Godvindia and the Office for Judicial Affairs

It appears that the Delegate, and the Officer heading the Office of Judicial Affairs in the Cabinet have imposed a restriction on a resident of The North Pacific that bars that Nation from applying for membershiip in the Regional Assembly:

transcript thread on Godvinia "hearing."

The CLO has the authority to suspend the action and to submit legislation for adoption by the Regional Assembly.

The topic for discussion is whether the action should be suspended by the CLO, and whether legislation should be submitted to the Regional Assembly related to the issue at hand.
 
Alright let's settle this matter once and for all. FIRST OFF: I AM NOT TRYING TO BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT OR THINK SOME KIND OF WATERGATE IS HAPPENING. And for the sake of saving me from an impending headache and/or week long booze bender, I'd just like some questions to be answered by the government. If not answered soon, I'll bring it to the office of the Minister of Justice.

First off, while I may disagree with this policy of security pre-screening some statements need further elaboration.

NF:
We did not interfere with the application process as he never applied in the first place which means it's out of your court.

The RA deals with application process, not with those applying to apply
.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but is there an application to apply to the RA? If not then how did this enter into the government's radar? Is the government pre-screening who may apply to the RA?

If the nation was not banned and only had a questionable past then what criteria does the government use in pre-screening?

Obviously the nation in question would be rejected either way, thus suspending the action does not good. Legislation only interferes with the Constitutional powers already outlined. What I feel we need to get at is the process of how the executives are screening potential RA applicants. If they are bypassing the Speaker then that's a Constitutional violation, if they feel the Con obligation of security requires prescreening then an Amendment (nasty affair really in this atmosphere) will be required. Since both arguments could be constitutionally valid. I would request a Judicial hearing.

Let the government explain itself first, they deserve that right as it was their decision. I'd like to say that these public hearings are a great idea and I commend the government for publishing it. However should no sort of compromise in the form guidelines be accomplished in this screening process then a judicial hearing will be required. Kids, you guys work this out or the mommy with the big hammer will have to do it for you.

I await the government's response to the following:
1) How did the nation come to the government's attention?
a) If the government is obligated to filter potential applicants before they reach the Speaker then some sort of guideline or agreement will need to be put in place. What is the Del's position?
2) Why is the Justice minister knee deep in security, and the Defense minister in the dark?
3) Will this be the policy for future nations thinking of citizenship?
4) If the nation was so dangerous that even considering his/her application would be so dangerous, why was there not an outright ban soon after?
5) What's the pay like for watching new entries into the region? Because it sounds really boring and there has to be some really pretty carrots at the end of the stick.
 
R

Romanoffia (Guest)

Guest
I Gave a more detailed answer to the legal issues on this matter elsewhere, but given the less than open nature of the legal systems in other regions concerned in this matter (regions that do not have as high of a "innocent until proved guilty" standard as we), My first instinct on this matter is to have the CLO suspend this particular action for a couple of reasons:

1. No unadjudicated offense against The North Pacific appear to exist;

2. Pre-screening of applicants to the RA is confined to determining if the applicant meets the minimum requirements for RA membership;

3. Denial of membership in the RA for offenses must be for offenses against TNP as a region/government and that the applicant only an applicant who was adjudicated for an offense previous to the application should be denied approval;

4. Denial of this application would be prejudicial because the applicant hasn't been convicted of a crime or security violation by the judicial authorites.

5. If the application is going to blocked, the appropriate legal authority should request an injunction or stay until the matter is adjudicated to conclusion and a judge should hear the complaint and redress to the charges or reasons for denial of the application;

6. That the matter be submitted for legislation to clear up this particular legality and procedure in a manner that doesn't violate the principle of prohibition of ex post facto laws or other retroactive action.

Conclusion:

1. The CLO suspend this action immediately;

2. Legislation be constructed to clarify the whole procedure of approval and denial in detail in such a manner that does not produce and ex post facto situation;

3. The same legislation include provisions that convictions for actions prior to the application for RA membership discovered prior to, during or after the application be germane to procedures for expulsion from the RA;

4. Rre-screening of an applicant other than to determine whether or not the application to the RA should be denied should be presented via the proper prosecutorial authority to the Court for an injunction to stop the application from being granted until the matter can be adjudicated.


IOW, I essentially agree with mr_sniffles. ;D
 
As I've stated in the threads in the Internal Affairs and Private Cabinet forums, my primary concern is the use of such a procedure to block a Nation from even applying for membership in the Regional Assembly (in other words, imposing a condition of prior approval ftom the Executive, something not authorized as part of the uniform procedure under Law 28 for Regional Assembly registration and membership.)

A second concern is how to receive and handle infelligence or other similar information that the Speaker is authorized to receive under Law 28 in the application process. I have no problem with the Delegate and his appointed Cabinet from submitting information to the Speaker, but the question then becomes how such information is to be handled, and when such information supports a denial. There also has to be some consideration of when the application involves a violation of TNP law (or the forum TOS here) or a violation of the laws of some other region (or the forum TOS elsewhere).

At this point N.K. has stated he would reverse his decision, however, it still leaves open the possibility of these two concerns appearing in the future.

So we need to decide:
(1) if we still want to intervene in the current decision;
(2) whether a prohibition needs to be enacted concerning interference with a Nation's right to apply for RA membershup in the absence of a judicially-imposed punishment or a legally authorized ejection or ban from the region; and
(3) whether a law is needed to provide a process or standard for the Speaker to follow when there is evidence that would support denial and the evidence originates from outside the region or the official forums.
 
There has actually been two differing opinions. Roman thinks legislation will help, I think it would be wasteful and divisive just to sum up a turf war. I believe a judicial clarification will be right as the Delegate has already offered to allow Gov apply and be rightfully rejected by the Speaker.

FACONKATS, you would be the majoirty vote.
 
Top