Petition to the Court

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
Flemingovia has questioned as to whether the Speaker has the right to reject this version for Formal Discussion:

The “You look a bit iffy” act, 2007-03-28

The Regional Assembly hereby declares war on the North Pacific Destroyers. Yes, at the moment they are no threat to us, but they might, conceivably, possibly become a threat at some undefined point in the future.

In the interests of fairness, we also declare war on….

The New Meritocracy. After all, they had that dodgy business with “cultural imperialism” a bit back, and they might, conceivably, possibly become a threat at some undefined point in the future.

The West Pacific. Remember what happened with the Dominion? Who knows what will happen there! They might, conceivably, possibly become a threat at some undefined point in the future.

the Pacific Let's face it, all that "hail" business really gets on our nerves, and, given the instability of the region, They might, conceivably, possibly become a threat at some undefined point in the future.

The Lexicon. After all, all the moderates who sought peace have left the region, leaving only the hardliners, and they have declared war on us in the past. They are no threat at the moment, but they might, conceivably, possibly become a threat at some undefined point in the future.

10 Miles West of Nowhere. We have never heard of them before, and they only have 5 nations, and only 2 are UN, but everyone has to start somewhere, and they might, conceivably, possibly become a threat at some undefined point in the future. And after all, if we are going to start stomping on small regions, we might as well include very small ones. Taking on a few of those should make the North Pacific look REALLY macho. 

We also give the delegate authority to declare war on any region who looks at us a bit iffy. You know what we mean. Like that bloke in the pub the other night who kept eyeing up your girlfriend. Bastards, the lot of them.

Signed:
Click to expand...

The laws in question are:

Art 4:
B - The Speaker shall select the proposals to be voted on by the Regional Assembly. Bills and proposals that are selected for consideration shall not be frivolous. The subject matter of bills selected for consideration shall have as its object the implementation of this Constitution, the adoption, amendment, or repeal of provisions of The North Pacific Legal Code, or involve any other actions that are necessary and proper and that are authorized by this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or the other laws of The North Pacific. The Speaker shall not exercise the authority conferred in this provision in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Speaker may confer with the Prime Minister, the Ministers of the Cabinet, or with the Chief Justice, for comment on a submitted bill or proposal.
Click to expand...

The parts bolded were mentioned specifically by Flemingovia, I also invite him to add in anything I missed. I also apologize to the court about the asinine nature of this problem.
 
It was not arbitrary because the North Pacific Destroyers actually pose a legitimate threat, as they have stated they interfered with the last delegate election. It appears as if the region "Down with TNP" did not exist prior to the introduction of the "Iffy act" which leads me to believe that the region was created expressly for the purpose of inclusion in the "Iffy Act". Which brings into question the motives of the founder of the region, and the proposer of the "Iffy Act", who could in all likelihood be the same person, or someone in league.

I can cite specific laws if anyone wants, but basically this boils down to a poor attempt to make a point, and should never have gotten so far as a Judicial Ruling.
 
I am disappointed that DD came to this ruling without even having the civility to ask me a few simple questions that would have informed his decision.

Here are some false assumptions and flaws contained in his ruling.

1. The region "Down with TNP" most certainly DID exist prior to the presentation of the act. I have no idea how long it existed before the act, since I only gave it a cursory glance in preparation of my post. If DD would care to present any evidence he has to the contrary, I will happily eat humble pie. However, I know for a fact that what I have posted is accurate, since I was looking at their RMB when I authored the bill.

2. DD has based his ruling on wild speculation, innuendo and guesswork. He implies that I am the founder of the region "down with TNP", a region at war with TNP. If he has any evidence of this (beyond guesswork) I must ask him to present it or at the very least remove this accusation from his ruling, and apologise. Blue Wolf had the courtesy to apologise for making the same assumption without evidence.

3. The region "Down with TNP" is not the only one I presented in the act, yet others have not been considered in his ruling. IN considering declaration of war against the NPD, we were asked to consider not only actual actions taken against TNP, but also potential future threats. I simply applied the same criterion to other regions. Can I ask why potential threat should be fine when considering the NPD, but not when considering other regions?

4. The NPD have claimed that they interfered with the last delegate election, but we still await any actual evidence of this. Why does simply claiming interference constitute a "legitimate threat"?

5. This ruling was reached in under an hour, apparently without even the most cursory of examinations of the case. Certainly I, as the author of the act, was not questioned as to the background, argument or intent. This is why the ruling contained wild speculation, and should be considered flawed. Is this to be expected in the ministry of Justice?

6. "I can cite specific laws if anyone wants," Yes. You ought. If you are thinking of any laws or precedents, I for one would like to hear them. What laws cover basing a ruling on speculation? What laws cover making a ruling without asking the simplest of questions?

7. (edited inclusion) Jsut read the first post again. Why did DD allow this request for judicial appeal to be introduced to him by Mr Sniffles in such as way? Characterising the law as "asinine" in his introduction most certainly would be considered unprofessional and prejudicial in any court in the world, RL or NS.

I ask DD reserve his judgement and to open a dialogue with me.
 
Since the AG doesn't seem to be around (he hasn't responded to pending topics elsewhere in the forum in the last few days), I'm going to make the formal request that this matter be heard by the full Court, and not by a single justice.

And until that can take place, I'm going to ask that the Chief Justice enjoin the Speaker from placing all proposals to a vote that deals with the issue of whether the Regional Assembly can unilaterally declare war.
 
Yes, and while your at it can you review my "Foolish Gobbely Gook" Act? It proposes that the delegate eject as many people as possible and then spam the boards until he is deleted. Then we declare ourselves lord of the chicken.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And until that can take place, I'm going to ask that the Chief Justice enjoin the Speaker from placing all proposals to a vote that deals with the issue of whether the Regional Assembly can unilaterally declare war.
Click to expand...
No, i'm afraid not. The RA implicitily has the authority to declare war as it is the representative body of the region. Unless you are suggesting we curtail the democratic process to suit your aims Prime Minister?
 
flemingovia:
I ask DD reserve his judgement and to open a dialogue with me.
Click to expand...
How would you respond to the fact that your Act was introduced roughly at the same time as the region "Down with TNP" was founded? Would you say that it was convenient for your Act that this region happened to appear around the same time?
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Grosseschnauzer:
And until that can take place, I'm going to ask that the Chief Justice enjoin the Speaker from placing all proposals to a vote that deals with the issue of whether the Regional Assembly can unilaterally declare war.
Click to expand...
No, i'm afraid not. The RA implicitily has the authority to declare war as it is the representative body of the region. Unless you are suggesting we curtail the democratic process to suit your aims Prime Minister?


(Byardkuria @ Mar 30 2007, 06:02 PM)
If it please the court, would it be possible for you to define "a legitimate threat"? 
Click to expand...


Not at all. I suppose that is up to the RA to decide. It's a very subjective thing you know?
Click to expand...
Thank you DD.

To the others, have you guys no shame? Or is that just another distraction like the LAW and FRIENDS, who just plain get in the way.
 
It is that very sense of shame which prevents me from graphically describing what the esteemed Speaker may do to himself the next time he suggests I have anything but the utmost respect for the Law of this region.

I simply find it disturbing that the Court will uphold the right of one person to cherry-pick what legislation suits their fancy, or the current political clime, and predicate that decision on such a tenuous term as "legitimate threat". I find it even more disturbing that the Court finds this term significant enough to base their ruling on it, but seems unable to define it. I suppose they know it when they see it, eh?
 
Since the AG doesn't seem to be around (he hasn't responded to pending topics elsewhere in the forum in the last few days), I'm going to make the formal request that this matter be heard by the full Court, and not by a single justice.
Click to expand...

This request remains outstanding; and my request for a stay pending a decision by the entire Court, I now request it be decided by the full Court as well.
 
How would you respond to the fact that your Act was introduced roughly at the same time as the region "Down with TNP" was founded? Would you say that it was convenient for your Act that this region happened to appear around the same time?
Click to expand...

I am not sure of the significance of this at all. Regions in NS are being created all the time. The region North Pacific Destroyers declared war on us months ago, but only now are the wolves crying for war. Is that significant? Who knows.

It could equally be argued that the existance of NPD is "convenient" for Blue Wolf's declaration of war. Yet I note that nobody is implying that he is the founder of the NPD.

As for the timing being convenient I suppose it is, in that had not "down with TNP" been brought to my attention, I would not have thought about introducing the act. But that would have been the same if the region had declared war months ago, so I do not see the point of highighting the date of region creation. It not entirely surprising that the region was brought to my attention when it was, since we were in the throes of debate about going to war with NPD.

However I do note that you have moved from the assertion in your formal ruling that the iffy act was introduced before the creation of the region to the assertion that the region and the act were created at "roughly the same time". Will you now accept that the supposition on which you based the ruling was flawed?

And please could you respond to the points and queries I raised above?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Addendum:

I am getting really tired of the constant innuendo and supposition that I am behind the region "Down with TNP". If ANYONE has any actual evidence to support it, beyond coincidence of timing, please post it.

Anyone?
 
DD made the decision, dont batter the guy for it! And I happen to think he responded to everyones retorts quite well.

Would you care to explain why you feel that a proper legal definiton of an aspect which, apparently, is being used to determine the legality of this action, is limiting in any way?
Click to expand...

Its limiting because of NS. NS, as we know, can change. Warfare isnt the same now as it was 4, 3, 2, or 1 years ago. Defining a threat means limiting our potential responses.
 
And I happen to think he responded to everyones retorts quite well.
Click to expand...

You may not have noticed, FL, but he has not responded to any of my retorts yet. And my points were, I think, quite clear and detailed.
 
Fulhead Land:
DD made the decision, dont batter the guy for it! And I happen to think he responded to everyones retorts quite well.

Would you care to explain why you feel that a proper legal definiton of an aspect which, apparently, is being used to determine the legality of this action, is limiting in any way?
Click to expand...

Its limiting because of NS. NS, as we know, can change. Warfare isnt the same now as it was 4, 3, 2, or 1 years ago. Defining a threat means limiting our potential responses.
Click to expand...
1. Wha? I do not think that you are answering the question I am asking.

It is also limiting because THAT IS THE NATURE OF LAW - it defines what the government (or its citizens) may or may not do. What appears to have been missed here is the "and why" portion that is generally considered good form. You know, for silly little things like precedent, appeal, relevance, or all those other "limiting" factors. Laws can be amending, and rulings can be overturned. But you cannot sidestep the judicial review process by refusing to reveal the conditions under which a decision was rendered.

And part of being a judge is being expected to be able to defend your decisions - I know DD is aware of that, and I doubt he considers it battery.


EDIT - I cannot touch type, and should stop trying to do so.
 
I would respectfully request a response to my posts above from DD. He has read this thread but has not, as yet, replied.
 
The only kind of war we can have any success at is either v. feeder, v. region w/ inactive founder, or v. region w/ no founder.

However, this law should be passed.
 
flemingovia:
I would respectfully request a response to my posts above from DD. He has read this thread but has not, as yet, replied.
Click to expand...
Only so much crap I can swallow in one sitting Flemingovia. I will respond in due time, I am not answerable to you in the slightest about the expediency of my responses.
 
1. The region "Down with TNP" most certainly DID exist prior to the presentation of the act. I have no idea how long it existed before the act, since I only gave it a cursory glance in preparation of my post. If DD would care to present any evidence he has to the contrary, I will happily eat humble pie. However, I know for a fact that what I have posted is accurate, since I was looking at their RMB when I authored the bill.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was an error on my part, replace "did not exist prior" to "was created right before the Iffy Act was introduced.", honestly just worded it wrong. The founder was at 7 million population when I looked at it, which is two updates worth of growth, which coincided to within a few hours of the introduction of the Iffy Act, two days before.

2. DD has based his ruling on wild speculation, innuendo and guesswork. He implies that I am the founder of the region "down with TNP", a region at war with TNP. If he has any evidence of this (beyond guesswork) I must ask him to present it or at the very least remove this accusation from his ruling, and apologise. Blue Wolf had the courtesy to apologise for making the same assumption without evidence.
Click to expand...

I will not apologize or retract that statement. It is utterly too convenient for your Iffy Act that this region magically came into existence at just the right time for inclusion in the Iffy Act. I strongly believe you, or someone close to you, created the region, and that is that.

3. The region "Down with TNP" is not the only one I presented in the act, yet others have not been considered in his ruling. IN considering declaration of war against the NPD, we were asked to consider not only actual actions taken against TNP, but also potential future threats. I simply applied the same criterion to other regions. Can I ask why potential threat should be fine when considering the NPD, but not when considering other regions?
Click to expand...

Because they have done nothing to The North Pacific. The North Pacific Destroyers have taken responsibility for disrupting the delegate election process. This shows an actual devotion to the destruction of The North Pacific. You are right that we should ignore words, but we should not ignore an actual interference in our election process, especially not with a position such as the delegacy.

4. The NPD have claimed that they interfered with the last delegate election, but we still await any actual evidence of this. Why does simply claiming interference constitute a "legitimate threat"?
Click to expand...

How is this for evidence, the fact that it actually happened. The Delegacy handover was interfered with, and the North Pacific Destroyers have taken responsibility, that should pretty well illustrate the devotion of the North Pacific Destroyers, and their actual ability and desire to do harm to this region.

5. This ruling was reached in under an hour, apparently without even the most cursory of examinations of the case. Certainly I, as the author of the act, was not questioned as to the background, argument or intent. This is why the ruling contained wild speculation, and should be considered flawed. Is this to be expected in the ministry of Justice?
Click to expand...

Great, first lets complain about how long the Judiciary takes when a foregone decision is not quickly reached, then complain how fast a decision was made when it does not support your intentions. I examined the case. Your Iffy Act is a slippery slope argument and I viewed it as a joke. Not in the "haha" sense, but more in the sense that it was not something to be taken seriously.

6. "I can cite specific laws if anyone wants," Yes. You ought. If you are thinking of any laws or precedents, I for one would like to hear them. What laws cover basing a ruling on speculation? What laws cover making a ruling without asking the simplest of questions?
Click to expand...

The Speaker clearly posted the relevant law. I viewed the evidence at hand and made my comment. The Down with TNP region being founded at almost the same time as the Iffy Act is suspicious to the extreme. Not to mention your (Flemingovia) Government activity times are the same as the founder of Down with TNP, and have been since its founding.

7. (edited inclusion) Jsut read the first post again. Why did DD allow this request for  judicial appeal to be introduced to him by Mr Sniffles in such as way? Characterising the law as "asinine" in his introduction most certainly would be considered unprofessional and prejudicial in any court in the world, RL or NS.
Click to expand...

Your proposal is and was asinine, I suppose Mr. Sniffles called it like he saw it and in my opinion made the right decision to not carry it to formal discussion. If you do not like the current Act in formal discussion then I suggest you vote "nay" when it comes to vote, that would be more effective, and less stressful to all involved, than introducing faux-legislation.

I ask DD reserve his judgement and to open a dialogue with me.
Click to expand...

The judgement stands. Mr. Sniffles acted well within his power to decide not to carry forward legislation that was summarily ignored, except to point out its fallacious and facetious nature, by everyone except its creator. He did not exercise his power in an arbitrary or capricious manner. That is my comment, which Mr. Sniffles legally requested. So your act is dead in the water. It will not be carried to discussion.
 
Hmmm.

Sorry, that was an error on my part,
Click to expand...

An error that could easily have been avoided if you took a couple of minutes to speak to me prior to judgement.

t is utterly too convenient for your Iffy Act that this region magically came into existence at just the right time for inclusion in the Iffy Act. I strongly believe you, or someone close to you, created the region, and that is that.
Click to expand...

It is easy to come up with an argument like that, if you want to base a legal ruling on supposition and innuendo.

Can I try? Here Goes....

The region NPD started TGing prominent North Pacific nations just at a time when Blue Wolf fancied giving us an excuse to go to war. Then, damningly, at just about the same time as Blue Wolf is arguing in the Regional Assembly that a show of force will make the NPD back down, their leader Cadre Island posted on their RMB that he is worried at threats from TNP. Blue wolf immediately used this in the regional assembly to back up his argument.

Utterly too convenient. I strongly believe Blue Wolf, or someone close to him, is Cadre Island.

See how easy it is? It is also bollocks. I do not believe BW is Cadre Island. But it is easy (and quite fun) to build up the argument.

But (and it is a big but) Legal Judgements should not be made on suspicion, however strong. As I have posted elsewhere: show me the facts.

The North Pacific Destroyers have taken responsibility for disrupting the delegate election process...How is this for evidence, the fact that it actually happened.
Click to expand...

How is claiming something evidence that it actually happened? I can think of several reasons why a small region might want to gain notoriety by claiming that they toppled a feeder. In fact their claim was disputed on their own RMB by a representative of another region.

I am not disputing outside involvement, but why are you so willing to take their particular claim as fact, when repeated requests for evidence to back up their claim has resulted in nothing?

Great, first lets complain about how long the Judiciary takes when a foregone decision is not quickly reached, then complain how fast a decision was made when it does not support your intentions.
Click to expand...

I do not think I have complained when a decision is not quickly reached. If I have, then I certainly did not mean that future decisions should be so rushed that it is superficial and flawed.

and I viewed it as a joke. Not in the "haha" sense, but more in the sense that it was not something to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Again, an assumption that could have been cleared up with a simple PM. I will admit that the act was hastily and loosely, even informally, worded. But that does not mean it was a joke.

In fact I said when the act was first introduced that :

"some of the language may need tidying up a bit, and putting into more legal jargon."

I viewed it as a joke....Your proposal is and was asinine...faux-legislation.
Click to expand...

Sir, i believe you have allowed your prejudices to overcome the facts of this case. Throughout I have tried to engage with dignity and honest response to queries, yet I have repeatedly seen people in positions of authority jump to conclusions and base decisions on assumptions.

I accept the judgement - legally I have no choice, I believe - but I hope that the next person who introduces legislation that the speaker and justices do not approve of does not find themselves treated in such a calvalier fashion.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

EDIT: Just goes to show there is no point arguing with people who can just lock the thread when they have had enough. Goodnight all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top