Request for Review: Regional Officer banning nations during NS events

I hereby request that the Court review the following action by a government official:

111 minutes ago: Gracius Maximus was ejected from The North Pacific by Great Bights Mum.

Click to expand...

I believe that the above action has violated the following portion of the Legal Code:

Section 9.2: Disease Control

Click to expand...

I believe that it has violated the Legal Code in the following way: During the NationStates event, my nation was ejected by a Regional Officer. While the Legal Code does grant some leeway, which is in itself debateable, as to the actions that can or should be taken against nations in the region before the event begins, it is very clear that those actions are only allowed to be undertaken by the Delegate nation. Great Bights Mum is not the Delegate nation of the North Pacific and should not be ejecting any nation under the Zombie Preparedness Act.

This action by a government official has specifically violated my freedom to: engage my nation as I see fit within the realms of the North Pacific.
It has violated my right in the following way: A lesser government official than that named in the Legal Code with the supposed authority to remove my nation from the region under the present circumstances acted in such a way as to remove my access to the NationStates TNP community.
 
This action by a government official has adversely affected me in the following way: my nation is now out of the North Pacific and not able to partake in the regional event currently underway. Further, because of my ability to access the game in a timely fashion, it has jeopardized my standing in the region as an elected official of the Court and member of the Regional Assembly as I may not be able to return to the region in a timely fashion upon completion of the event.

I will, obviously, recuse myself from any discussion on this review.

Note: This is primarily a review to either validate the current action as acceptable under the law or outline the limits of the ROs actions during such events. I am not, and will not be, seeking any sort of retribution from the Regional Officer in question, but I do believe there is an ambiguousness in both the law as written and the actions undertaken.

I will note that this request still stands. The issue may come up in future events and should still be addressed.

Might I inquire as to whether the Court has a time frame with which to address this request?

The request has been accepted.

There will be one week to submit briefs (from now until (time=1479963600) your forum time).

Eluvatar:

There will be one week to submit briefs (from now until (time=1479963600) your forum time).

Click to expand...

I do intend to submit a brief, but I'd first like to raise an issue with the Court regarding recusal of 2 of the Justices. Namely, Crushing our Enemies and Silly String. As you can see here, COE is the primary author of the Law relevant to this proceeding, and Silly String was a secondary author. Is it not a conflict of interest for the authors of a Law be allowed to rule on it's legality/constitutionality?

Regardless of whether the authorship argument for recusal would hold weight, I believe this is a request for review of executive actions for whether they are legal, not of the law for whether it is constitutional.

I would expect any justice who was involved in z-day ejection decisions to be recusing themselves.

Z-day is a 36 hour event. At it's conclusion, everything returns to the way it was. Border control is lifted and ejected nations are free to return to the region. The adversity ejected nations face is solely for the duration of the event. Nations who decide to take actions which impede the government's action plan for the event should do so at their peril. If nations want the government to pursue different objectives for z-day, we have a region-wide vote for that.

Being a 36-hour event, it is unreasonable to expect the Delegate, a single individual, to be awake and available at all times. Policing the region then becomes the responsibility of the Regional Officers appointed by the Delegate. I suppose one work-around would be for the Delegate to share his password, but that is a practice which is generally frowned upon in TNP.

Surely a better work-around would be for our laws to reflect the reality of situations?

Seems to me this is a slam-dunk. Our laws say that only the delegate should ban, and only under very limited scenarios. If we wish to extend that power to other officials or other situations , then our laws ought to say so - and anyone acting contrary to the laws as they are currently written is acting extra-judicially. The banning was, according to the letter of our laws, illegal and probably a breach of the Bill of Rights.

it is also clear to me that we need to discuss changing our laws to make them effective during a zombie outbreak:

1. to allow the delegate to, well, delegate their powers to Regional Officers so that they are able to get some sleep and Real Life (tm) can be indulged. .

2. to extend the circumstances in which it is legal for a z-day banning to take place.

the courts have to deal with the laws as we have them, not what we wish or think the laws ought to be.

I could not find any rules on the submission of riefs, please consider this to be my brief:

the relevant bit of law from the TNP legal code seems to me to be this (quoted for convenience):

Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Z-day is no doubt an emergency given clause 3, no RA declaration or other action is needed to make it so.

Clause 5. then applies during Z-day. It occurs to me that "act in any reasonable manner" is a very broad remit for the delegate to take any and all actions deems useful to implement the government's policy. Any and all actions includes appointing deputies who can take action in lieu of the delegate who cannot be expected to police such a large event singlehandedly. Any and all actions also covers banjecting people, indeed clause 5. specifically mentions this as being authorized. The delegate having the power to banject and to appoint deputies to exercise his authority for him thus can appoint deputies who can banject, at least during emergencies.

The actions to be reviewed seem to me to be authorized by law and thus legal. If the RA believes a more restrictive use of powers is preferable it should legislate it that way. As the law stands an extremely broad authority has been granted to deal with emergencies, I expect this to be deliberate so the government can in fact use its full power to deal with the emergency.

In so far as the review should also cover the banjecting of individual nations I find it impossible to comment on that as the specifics of the cases are not available to me and it is thus not possible to look into the reasonableness of the actions taken.

Great Bights Mum:

I would expect any justice who was involved in z-day ejection decisions to be recusing themselves.

Click to expand...

I agree. While the authorship issue is reasonable in my opinion, I will say Silly String should definitely recuse. She performed some ejections herself (I have screenshots, but it is a matter of public record anyway), so it follows she was involved in the decision making process. I respectfully ask the Court to extend the brief submission period, so as to to rule on recusal(s) before time runs out.

I am certainly recusing myself from this case. Sorry for any confusion!

Barbarossistan:

I could not find any rules on the submission of riefs, please consider this to be my brief:

the relevant bit of law from the TNP legal code seems to me to be this (quoted for convenience):

Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Z-day is no doubt an emergency given clause 3, no RA declaration or other action is needed to make it so.

Clause 5. then applies during Z-day. It occurs to me that "act in any reasonable manner" is a very broad remit for the delegate to take any and all actions deems useful to implement the government's policy. Any and all actions includes appointing deputies who can take action in lieu of the delegate who cannot be expected to police such a large event singlehandedly. Any and all actions also covers banjecting people, indeed clause 5. specifically mentions this as being authorized. The delegate having the power to banject and to appoint deputies to exercise his authority for him thus can appoint deputies who can banject, at least during emergencies.

The actions to be reviewed seem to me to be authorized by law and thus legal. If the RA believes a more restrictive use of powers is preferable it should legislate it that way. As the law stands an extremely broad authority has been granted to deal with emergencies, I expect this to be deliberate so the government can in fact use its full power to deal with the emergency.

In so far as the review should also cover the banjecting of individual nations I find it impossible to comment on that as the specifics of the cases are not available to me and it is thus not possible to look into the reasonableness of the actions taken.

Click to expand...

And yet no such delegation of authority was made in this instance. And if it was then it would seem that there should be an explicit and public declaration of such beforehand. Retroactive speculation on what a Delegate could have done should not impact a ruling on whether or not actions taken in the Delegate's name (insofar as the law is concerned) were legal or allowable under the law.

The law being explicit in actions that the Delegate could take and yet not specifying the delegation if that authority is odd, since other aspects of our law do explicitly indicate that deputies can be appointed and authorized. This may be due to the fact that this law was written before the ability to delegate that authority. But that makes the action doubly concerning in my opinion in that a later development is being utilised to justify action under a previously passed law without amendment to said law.

Gracius Maximus:

Further, because of my ability to access the game in a timely fashion, it has jeopardized my standing in the region as an elected official of the Court and member of the Regional Assembly as I may not be able to return to the region in a timely fashion upon completion of the event.

Click to expand...

I would like to offer a (very short!) brief on this slightly tangential matter. It occurred to me that the court has never formally ruled on this, though there is longstanding precedent of practice, and since the petitioner brought it up it may be worth formalizing the practice.

The legal code states

12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.

Click to expand...

The speaker's office has historically interpreted this clause as applying solely to nations which take an action to leave the region, and has exempted nations ejected or banned from removal on these grounds.

This is both a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the law, and best practice against abuse - it prevents the delegate or any other nation with ejection powers from extrajudicially taking away someone's citizenship, potentially to affect the results of an election, someone's eligibility to vote on a law, or simply because they don't like them.

To allay concerns that a new speaker could decide differently, or could mistakenly think that banjection counts as leaving the region, and since the matter has been raised in this request, I think it would be appropriate for the court to issue a firm ruling on the interpretation of this clause - and as indicated above, I think it should agree with the current practice of the speaker's office.

Gracius Maximus:

And yet no such delegation of authority was made in this instance. And if it was then it would seem that there should be an explicit and public declaration of such beforehand. Retroactive speculation on what a Delegate could have done should not impact a ruling on whether or not actions taken in the Delegate's name (insofar as the law is concerned) were legal or allowable under the law.

The law being explicit in actions that the Delegate could take and yet not specifying the delegation if that authority is odd, since other aspects of our law do explicitly indicate that deputies can be appointed and authorized. This may be due to the fact that this law was written before the ability to delegate that authority. But that makes the action doubly concerning in my opinion in that a later development is being utilised to justify action under a previously passed law without amendment to said law.

Click to expand...

Unless I misunderstand game mechanics a delegation of authority certainly took place when the delegate granted border control authority to certain regional officers. The law does not seem to require more then this factual attribution.

I do not read in the law any requirement to publicly announce in advance what actions the delegate has taken or intends to take under his emergency powers, including the action under consideration here, to deputize regional officers. Such a requirement does not seem practical either as it is the nature of emergency measures that they often have to be decided on the spot with no room for extended deliberation or advance notice.

I stand by my opinion that the RA granted extremely broad emergency powers and that this covers the action of deputizing regional officers given that *any* reasonable action is permitted. The law has not provided a limited list of permissible actions, on the contrary, it allows anything that can be considered reasonable.

No speculation on what the delegate could have done is needed since we can fully consider what the delegate has in fact done (and not done)

If you think the delegate or a regional officer overstepped his authority under the emergency powers clause you can ask the court to review the reasonableness of the actions taken.

SillyString:

Gracius Maximus:

Further, because of my ability to access the game in a timely fashion, it has jeopardized my standing in the region as an elected official of the Court and member of the Regional Assembly as I may not be able to return to the region in a timely fashion upon completion of the event.

Click to expand...

I would like to offer a (very short!) brief on this slightly tangential matter. It occurred to me that the court has never formally ruled on this, though there is longstanding precedent of practice, and since the petitioner brought it up it may be worth formalizing the practice.

The legal code states

12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.

Click to expand...

The speaker's office has historically interpreted this clause as applying solely to nations which take an action to leave the region, and has exempted nations ejected or banned from removal on these grounds.

This is both a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the law, and best practice against abuse - it prevents the delegate or any other nation with ejection powers from extrajudicially taking away someone's citizenship, potentially to affect the results of an election, someone's eligibility to vote on a law, or simply because they don't like them.

To allay concerns that a new speaker could decide differently, or could mistakenly think that banjection counts as leaving the region, and since the matter has been raised in this request, I think it would be appropriate for the court to issue a firm ruling on the interpretation of this clause - and as indicated above, I think it should agree with the current practice of the speaker's office.

Click to expand...

For the record, if it assists the Court, SillyString's commentary on how the Speaker's Office has understood the clause is accurate, in my experience in the Office. To add to it slightly, it has been my understanding that nations which are ejected (but not banned) and then move from The Rejected Realms to a third region (that is, a region which is not TNP), are taken to have left TNP.

Barbarossistan:

If you think the delegate or a regional officer overstepped his authority under the emergency powers clause you can ask the court to review the reasonableness of the actions taken.

Click to expand...

Checks OP...yep, that's me. What an odd statement.

Regardless, precedent in this region has always been on the side of caution. If the Court decides that no clarification is necessary that will be a new direction. It may be the end result, but it is contrary to tradition and contrary to what the law actually states. As we have always valued the law of the offsite as paramount it would seem a slippery slope to suddenly state that since game mechanics changed we must accept inconsistency here without justification. I believe a simple solution exists, but I do not believe your opinion of just ignoring it is the best route.

Gracius Maximus:

Barbarossistan:

If you think the delegate or a regional officer overstepped his authority under the emergency powers clause you can ask the court to review the reasonableness of the actions taken.

Click to expand...

Checks OP...yep, that's me. What an odd statement.

Regardless, precedent in this region has always been on the side of caution. If the Court decides that no clarification is necessary that will be a new direction. It may be the end result, but it is contrary to tradition and contrary to what the law actually states. As we have always valued the law of the offsite as paramount it would seem a slippery slope to suddenly state that since game mechanics changed we must accept inconsistency here without justification. I believe a simple solution exists, but I do not believe your opinion of just ignoring it is the best route.

Click to expand...

I read your request for review as challenging the validity of the regional officers authority to eject since you understand the law to permit only the delegate to do this. A second challenge (that I do not think has been made) is possible by accepting the authority and arguing that it was not used in a reasonable manner. This is in my view a clearly different basis for a challenge. Hence my statement you find odd, I was, perhaps superfluously, pointing out that regardless of the action being taken by the delegate or by a regional officer the reasonableness of the action is subject to review and I have not seen you ask that review.

I just do not think I am ignoring anything or arguing that game mechanics take precedence over TNP law, I just understand the law to say that the delegate may do *anything* he deems reasonable and it seems strange to me to exclude deputizing people from that since the law does not. If such an exception is intended then the law should likely be updated to rein in the delegate's expanded powers

Barbarossistan:

Gracius Maximus:

Barbarossistan:

If you think the delegate or a regional officer overstepped his authority under the emergency powers clause you can ask the court to review the reasonableness of the actions taken.

Click to expand...

Checks OP...yep, that's me. What an odd statement.

Regardless, precedent in this region has always been on the side of caution. If the Court decides that no clarification is necessary that will be a new direction. It may be the end result, but it is contrary to tradition and contrary to what the law actually states. As we have always valued the law of the offsite as paramount it would seem a slippery slope to suddenly state that since game mechanics changed we must accept inconsistency here without justification. I believe a simple solution exists, but I do not believe your opinion of just ignoring it is the best route.

Click to expand...

I read your request for review as challenging the validity of the regional officers authority to eject since you understand the law to permit only the delegate to do this. A second challenge (that I do not think has been made) is possible by accepting the authority and arguing that it was not used in a reasonable manner. This is in my view a clearly different basis for a challenge. Hence my statement you find odd, I was, perhaps superfluously, pointing out that regardless of the action being taken by the delegate or by a regional officer the reasonableness of the action is subject to review and I have not seen you ask that review.

I just do not think I am ignoring anything or arguing that game mechanics take precedence over TNP law, I just understand the law to say that the delegate may do *anything* he deems reasonable and it seems strange to me to exclude deputizing people from that since the law does not. If such an exception is intended then the law should likely be updated to rein in the delegate's expanded powers

Click to expand...

The need for clarification is the reason for the review. You seem to be arguing that the review itself is unneeded because game mechanics changed after the law was passed. The current situation allows for powers that were obviously not considered when the original law was written and debated. At no point during the original discussion of the Emergency Powers Act did those voting for it consider *anything* to include delegating ejection powers to Regional Officers because Regional Officers did not exist. That is why it needs to be clarified. Not because I disagree with you, but because the law has been applied in a manner inconsistent with the original intent.

my point is that in my opinion the law allows the delegate to use every toy at his disposal and does not enumerate a limited set of toys that may be used, when the delegate gained an extra toy the law thus automatically authorized the delegate to use it since he can use everything. No consideration on the extra toy is needed since everything was allowed, likely with the deliberate intention of giving the delegate freedom to act as needed

If a more restrictive law is now considered desirable because the delegate has an extra toy we don't want him to use too freely then the RA should legislate on that

Barbarossistan:

my point is that in my opinion the law allows the delegate to use every toy at his disposal and does not enumerate a limited set of toys that may be used, when the delegate gained an extra toy the law thus automatically authorized the delegate to use it since he can use everything. No consideration on the extra toy is needed since everything was allowed, likely with the deliberate intention of giving the delegate freedom to act as needed

If a more restrictive law is now considered desirable because the delegate has an extra toy we don't want him to use too freely then the RA should legislate on that

Click to expand...

And if that is what the Court decides so be it, but just your (or mine) opinion about it is insufficient and continuing to post the same thing over and over doesn't change that fact. It also doesn't change the fact that the situation and circumstances that exist now are different than those that existed when the law was passed and the intent has traditionally been a consideration here in TNP.

The court is deliberating, no more briefs will be accepted.

I have appointed Abbey as a THO for this case, since Elu has vacated his office.

I hereby name COE as the moderating justice for this Request for Review.

Your Honor, I object.

Since both Silly String and COE were involved in discord discussions regarding the ejection of certain nations, neither should be ruling on this request for review. It's a big region. Surely we can find hearing officers who were not directing activities during the Z-Day event.

Per the court rules, only the petitioner in a request for review may request the recusal of a justice. The petitioner has not requested such in the two months that this review has been active. The ruling has been written, and will be posted in the following post.

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Gracius Maximus.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

Legal Code Chapter 9:

Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Click to expand...

Legal Code Chapter 6:

12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any citizens who fail to post in The North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

There are circumstances under which it is legal for a regional officer to eject a nation during a NationStates event involving the outbreak of an infectious disease.

First, the delegate must take action to authorize the regional officer to eject nations. This need not be done publicly, so long as it is done explicitly by the delegate. Simply granting border control powers would not be sufficient. The delegate would have to make contact with the regional officer and grant them explicit authority to eject nations during the event.

Second, authorizing a regional officer to eject nations must be reasonable under the circumstances. For example, if the delegate appointed a regional officer who was known to be a security risk, that would be illegal because it is unreasonable.

Third, authorizing a regional officer to eject nations must be in pursuit of the regional plan to handle the emergency. For example, if the delegate authorized a regional officer to eject nations that send cure missiles when the regional plan is to cure infected, that would be illegal because it would not be in pursuit of the regional plan.

These three conditions are drawn from Section 9.2 of the legal code. In other areas of the law, the appointment of regional officers and the ejection or banning of a nation are more strictly regulated. However, because the outbreak of an infectious disease is defined in law as an “actual emergency”, clause 11 of the Bill of Rights is invoked, and the governmental authorities of the region, which include the delegate, are “authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is as consistent as practicable” with the constitution. Clause 11 also requires that the government have the consent of the nations of the region to take such actions. It is the opinion of the court that section 9.2 of the legal code, being adopted as law by the citizenry, constitutes the consent of the nations to assume emergency powers. Thus, as long as the conditions specified in section 9.2 (and explicated above) are adhered to, ejections and bans by the delegate during the outbreak of an infectious disease are legal, and so are actions by the delegate to authorize other nations to perform ejections and bans.

Turning specifically to the ejection of Gracius Maximus, it would seem reasonable and in pursuit of the regional plan for plembobria to permit GBM to eject nations that were sending hordes. Thus, the second and third conditions appear to be met. However, it is not known to the court whether plembobria explicitly took action to authorize her to do so, whether GBM was instructed to do so by another party, or whether she took it upon herself to do so. Thus, it is unknown to the court whether the first condition above was met, and the court is unable to definitively rule on whether Gracius Maximus’ rights were violated when he was ejected by Great Bights Mum.

The court notes, however, that for purposes of losing citizenship, ejections do not constitute leaving the region, since the ejected nation was forcibly removed and took no action to leave. Thus, under the law as it currently stands, ejected citizens would remain citizens until they ceased to exist, returned the region and then departed of their own volition, or failed to post on the forum for over 30 consecutive days.

Great Bights Mum:

Your Honor, I object.

Since both Silly String and COE were involved in discord discussions regarding the ejection of certain nations, neither should be ruling on this request for review. It's a big region. Surely we can find hearing officers who were not directing activities during the Z-Day event.

Click to expand...

Given the decision has already been handed down, I belatedly second GBM's objection.

COE:

Per the court rules, only the petitioner in a request for review may request the recusal of a justice.

Click to expand...

That is true of course, but there is also a second consideration regarding recusal due to potential COI:

Chapter 3: Decorum; Section 1: Judicial Conduct; TNP Court Rules:

Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.

Click to expand...

Given the involvement of the moderating Justice in the issue at hand, he should have voluntarily recused himself, rather than claim it's the petitioner's fault for not formally requesting it.

Crushing Our Enemies:

Per the court rules, only the petitioner in a request for review may request the recusal of a justice. The petitioner has not requested such in the two months that this review has been active. The ruling has been written, and will be posted in the following post.

Click to expand...

I have had no objections to any party as I believe all involved to be honourable and objective individuals. But I do appreciate the sentiment.

Thank you to the Court for providing a full and reasonable ruling.

I do understand the problematic nature of this specific case, but wonder if it would not have behooved the Court to interview the Delegate in order to ascertain condition one (as outlined above) instead of leaving it unaddressed.

That said, hopefully this will allow for clearer procedures in future events, which was my only aim.