Pallaith for Justice 8: The Ocho

[Pallaith]

Obviously I have run for Justice before. Many times in fact. I believe my work speaks for itself and encourage you to consider it. Nevertheless, I come before you again asking for your vote to allow me to keep serving on this Court I love so much for some reason. It's not for everyone, but I think I'm good at it and I think that there's always more to do. The trick is, of course, it's a job that requires reacting to things, so I may get to do a bunch or I may not, depending on how quiet or peaceful a period it is. If you have any questions about my philosophy or my past work, the previous campaigns or the rulings should hopefully answer them, but let me know if they don't. If you're curious about anything else, or have something in particular to say, have at it.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

Are there any interesting decisions/rulings by the last elected Court that you would like to share with the less-legally attuned citizenry?

 

[Pallaith]

Are there any interesting decisions/rulings by the last elected Court that you would like to share with the less-legally attuned citizenry?

I guess that depends on your point of view. The Court issued two rulings so far this year (there is a third around the corner), so I’m expanding your question slightly simply because there isn’t a ton of content. The bigger one, if you could call it that (again, it’s subjective) would be On the Loss of Citizenship When Ejected since it’s been one of those long-time coming issues that has been on people’s minds for years. At long last we have dispensed with the practice of someone keeping citizenship for a month just because they got ejected but didn’t bother to return after the conclusion of Z-Day. I think that case is also interesting because I felt we were a lot more down on the idea in general initially but in the end the ruling basically maintained status quo save for that one aspect.

The earlier case this year, issued in the midst of the prior judicial election, was On the Reconsideration of the Powers of Election Commissioners. This was one of what I would call the purely cleanup rulings, and it just recognizes that previously the Court made a call on what the powers of the election commissioner entailed, and that the law now says what those powers are and the Court’s assertion of that power is no longer the controlling law. Interestingly, in answering your question now I think I now feel the Court didn’t properly handle that particular ruling. There are a few aspects of that ruling that are similar to some of the other rulings that weren’t rendered completely defunct, and I think the Court was a bit over broad in handling that one the way they did.

The idea of “defunct” is a relatively new one, even though it is based on the much older ruling On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, but it’s crucial to the Court’s recent cases as the Court Examiner has sought to address outdated rulings. They don’t all need to be addressed the same way, and in some cases they are substantially reconsidered. Since the Court is still getting used to how this concept is applied, I think it’s important that it be done consistently and correctly. As different iterations of the Court approach cases like this, we’ll see different styles and approaches, but we should guard against over-applying the concept, since each case is unique and requires a different degree to how the language is reconsidered or shut down.

Obviously there is an unanswered R4R the Court is currently deliberating on, which would seek to apply the defunct designation to the ruling on the permanence of rejected citizenship applicants, as the RA ultimately changed the law to allow reversing such rejections when before that wasn’t an option. This will also involve considering the Court’s handling of a single citizen’s status when that person ordinarily wouldn’t have been a citizen had the rules been followed. If you take a look at that one, Zyvet’s brief shows just how crucial that part of the decision is for existing case law. This one has some dimensions something like the EC cases did not. But outside of these matters, the Court hasn’t had to handle any trials this term so…a relatively quiet term all things considered. Just remember, it’s not always a good thing to live in interesting times.

 

[Robespierre]

Okay. I will vote for you.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Not having "The Ocho" somewhere in your title is a big letdown. <3

Let the record show that as of when I originally posted this, this is what the title was.

 

[Pallaith]

Not having "The Ocho" somewhere in your title is a big letdown. <3

I didn’t think of that! It’s not too late Sil, have faith!

EDIT: your post looks really silly now

 

[Hulldom]

If this really is the Ocho, can I expect whatever the Pallaith version of corgi races is?

 

[Pallaith]

If this really is the Ocho, can I expect whatever the Pallaith version of corgi races is?

Yes, they’re called corgi races. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The Court has an aspirational provision in its Rules to decide requests for review within 14 days after the close of the briefing period. Obviously there are things that can get in the way of that, so it isn’t and shouldn’t be expected to be rigidly stuck to. That said, what do you think the Court (and individual Justices) can do to ensure that rulings in requests for review are issued in a timely manner?

 

[Pallaith]

The Court has an aspirational provision in its Rules to decide requests for review within 14 days after the close of the briefing period. Obviously there are things that can get in the way of that, so it isn’t and shouldn’t be expected to be rigidly stuck to. That said, what do you think the Court (and individual Justices) can do to ensure that rulings in requests for review are issued in a timely manner?

This largely depends on justices being proactive. Speaking for myself personally, I don’t like too many days to go by without some kind of measurable progress toward that end. One way that I address this is by drafting the opinion in pieces, initially by articulating what I think it will say, and what my position is on it, invite the other justices to do the same, and then if something concrete seems to take shape, I or another Justice will draft the opinion and we can tweak it as needed until we’re satisfied. If this effort is held up by one or more justices not being available, I give them a respectful period to respond before I post on the topic again. I find the Court’s Discord channel is useful for the nudging and the follow up.

When my own input is needed I try to make sure I at least post a response that I’m aware of it. And if this process hits the two week mark, I believe that as the Chief Justice I should make an update post to show the region that we’re working on it. I don’t think there’s any secret to this, any justice can do these things. I will say that people getting busy and not being able to offer feedback is the biggest reason these things get delayed, because the legal questions usually aren’t too complex, but if there’s active back and forth because it is complicated that’s also easy to report.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Do you want a crack at any of these?

What would you do if you were a Justice and saw that a request for review that looked like this has been posted in the Court’s (both in terms of what practical steps you would take and how you might ultimately decide on it (if you can)):

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The Delegate suppressed my friends posts and then banned them when they asked why they got suppressed

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against free speech and not democratic to ban them when all they did was ask about what the delegate was doing the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power without being able to ban someone

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

I don’t know

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

My friend has been banned and if I post about it I think the delegate would ban me too and I don’t think that is fair

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and free speech

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No

What would you do if you were a Justice and saw that a request for review that looked like this has been posted in the Court’s (both in terms of what practical steps you would take and how you might ultimately decide on it (if you can)):

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The delegate banned someone and then would not tell me why when I asked them

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

It is against freedom of information and not democratic to keep secret why someone gets banned the delegate should be allowed to be asked what they are doing with there power

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

this one https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/#post-10494892 the delegate is not allowed to keep things secret

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

It is my freedom of information to know

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

Yes the delegate should follow the law and have freedom of information

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

No

It is the second day of the voting period of a general election. There is one candidate for Speaker: Xyvet. A resident nation sends a telegram to all citizens entitled to vote in the election. The telegram says that citizens should not vote for Xyvet because they were convicted of gross misconduct. It recommends voting for reopening nominations so that another candidate, Yyvet, can run. It says citizens have to act quickly if they don’t want a criminal as Speaker because voting ends tomorrow. Xyvet has not been convicted of any crime.

The Delegate ejects and bans the nation from the region. They post a notice stating that this action was performed because the telegram showed the nation would violate the Delegate’s RMB policy.

Could any nation be subject to criminal charges in relation to the matters described and, if so, what charges could they be subject to?

 

[Pallaith]

Well @Zyvetskistaahn these are some fun questions.

1)Regarding the proposed r4r here, the first problem our petitioner has is that they lack standing. The ban wasn’t their own ban, but someone else’s. This r4r could not be accepted on basic standing. Its acceptance relies instead on this being a compelling regional interest. I would say that I personally am not inclined to accept this r4r on those grounds, as the party with proper standing is fully capable of submitting the r4r, and this could easily be communicated to them. Another justice may accept this on grounds it has a compelling regional interest, and the argument certainly exists that it does. Given how simple that is, I will continue my answer assuming that party ultimately made the request.

The r4r would be accepted and the briefing period opened. The delegate would be approached with an opportunity to respond. Following the closing of the window, the Court would deliberate. Setting aside what the briefings may say, my initial review of this would have to consider this Court’s ruling on the suppression of RMB posts along with the circumstances of the actual ban. The ultimate opinion would still center on the ban itself, as a proper review of a ban, but the question of the suppression is likely to come up and may be relevant to the delegate’s decision. If the suppression itself ends up not being in question or relevant, that is fine - the ruling allows a great deal of leeway and the ban is the more significant action driving the review anyway. I don’t know the particulars because this scenario lacks them, but if it boils down to a ban done simply in response to being questioned about suppressing posts, that is a ban that I struggle to see having any form of justification.

2)This r4r is similar to the first, and may even be about the same ban, but it’s a very different animal. Again, the petitioner lacks proper standing, but in this case I would argue there isn’t even a compelling regional interest in responding to this request. Questions are regularly asked of the delegate and there are many venues for this, better venues than the Court. The proper process for this matter would also lend themselves toward asking and answering the questions in play - it is not as if the Court is the only place they can be addressed and without this action, the matter would never be resolved. While the petitioner mentions a ban took place, what is at issue here is the fact the delegate is not providing an explanation for the ban, not the ban itself. The petitioner cites precedent that does not apply to this case, and couches the request in FOIA terms when this particular question is not subject to FOIA (though with a little planning, the petitioner could submit a FOIA request which may contain the info they seek).

3)The nation who sent the telegram is a prime example of someone subject to a charge of election fraud. The TG itself is widely seen and distributed evidence. The fact the nation targeted by the TG was not convicted of anything would be relevant, especially since you freely provided this information implying it’s well-known or easily verifiable.

The delegate could theoretically be charged with gross misconduct.