⚖
PUBLIC REPORT OF THE ETHICS BOARD
EB-09
Department of Justice • Judicial Branch • Habbo White House
Matter: Ethics Board Review of Evidence Submitted in Relation to a Ban on Sight Request
I. Members of the Ethics Board
The following members were present and participated in the review of this matter:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Purpose of the Report
Ethics Board 09 was constituted upon the request of the Secretary of Defense in connection to the pursued Ban on Sight and National Punishment placement against former Solicitor General notsyam.
III. Evidence in Question
11 pieces of evidence containing conversations between Vice President Seas. and former Solicitor General notsyam were presented to the Ethics Board for review as these did not comply with evidentiary requirements.
The evidence in question allegedly supports the Department's assessment that notsyam's actions satisfy the requirements for a Ban on Sight Order and National Punishment placement.
IV. Ethics Board Vote
Following review and consideration of the submitted material, the Ethics Board voted as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decision of the Ethics Board was unanimous.
V. Certification Decision
Based on the unanimous vote of the Ethics Board, the evidence was:
|
|
Accordingly, the evidence may be relied upon for the relevant legal or procedural purpose connected to the Ban on Sight request, subject to any applicable evidentiary rules, court procedure, or further review required under White House law.
VI. Summary of Arguments
Before reaching a decision, the Ethics Board deliberated on whether the evidence supported the charge of terrorism as alleged by the Department of Defense.
However, members of the Board were reminded by the Chairman that reaching a decision on the certification of evidence of legal wrongdoing should be based on moral and ethical grounds as prescribed by Part 7, Section 2, Subsection 2, Clause 2 of the Prosecution Act 2025.
The Chairman emphasized that deliberations on the actual charges are matters discussed by the Court and is not within the purview of the Ethics Board.
After deliberations, there was a general consensus that the evidence presented moral and ethical misconduct.
VII. Final Notes from Members of the Board
Ethics Board Member Veren: I find this conduct ethically inappropriate. The work was created within the Department and intended to benefit the wider White House community. Removing it upon resignation undermines professionalism and unnecessarily sets the Department back. This would only have been ethically justified had it been made clear beforehand that the work was personal and would be taken upon retirement, or had proper credit for it been denied.
Ethics Board Member DaiSijie: Zs members of this Ethics Board, we have diligently sought to fulfill our mandate by conducting a balanced review of the evidence submitted in the case against notsyam and we have made every effort to weigh the arguments of the Department of Defense against the defense of the accused showed on the evidence, striving to maintain de impartiality required by our appointment and upon review we agree that presented evidence indicates clearly inappropriate conduct that could be interpreted as a breach of profesionnal standards under several areas of the law however is is the consensus of several members that the allegations of "Terrorism" are exaggerated and do not align with the specifics actions documented in the evidence and this perceived disproportionality between the acts of notsyam and a charge as severe as "terrorism" caused significant hesitation between the board to validate the evidence because it is gonna be used to support a charge we feel is fundamentally mismatched to the conduct, in orders words, while we recognize the conduct was wrong we also recognize that the legal system is best served when charges are proportionate to the documented actions.
I believe this trial unfairly targets a single individual for an institutional failure, certifying this non-compliant evidence risks scapegoating the accused while ignoring the DSA failed it's institutional mandate under Article 7, Section 2 to maintain and secure the website, if the administration cannot restore these changes, it is a clear failure of his duties and approving these disproportionate "terrorism" charges ignores institutional negligence and sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually open the door to charges against the DSA for its inability to safeguard governmental resources and at the same alleged charges that the accused or any other personnel in the future.
VIII. Final Statement from the Attorney General
I confirm that members of the Board were randomly selected by means of the Employee Database generating a list of employees.
Members were given notice of the task of the Ethics Board pursuant to relevant laws and confirmed that they held no bias in the matter.
After a period of deliberations of three days, the Ethics Board, by a vote of 7-0, certified the submitted screenshots and may now be used in a court of law as legal evidence of wrongdoing.
Issued by:
GreenArcher
Attorney General
Chairman of the Ethics Board
Department of Justice
Habbo White House