Request for Judicial Review

Hersfold

Hersfold

TNPer
I, Hersfold, as a Registered Voter of The North Pacific, do hereby request a Judicial Review of the actions of Minister of Immigration of Internal Affairs Deikura in reference to placing stipulations on Registered Voter Status.

On November 11, 2005, Minister Deikura accepted Fedele's application to become a Registered Voter on these conditions:

1) You will keep me informed of your UN nation and any sleepers (or switchers, depending on your terminology) you may have at all times. You will notify me by any medium with time verification of any changes whatsoever.
2) Your nation here or any puppet nation under your control may not directly violate the constitution.
3) You will not attempt to join or gain access to information specifically for the NPA, nor will you attempt to run for offices that are privy to priveliged information about the regional government, nor will you attempt to join or gain access to the NPIA.
4) If found to violate any of the above, you will resign your RV status and voluntarily confine yourself to the OOC forums in perpituity. If you do so, you will not face prosecution for anything short of Treason as long as you remain in civil conduct.
5) These provisions will remain in effect for the duration of your RV membership, or until a time not less than 2 months after you publically disavow any association with any raider group, after which, an investigation will be performed to verify your lack of direct participation in any such groups.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis mine, conditions found here as originally posted on s2)

On November 17, Deputy Minister Gaspo accepted Blue Wolf II's application (with Minister Deikura's approval) on the same conditions.

Today, December 12, Minister Deikura accepted Cathyy's RV application on these stipulations:

1)  You, nor any puppet you control will engage in unendorsement campaigns.
2)  You will maintain a higher standard of conduct than is expected of others, and abide by forum rules at all times.
3)  You will not seek any elected or appointed office without my prior authorization (or my successor's).
4)  If in the event that you violate any of the provisions by my discrecion, you will voluntarily confine yourself to OOC in perpituity.  Doing so will assure you of judicial immunity if violation of these provisions constitutes a violation of the law or constitution.

I reserve the right to dismiss any of the above stipulations at any time.  These provisions are not subject to negotiation, and you retain all other rights due to all registered voters.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis mine - Originally posted here in the Minister's Office.)

I challenge the authority of the Minister to issue such conditions on nations attempting to apply to become registered voters, unde the following clauses of the Declaration of Rights (Article 1) of the Constitution:

Article I, Clauses 2-3:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.

Article I, Clause 9:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

Article I, Clause 11:

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this 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 this Constitution.
Click to expand...

The conditions I left unbolded above do not, in my opinion, violate any part of the Constitution, and are well within the MoIIA's authority to request. However, the bolded sections greatly infringe upon the rights of these three nations.

Article I, Clause 2, is breached by condition #2 for Cathyy. While I do hope that all nations could be responsible enough to conduct themselves in a proper manner, it is not the Government's job to dictate how they must act by law. Forum rules are to be managed by Forum Administration and Moderation, which, while the individuals involved may be the same, must be held separate.

Article I, Clause 3, is breached by condition #3 for Cathyy, Fedele, and Blue Wolf. By restricting the ability to run for public office, the choice to participate in government is no longer completely voluntary, as the Constitution requires.

Article I, Clause 9 is breached by condition #4 for Cathyy, Fedele, and Blue Wolf. By preventing trials from occuring against these nations in the event they breach these provisions, the due process of law is refused to those nations wishing to press charges against them for any damages done through the breach of conditions.

Article I, Clause 11 is breached again by conditions #4. By denying criminal proceedings against these nations, the Legal Code and Constitution are being partially suspended on the behalf of these three nations.

In the event that these conditions set by Minister Deikura are found unconstitutional, I request that they all be removed at once, while allowing the three nations in question to remain as Registered Voters. Should any of these nations attempt to violate the Constitution in some way, or attempt to compromise the security of this region or any other through their position as RV's, they may be tried as required by the Constitution and Legal Code as an equal.

If I require another RV to second this motion, then please notify me and I will try to find support. Thank you for the Court's time.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Registered Voter
Regional Assemblyman
 
Very valid Hersfold, and I admire your bringing this up.

The points you raise are exactly why I see no reason applying. TNP has made leaps forward in the past month and I hope that it continues, I trust these strengths will continue, but I remain concerned that certain players will be held outside the Constitution.

Please remove my post if it is innapropriately placed.
 
If appropriate, as Deputy MoJ, acting in the absense of the MoJ, would like to open an investigation into this matter should the court determine the neccessity:

For investigative puproses, it is my opinion that any stipulations as per RV status that are extra vides (beyond the scope) of the Constitution, legal code and authority of the MIIA, which are peuculiar to a specific applicant for RV status, may be a violation of the Constitution and Legal Code of the region or unconstitutional as per the authority of the MoIIA.


Regards,

R
 
The Filing is noted.

An Official Notice of the Proceeding has been posted in the Court of The North Pacific forum.

The case will be assigned to the Court en banc, that is to the current active Justices of the Court as a group.

A filing schedule for comments, motions or other pleadings will be posted after it is set by the Court. All parties should take note that the proceeding is not designed to address factual disputes.

Until the filing schedule is determined, only appearances by interested parties (other than Hersfold as the filing citizen whose participation is noted) should be posted in this thread. Once the schedule is posted interested participants will be provided opportunities to file statements concerning the petition.

Parties should review the text of the Constitution, the Legal Code, and the prior decisions of the Court in preparation of any statements to the Court.
 
Thank you, Justice Grosseschnauzer.

May I re-affirm to the court that I do not intend for this review to impact Minister Deikura's standing as MoIIA in any way. This is intended simply as a review of actions which I believe may be unconstitutional. It is not intended to, nor will (if I have anything to do with it) extend to a criminal proceeding against the Minister, who was acting in the best interests of the Region. For this she has my respect, and I do not wish for actions to be taken against her for that.
 
If you did not intend this to impact on the minister's standing, why jump straight to a request for a judicial review rather than simply PMing the minister and asking them the question, and putting the case to her?
 
It was a mistake that he has apoligised for and I have accepted. I already have the matter in hand.

I move that the review be suspended until such time I am able to make corrections to the stipulations addressed. I agree that in their current form, I have overstepped my bounds out of mere carelessness and wish to correct this without wasting the time of the court.
 
ON BEHALF OF THE COURT OF THE NORTH PACIFIC -

In the matter of Request for Judicial Review, filed by Hersfold, December 12, 2005.

At the request of the filing party, and recognizant of the obligations incumbent upon many members of the region at this time and in the weeks to come, a stay of proceedings is hereby granted. As such, the Court will begin hearing comments and statements by interested parties regarding the concerns of the request on January 2, 2006. Such statements will be concluded by January 9, 2006, at which time rebuttals may be entered through January 12, 2006. At that time, the Court will meet and enter a ruling in the matter.

In response to the concerns posted earlier in this thread, and regarding the comments and statements to be entered during the above-noted schedule, it is important to remember that the request as filed is simply for an administrative decision regarding registered voter requirements, and, as such, will not involve any determination of factual evidence or punitive action against any party.

Any parties with questions or concerns regarding adminstrative and operational issues in this hearing may direct them to a member of the Court.

- Byardkuria
Associate Justice, Court of the North Pacific
 
As Chief Justice, I want to affirm the order entered above by Associate Justice Byardkuria.

In addition, I wish to request interested parties to consider the following questions that are clearly implicit in the petition:

1. Whether any restriction whatsoever on registered voter status is a violation of the Constitution unless it is imposed as a result of either a criminal conviction or as a remedy in a civil case. (see Constitution, Article V, section 3 and Constitution, Article V, section 4.)

2. Further, assuming that a court judgment is required to impos a condition on the approval of registered voter status, whether there is anything that prevents the imposition of such conditions in a civil or criminal proceeding by a consent judgment of the parties.
 
This is a reminder that the statement and comment period for this proceeding will open next Monday, January 2nd, when the requested stay of proceeding expires. Parties should also note the request that they discuss the following in their statements submitted to the Court:

In addition, I wish to request interested parties to consider the following questions that are clearly implicit in the petition:

1. Whether any restriction whatsoever on registered voter status is a violation of the Constitution unless it is imposed as a result of either a criminal conviction or as a remedy in a civil case. (see Constitution, Article V, section 3 and Constitution, Article V, section 4.)

2. Further, assuming that a court judgment is required to impos a condition on the approval of registered voter status, whether there is anything that prevents the imposition of such conditions in a civil or criminal proceeding by a consent judgment of the parties.
Click to expand...
 
The stay of proceedings in this case has now expired, and the Court is prepared to begin accepting statements by interested parties. Again, the Court requests that such parties consider the following points -

1. Whether any restriction whatsoever on registered voter status is a violation of the Constitution unless it is imposed as a result of either a criminal conviction or as a remedy in a civil case. (see Constitution, Article V, section 3 and Constitution, Article V, section 4.)

2. Further, assuming that a court judgment is required to impos a condition on the approval of registered voter status, whether there is anything that prevents the imposition of such conditions in a civil or criminal proceeding by a consent judgment of the parties.
Click to expand...
 
Any interested party that intends to submit statements concerning this proceeding is reminded that such statements are to be posted by the end of today, Monday, January 9, 2006.

In the absence of any statements being filed, the matter would then be immediately submitted to the Court for a determination.
 
Before GROSSESCHNAUZER, Chief Justice and BYARDKURIA, Associate Justice:

On December 12, 2005, the following petition for judicial review was filed with the Court:

I, Hersfold, as a Registered Voter of The North Pacific, do hereby request a Judicial Review of the actions of Minister of Immigration of Internal Affairs Deikura in reference to placing stipulations on Registered Voter Status.

On November 11, 2005, Minister Deikura accepted Fedele's application to become a Registered Voter on these conditions:

1) You will keep me informed of your UN nation and any sleepers (or switchers, depending on your terminology) you may have at all times. You will notify me by any medium with time verification of any changes whatsoever.
2) Your nation here or any puppet nation under your control may not directly violate the constitution.
3) You will not attempt to join or gain access to information specifically for the NPA, nor will you attempt to run for offices that are privy to priveliged information about the regional government, nor will you attempt to join or gain access to the NPIA.
4) If found to violate any of the above, you will resign your RV status and voluntarily confine yourself to the OOC forums in perpituity. If you do so, you will not face prosecution for anything short of Treason as long as you remain in civil conduct.

5) These provisions will remain in effect for the duration of your RV membership, or until a time not less than 2 months after you publically disavow any association with any raider group, after which, an investigation will be performed to verify your lack of direct participation in any such groups.
Click to expand...


(Emphasis mine, conditions found here as originally posted on s2)

On November 17, Deputy Minister Gaspo accepted Blue Wolf II's application (with Minister Deikura's approval) on the same conditions.

Today, December 12, Minister Deikura accepted Cathyy's RV application on these stipulations:

1)  You, nor any puppet you control will engage in unendorsement campaigns.
2)  You will maintain a higher standard of conduct than is expected of others, and abide by forum rules at all times.
3)  You will not seek any elected or appointed office without my prior authorization (or my successor's).
4)  If in the event that you violate any of the provisions by my discrecion, you will voluntarily confine yourself to OOC in perpituity.  Doing so will assure you of judicial immunity if violation of these provisions constitutes a violation of the law or constitution.

I reserve the right to dismiss any of the above stipulations at any time.  These provisions are not subject to negotiation, and you retain all other rights due to all registered voters.
Click to expand...


(Emphasis mine - Originally posted here in the Minister's Office.)

I challenge the authority of the Minister to issue such conditions on nations attempting to apply to become registered voters, unde the following clauses of the Declaration of Rights (Article 1) of the Constitution:

Article I, Clauses 2-3:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.

Article I, Clause 9:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

Article I, Clause 11:

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this 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 this Constitution.
Click to expand...


The conditions I left unbolded above do not, in my opinion, violate any part of the Constitution, and are well within the MoIIA's authority to request. However, the bolded sections greatly infringe upon the rights of these three nations.

Article I, Clause 2, is breached by condition #2 for Cathyy. While I do hope that all nations could be responsible enough to conduct themselves in a proper manner, it is not the Government's job to dictate how they must act by law. Forum rules are to be managed by Forum Administration and Moderation, which, while the individuals involved may be the same, must be held separate.

Article I, Clause 3, is breached by condition #3 for Cathyy, Fedele, and Blue Wolf. By restricting the ability to run for public office, the choice to participate in government is no longer completely voluntary, as the Constitution requires.

Article I, Clause 9 is breached by condition #4 for Cathyy, Fedele, and Blue Wolf. By preventing trials from occuring against these nations in the event they breach these provisions, the due process of law is refused to those nations wishing to press charges against them for any damages done through the breach of conditions.

Article I, Clause 11 is breached again by conditions #4. By denying criminal proceedings against these nations, the Legal Code and Constitution are being partially suspended on the behalf of these three nations.

In the event that these conditions set by Minister Deikura are found unconstitutional, I request that they all be removed at once, while allowing the three nations in question to remain as Registered Voters. Should any of these nations attempt to violate the Constitution in some way, or attempt to compromise the security of this region or any other through their position as RV's, they may be tried as required by the Constitution and Legal Code as an equal.

If I require another RV to second this motion, then please notify me and I will try to find support. Thank you for the Court's time.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Registered Voter
Regional Assemblyman
Click to expand...


On December 15, 2005, Associate Justice Byardkuria entered the following Order on behalf of the Court:

ON BEHALF OF THE COURT OF THE NORTH PACIFIC -

In the matter of Request for Judicial Review, filed by Hersfold, December 12, 2005.

At the request of the filing party, and recognizant of the obligations incumbent upon many members of the region at this time and in the weeks to come, a stay of proceedings is hereby granted.  As such, the Court will begin hearing comments and statements by interested parties regarding the concerns of the request on January 2, 2006.  Such statements will be concluded by January 9, 2006, at which time rebuttals may be entered through January 12, 2006.  At that time, the Court will meet and enter a ruling in the matter.

In response to the concerns posted earlier in this thread, and regarding the comments and statements to be entered during the above-noted schedule, it is important to remember that the request as filed is simply for an administrative decision regarding registered voter requirements, and, as such, will not involve any determination of factual evidence or punitive action against any party.

Any parties with questions or concerns regarding administrative and operational issues in this hearing may direct them to a member of the Court.

- Byardkuria
Associate Justice, Court of the North Pacific
Click to expand...


The Chief Justice, Grosseschnauzer, augmented the Order with the following request that:

interested parties *** consider the following questions that are clearly implicit in the petition:

1. Whether any restriction whatsoever on registered voter status is a violation of the Constitution unless it is imposed as a result of either a criminal conviction or as a remedy in a civil case. (see Constitution, Article V, section 3 and Constitution, Article V, section 4.)

2. Further, assuming that a court judgment is required to impose a condition on the approval of registered voter status, whether there is anything that prevents the imposition of such conditions in a civil or criminal proceeding by a consent judgment of the parties.
Click to expand...


The period for the filing of statements and rebuttals to such statements having expired, the Court determines the Petition for Judicial Review as follows:


There are several questions presented by the Petition, and the Court will address them in turn. First, does the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs have the power to include conditions in accepting an application for registered voter status? Second, if no such power exists, does that power exist in any other governmental authority of the region, and under what circumstances? And third, if the actions of the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs are not legal, what remedy is appropriate in this proceeding?

We begin with the question of the validity of the actions cited in the Petition. The Court holds that those actions of the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs are not authorized by either the Constitution or the Legal Code. Such conditions amount to the imposition of a penalty for unspecified offenses against the applicant nation. Neither the Constitution nor the Legal Code grant to the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs the authority to determine and impose such penalties; and their punitive nature, as restrictions upon the rights and liberties of a member nation of The North Pacific, clearly violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of attainder as contained in Clause 9 of the Declaration of Rights, and further violates the following portion of Clause 11 of The Declaration of Rights:
No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...


The Constitution clearly specifies only two methods by which restrictions may be imposed on an individual nation of The North Pacific:
Article V, Section 4 in part provides that:

Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a registered voter's rights to participate in the government as a registered voter, to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.
Click to expand...


Sentences are normally determined by the finder of fact, a jury, as part of its verdict, and under the constitution, the sentence must be proportionate to the offenses of which a party is convicted. Under these constitutional provisions, the Court is obligated to determine that any restrictions imposed upon the rights and liberties of a member Nation are proportionate to the offenses that they have been found to have committed,

The second method is by way of a civil proceeding. A civil proceeding may be brought by
Any nation that believes some other nation in The North Pacific has caused injury to any right, liberty, privilege, protection, or other duty that belongs to that nation as a matter of right under the Constitution of The North Pacific, or The North Pacific Legal Code, and which does not rise to the level of a criminal offense,
Click to expand...


The Court has been granted “power to adopt rules and regulations for the procedure of trials, hearings, and its internal operations, including rules of evidence and the random selection of trial and grand juries, not inconsistent with this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code.” (TNP Constitution, Article V, Section 1, Clause D.) Pursuant to that authority, the Court has adopted Interim Rule 411 which provides that
The Court shall enter its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record as soon as practicable after the hearing of the claim. The Court shall order any remedy proportionate to the findings entered by the Court.
Click to expand...


As with a criminal proceeding, the remedy imposed must be proportionate to the claim presented by the complaining nation.

The Constitution limits the violations which may be the subject of a civil or criminal proceeding to the following:

Constitution Article V Section 5:
The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Registered Voter.
Click to expand...

With these provisions, as well as the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, taken into account, it is clear that restrictions upon the rights and liberties under the Constitution of a particular registered voter cannot be imposed except by a judgment of the Court imposed as a result of a criminal or civil proceeding. Such a judgment requires both the determination of the facts as to that individual Nation as well as the determination of a proportionate sentence or remedy.

Having determined that a judicial proceeding is a pre-requisite to the imposition of such restrictions, and that the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs does not have the power to impose such restrictions, we now turn to the resolution of the status of the registered voter applicants upon whom the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs imposed conditions on the acceptance of their registered voter status.

First, a judicial proceeding is clearly necessary as a pre-requisite to the imposition of such conditions as the Minister has attempted to impose. Therefore, it will be necessary to vacate the action of the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs as to the conditional acceptance of each such registered voter described in the petition.

Second, there is nothing precluding the Ministry of Immigration of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, or an individual Nation of The North Pacific from filing a proceeding in this Court that includes stipulations as to the facts of the conduct of a registered voter applicant (demonstrating a listed ground for a proceeding described in Article V, Section 5 of the Constitution) and a stipulation for a sentence or remedy as to those grounds of violation. The Court will still be required to assess the stipulations to determine that the proposed sentence or remedy (depending on whether the matter is a civil or criminal proceeding) is proportionate to the conduct alleged.

Third, in order to best protect the interests of parties that have a stake in the outcome of this particular proceeding, the Court will grant a stay for a period not to exceed ten days to allow the filing of proceedings as to each registered voter applicant affected by this decision by either the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs in a civil proceeding or the Attorney General or the Deputy Minister of Justice in a criminal proceeding in order to permit the appropriate Minister and the applicant to file any such stipulations and consents they deem appropriate for the Court’s consideration in the entry of a judgment. The Court will expedite the consideration of such proceedings so that these matters will be judicially resolved no later than 31 January 2006. In the event the stipulations and consents are not sufficient for the entry of a judgment, then the matters will be carried over for a trial in the usual course to the next term of Court that begins 1 February 2006.

edited to highlight the holding is the court's primary opinion.
 
AFFIRMING OPINION

It is my opinion that the imposition of conditions of participation upon prospective Registered Voters, unless levied equally upon all applicants, is in open violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the North Pacific, to wit:

Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...

Additionally, it is the opinion of this Justice that the actions of a Cabinet Minister, in imposing such conditions upon an applicant on pain of disenfranchisement, looking particularly at requiring a nation to confine themselves outside of governmental operations, is in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of The North Pacific with respect to due process:

. . .No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...

as well as Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

in that requiring any nation to adhere to a particular, non-legislated rule set in the absence of a Judicial order or sentence is a tacit suppression of right of trial and the due process of the law, and that conditional confinement of a nation outside the formal governmental areas is a suppression of the right to petition for redress in particular, and Section 2 in general.


With respect to the question of whether participation and behavioral conditions may be imposed upon a Nation by consent judgment in a criminal or civil proceeding, the question with respect to a criminal proceeding is explicitly addressed in Article V, Section 4, Paragraph C of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

. . . Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a registered voter's rights to participate in the government as a registered voter, to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.
Click to expand...
.

With regards to civil procedure, it is the opinion of this Justice that the primary basis of this question is not on the propriety of setting such conditions, but doing so without due process of law. Given that such a judgment would be entered at the conclusion of a trial meeting the requirements of the Constitution, Legal Code, and Interim Court Rules of the North Pacific, it could not be said, in such a case, that such a judgment would violate the body of law as it currently exists, particularly with regard to preservation of rights in the absence of due process. In lieu of contradictory legislation or precedent, and in light of the aforementioned attitude of the Constitution in the matter with regards to criminal proceedings, it is my opinion that such conditions may be imposed as a judgment in a civil proceeding, assuming such ruling meets all other criteria.



-Byardkuria
Associate Justice of the North Pacific
 
[moderator action] Poltsamaa's post was spilt from a thread which is used exclusively to archive the decisions of the court, and not for the posting of commentary. It has been merged into the correct thread.[/moderator action]
 
My interpretation:
  • the Minister overstepped her powers by imposing membership stipulations
  • the judiciary has the power to impose such stipulations
  • a timetable has been set up for the judiciary to decide if the individual stipulations are warranted and should be maintained
Of course, I'm no lawyer (nor do I pretend to be). :lol:
 
The timetable outlines the period of time in which someone can request the continuation of the stipulations. If no one files within that time, the stipulations go out the window. That's how I read it. I would love for one of the justices to confirm (or refute as the case may be) my interpretation.
 
Just a friendly suggestion, because I don't feel like reading that either.

Maybe we could have both the long-winded version which goes into all the legal reasoning and specifics and everything, and then a short (say, 50-100 words) summary?
 
'Twas such a summary that I requested, but to no avail as of yet!! Perhaps now that someone else has requested it, our esteemed Chief Justice may provide the requested summary?!
 
Will a semiesteemed Associate Justice do?

HOWEVER, as I am summarising for brevity's sake please note that in the event of any discrepancies or disparate interpretations, only the full text will have the force of law.

The questions posed by are as follows -

Q1. Does the MoIIA have the power to place conditions upon an RV app?

Q2. If not, does any governmental body have that power? If so, when?

Q3. What, if any, remedies are called for in this case?


A1/2. The MoIIA does not have that power, because the Constitution/Legal Code only recognize two methods by which a Nation's rights may be restricted by the government - namely, judgement of the Court in a civil or criminal proceeding. By placing these stipulations without allowing for the applicant parties to benefit from the due process of law necessary to impose such conditons, the MoIIA did not act in line with the body of law currently extant.

A3. The conditional acceptance of the RVs in question is to be annulled. The court has granted a stay of remedy, however, through 1-26, so that the AG, MoIIA, etc., may file civil or criminal proceedings regarding the placement of such stipulations, if they feel it is a matter of sufficient import.



I'm not gonna throw a word count on it, but hopefully that helps. Also, please note that the Chief Justice has highlighted particular passages of the judgement for ease of searching.
 
Essentially, if the MIIA or the AG or others fail to file a civil proceeding within the 10 days, then after the stay expires, the action of the MIIA that approved the registered voters applications is set aside, and the MIIA will have to decide the application on their merits without use of conditions of approval.

In the absence of a stay, the RV status of these particular individuals would have reverted back to that of a applicant awaiting approval, and they would be unable to participate in any matters as a registered voter or as a member of the general assembly.
 
Sirixis:
If no one files within that time, the stipulations go out the window.
Click to expand...

The stipulations went out the window on the 28th of December when I dismissed them, after an internal review. Further:

Grosseschnauzer:
Essentially, if the MIIA or the AG or others fail to file a civil proceeding within the 10 days, then after the stay expires, the action of the MIIA that approved the registered voters applications is set aside, and the MIIA will have to decide the application on their merits without use of conditions of approval.
Click to expand...

The affected RV's as implied by the stipulations themselves are full RV's without restriction by default after the dismissal of said stipulations. A review of their applications is not required.

[edit: a little less nasty.]
 
However, I believe if you wish, you have ten days from the date of the ruling to apply to the court to get them re-instated. Although, I'm guessing from the tone of your post, you don't much care do you? :console:

Just to clarify one point, does this mean that any MoIIA from now on, can appeal to the courts to apply stipulation on an individuals RV/RA status?
 
Nope. After my review, I saw no potential security threat from any of those individuals that isn't already covered by the law directly.

You make an interesting point, though.

[edit: tenses, tenses. The subject and verb donnae agree cap'n!]
 
Also, to further dish out the headaches to the courts, could a MoIIA (or possibly the PM) ask for stipulations to be applied to an RV even after RVshiped has been applied? Say after 6 months or so?
 
(Again, this is irregular, as the Court does not provide legal advice. I am choosing to interpret this as a request for clarification.)



At this point, Nam, only if they bring a civil suit against the applicant, or the AG levels criminal charges, and the Court finds such stipulations to be an appropriate remedy. Duration as an RV, or even actual status as such, would not be germane.
 
Entry of Order

The time for the stay as provided in the Court's judgment as posted at Jan 15 2006, 03:13 PM GMT having expired, and there being no petitions filed with the Court in connection with the registered voters whose status was cited in the petition originally filed by Hersfold, the judgment of the Court is now final.

Judgment Entered. Proceeding Closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top