FOIA Request to the Court

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
To The Court of The North Pacific,

I have requested that the Delegate release to public view, the full, unedited, transcript of the closed session of the Council of 5 meeting held Sunday 5 Aug. The Delegate has declined to release this transcript and as such I request that the Court review this decision, pursuant to the role of the Court under TNP Law 29.

For information, the original request was made here.

Your prompt response is appreciated.
 
Please inform the CJ that any conversation outside the official meeting (that is all material before opening and after closing) is private conversation and not under the scope of FOI.
 
Eluvatar:
The Chief Justice has received a copy of the closed session's log.
Click to expand...
That is a log of an actual closed session, which was closed by a vote of the Council of Five, during a meeting of the Council of Five. It is reflected by a note in the published log of that meeting that a portion of the log is redacted because the Council voted to move to closed session.

Your comment is superfluous, Romanoffia.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Romanoffia:
Please inform the CJ that any conversation outside the official meeting (that is all material before opening and after closing) is private conversation and not under the scope of FOI.
Click to expand...
I tend to disagree.
Click to expand...
Oh, then by extension private conversations on other channels by attending ministers would also be fair game for FOIA action because they were conducted during the time of the meeting, before or after according to your line of logic.

That is my opinion as a former Court Justice.

Either way, it seems that Kiwi seems to think opinions not in agreement with Kiwi is somehow a criminal offense.

It's a sad day when people cannot have certain opinions because others disagree with those opinions. Reminds me of witch hunts.
 
The Court is in agreement with the Delegate on this matter. The closed meeting logs shall not be released. As per the FOIA clause in the Legal Code this Court will look into this matter once again in 2 months time.
 
Hileville:
The Court is in agreement with the Delegate on this matter. The closed meeting logs shall not be released. As per the FOIA clause in the Legal Code this Court will look into this matter once again in 2 months time.
Click to expand...
With the greatest of respect to the Chief Justice, the law requires this matter to be decided by the full 3-person Court.
 
Haor Chall:
Hileville:
The Court is in agreement with the Delegate on this matter. The closed meeting logs shall not be released. As per the FOIA clause in the Legal Code this Court will look into this matter once again in 2 months time.
Click to expand...
With the greatest of respect to the Chief Justice, the law requires this matter to be decided by the full 3-person Court.
Click to expand...
Haor Chall is absolutely correct.

TNP legal code, section 6.3 clause 19 reads:

Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel
Click to expand...

It is worth pointing out that the wording of the FOI Act places the obligation on the Delegate and the executive to cooperate with ordinary Regional Assembly members to release information if at all humanly possible.

We seem instead to be in the situation where the default position of the executive seems to be to classify if at all possible.

I refer you especially to Section 6.3 clause 17

17. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens,
Click to expand...
 
In this case, as the Council of Five had voted to move to a closed session, the executive's appropriate response was clear.

I cannot say whether the Court has properly voted on this matter or not, but hope that the question will be resolved soon and, if it has not, that the Court will vote.
 
I would request that Earth be excluded given Earth's comments in clear support and bias in this matter and Earth being seated as a justice would be in clear conflict of interest to this matter.
 
I don't know how I got into this. :P Opened this thread for curiosity and bam, there's my name. xD

I haven't shown approval of Co5 logs being opened, actually, ever. In fact, I more signed on the forum one day, saw logs posted, read through them, and giggled at said logs. I showed disapproval of what was shown in the public logs, but have not ever given a decision, nor a comment, regarding the release of closed session logs. I see no conflict of interest in the issue being handled by the court, and if Hileville would like me to sit as a Justice, I shall.

Edit: But BW makes a good point, darn you ninja poster! :P
 
Nothing personal, but I still object on the grounds of some of the comments you made in other threads concerning related matters.
 
Romanoffia:
Nothing personal, but I still object on the grounds of some of the comments you made in other threads concerning related matters.
Click to expand...
My appointment was final and I will be forwarding her the information needed to make a decision even though we already have a majority opinion on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top