Ministerial rebuttal to the request for judicial review (found
here)
The placing of stipulations upon a RV candidate is not something undertaken lightly, and as extensive discussion with the applicant in question as is possible is conducted so as to prevent undesired and unneeded restrictions upon persons in question. Most of the stipulations are temporary, or are not concidered unreasonable concidering the histories of the individuals, and are put in place as a pre-emptory action against suspected threats to regional security, which is within both the scope and interest of the ministry.
Furthermore, we are mightily disappointed that this request was made without first consulting the Ministry and attempting to resolve these issues without involving the court. Minister Sonoda has not been without daily contact to any that have issues for some time, and has not recieved prior notification of anyone having any particular problems with the stipulations raised.
If clarification of specific provisions is needed or requested, it will be provided upon request. To address the concerns raised in the request for review, the following explanations are offered.
1) Concerning the stipulations upon Fedele and Blue Wolf: These two registered voters are declared and active raiders. The NPA is a defender organization by it's own definition, and all parties involved in the drawing of the stipulation agreed that it was not unreasonable to have verification that these particular RV's would pose no active threat to the NPA/NPIA nor it's activities in any way, shape or form.
2) Concerning the stipulations placed upon Cathyy: Provision two is temporary, whose term is at my discrecion. If nothing else, it is little more than a reminder that actions performed in the past will not be tolerated. Provision three is in place due to suspected security threat, again, based upon the statements she has made in the past. It, also, is considered a temporary provision, until I can be suffeciently convinced that she is no or little threat to the government.
Further: The voluntary confinement stipulation for both was to assure that should they get themselves in trouble, that the Internal Affairs Ministry
specifically would not bring criminal charges against them, and that their place in the community at large could be assured and
supported by the ministry, given their co-operation, even if their participation in the government could not. This stipulation does not restrict other ministries from pressing charges, nor does it provide immunity from civil suit.
If clarification/modification was desired, again,
this should have been brought up with the Ministry directly first. Minister Sonoda is more than willing to accomodate and address any concerns raised by anyone in regards to ministerial action that effects any RV,
but cannot do so if she is not notified of such concerns.
Minister Miho Sonoda