable offense. If non compliance with HfAA statutes was indictable or criminal then this case would be carried forth by a Federal prosecutor, and failure to release documents related to the Kyonoke inquest on the part of the FIO would be considered an obstruction of justice.
However, as far as I can see, this is a civil case where the plaintiff is seeking to argue that they have suffered damages from the failure of the FIO releasing documents, as asserted by the plaintiff, related to its own investigations of the Kyonoke incidents. Under such a scenario the FIO is more likely to pay out damages as ordered by the court, than it ever is to release documentation it may or may not have.
I have read the filing as provided in the original post, and it does not provide the full statutes as outlines in the HfAA specifically (unless I am mistaken?) The filing as presented does read more as a civil case than a criminal prosecution presented by a local state or Federal attorney.
Raf, I think coming in and telling ARC what they are doing wrong is not the best way to make friends… Take a step back and reevaluate how you might be coming across to people.
Federals have been telling people what they are “doing wrong” for millennia. Even when, as in this case, their very own legal system is being used, we’re still ‘wrong’ as some whim will be used to frustrate the objective to their advantage.
They have no honour. M. Vausienne is just another in a long line making this proof.
Generally, when presenting the subject matter of a court case to the public, presumably in the public interest, then it should be considered normal to have that case speculated upon by an interested public.
ARC would like to thank the Scope for marking the year since the successful conclusion of the Kyonoke Inquest. ARC would also like to thank the Federation and Republic for putting forward the Hope For All Act, with its intended mandate of release of intelligence logs and research pertaining to the outbreak. Our intent by providing the Act with decisive support, and amending it to include provisions for audit and verification, was to ensure that the attacks would not be shrouded in secrecy, that those who should be held to account would be held to account.
While I am not at liberty to discuss our legal strategy going forward, it remains my hope that the Federal legal system recognizes the mandate put forward by the Federation itself on this matter, and recognizes that the HFA, proposed and passed after the VSA, implies a more nuanced legal reading than Ret Gloriaxx’s article might indicate.
As has been announced elsewhere, ARC has submitted complaints to the Caldari Business Tribunal Eastern Forge District Court in Hampinen.
The first complaint concerns HFAA disclosures on Jaron Kasaras’s Kyonoke-related research and embezzlement, and names Kaalakiota and Home Guard as defendents.
The second complaint concerns HFAA disclosures on Kyonoke Pit security breaches, to ensure that adequate measures have been taken to avoid a repeat of the attempt at a genocidal bioweapons attack. This complaint names Hyasyoda, Corporate Police Force, Kaalakiota, Home Guard, and the Caldari Navy as parties.
Release of the full text is pending a court decision on a suppression order.
