- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6904741/
Can you please tell us that Todd shouldn't have been removed?
Can you please tell us that Todd shouldn't have been removed?
Request for Review
- Thread starter Eluvatar
- Start date
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Since I was serving as Speaker Pro Tempore during this period, I will not be taking a position on this request.
If the Court seeks an official position on the matter from the Attorney General, then I will go solicit someone to handle this for my office.
If the Court seeks an official position on the matter from the Attorney General, then I will go solicit someone to handle this for my office.
Todd McCloud
TNPer
Todd comes in wearing a black pinstripe suit. He sets his briefcase down gently as to not make a loud disturbance and walks up to the presiding judges, the worn bottoms of his fake Italian leather shoes clicking against the cold tile floor. He gives a quick smile and grips his lapels.
"Excellent. To sum it up, I was removed from the RA for not voting in two voting periods. Allow me to explain, and please anyone feel free to correct me." He turns around and gingerly sets his suit coat on the back of a chair, revealing a white dress shirt, thin black tie, and thin black suspenders. He opens his briefcase and pulls out some prepared manuscripts.
"I'll bulletize it for easy reading," he says as he passes out a sheet of paper to every judge.
As the judges finish listening to Todd's oration, they peer from their copies of the prepared manuscript to see a grinning Todd.
"I know very well I could just re-apply and become an RA member after a period of time. But it's the principle, judges. I still don't see what I did wrong. I personally believe I did what any reasonable person would have done in my situation. For what it's worth, my voting record since has been spotless, though I do contest I have not missed a single voting period based on my own inferences, observations, and judgments."
He grimaces and rubs his chin... or muzzle. "I've been a delegate for some two years, and probably will be one again in the future. I've served as a judge, forum admin, legislature, etc. My track record has been one of diligence and care, someone who normally gets the work done and with the least amount of drama possible. But judges, I can't drop this issue. I am taking a stand, a stand for my beliefs and what I feel is right. Laws are meant to guide us, not constrict us. I do not want to re-apply for RA. I don't believe I should have ever been removed in the first place."
"I feel so strongly about this, I wish to submit a few demands. First, I want all my votes that had been discounted since my removal from the RA to be recounted. Second, I want immunity for however many voting periods this court decision takes. If it takes two voting periods, I want to be able to miss that many consecutive voting periods without it being counted against me in any way, shape, or form. I feel I would be voting right now if I was still in the RA and, since I should still be in it, the fact that I cannot is a slap in the face of democracy or the very principles TNP is said to be built on. Third, I demand that the citizen mask be a much different color than the RA mask. I might have been able to see when I was and was not RA had I not gone from an orange name color to... an orange name color."
Todd sits down in his seat, leans forward, and folds his hands in front of himself. "Thank you."
"Excellent. To sum it up, I was removed from the RA for not voting in two voting periods. Allow me to explain, and please anyone feel free to correct me." He turns around and gingerly sets his suit coat on the back of a chair, revealing a white dress shirt, thin black tie, and thin black suspenders. He opens his briefcase and pulls out some prepared manuscripts.
"I'll bulletize it for easy reading," he says as he passes out a sheet of paper to every judge.
- According to the powers that be, I reportedly missed two voting periods. I'll go into detail with each instance, as I would like to contest each missed vote and consequently have my votes during this period counted in full.
- Again, according to what's been said, I missed this vote here and here. Since they started within 72 hours of each other (March 30th and April 2nd), this constitutes as one voting period - that part is not contested.
- On the 26th of March I applied for an RA membership. I was told by then-speaker Limi that I'd be ready to go either on March 29th or April 3rd depending on if the special election was over. Another member, Uncle Jughead (which is still a cool name and I'll refer to henceforth as UJ), was told the same thing: either the 30th or the 3rd.
- No special election was needed, and UJ was masked into the RA on March 30th. I, however, was some five days later, late on April 4th (evidence). Meanwhile, two votes were going on: one about delegate recalling and one on foreign intervention (the two links above).
- As I was masked on the 4th in the midst of a voting period, I felt it unprofessional and perhaps illegal even to vote in these resolutions. Let's not beat around the bush here, I got a little confused and thought delegate recall vote was the same as the delegate recall special election, which is not the case as I've come to find out. But still, this sets a bad precedent, I feel, as I was masked some five days after the start of the voting period. I ask the judges to consider the fact that if this ruling is upheld, this could very well mean that if someone has been accepted into the RA, but cannot vote due to not being masked and misses the voting period (or gets a very short time to vote on said resolution), this could be counted against him or her. I feel this is obscene - only those who are able to vote at the start of the voting period should be expected to vote. If not, what other protocol exists? Is the poor unmasked RA member supposed to know to PM the speaker his or her vote? What if he or she isn't masked in time for two voting periods? Are they to be removed without even getting the chance to vote?
- Furthermore, I was never informed that I had been masked. I had to wait five days to be masked, while UJ was masked on the 30th, because he complained. Are we to set the precedent of complaining in order to speed up processes like this? Frankly, I'm okay with that, but I don't believe this should have been an issue to begin with. I should've been masked and allowed to go before the voting period began.
- Hence, I'm contesting the belief that I missed my first eligible voting period. I don't believe that if a person isn't masked in time for the start of the vote, he or she should still be expected to vote on the matter.
- Another voting period happened here, the Omnibus bill. Initially, the speaker posted that one could vote Aye or Nay, but also added "Anything else, other than an "ABSTAIN" or "PRESENT" vote shall be considered an invalid vote per RA voting rules."
- I voted 'present'. I don't normally do this, but I wasn't present for the discussion of this bill and didn't really want to vote either way, but I also didn't want to not show up for what I thought was my first voting period. I was then told later on that it was illegal to vote in abstention or stating one's presence. However, the original post (at the time) clearly stated that I could do such.
- It still stated this when I wrote this post. In it, you'll find the original wordage from the speaker in his OP (which was subsequently edited out later on), my explanation, and the speaker's complaints on my post. I figured it was open-and-shut from there: what's said was said, and nothing else was needed. As I was busy for the next two days, I didn't really have the time nor did I really care to read what I thought would be a post simply stating 'oh sorry dude'.
- If it's written to be acceptable at the time, then the wordage is changed halfway through, I don't see how that would be my fault. The err should lie with the speaker, who did not write the correct procedure or the demonstrate the correct care for procedure.
- I am therefore contesting the fact that I did not show up for this voting period. Clearly, I posted in this thread, so I did show up, and at the time I followed correct procedure as per what was written in the original post of the resolution.
As the judges finish listening to Todd's oration, they peer from their copies of the prepared manuscript to see a grinning Todd.
"I know very well I could just re-apply and become an RA member after a period of time. But it's the principle, judges. I still don't see what I did wrong. I personally believe I did what any reasonable person would have done in my situation. For what it's worth, my voting record since has been spotless, though I do contest I have not missed a single voting period based on my own inferences, observations, and judgments."
He grimaces and rubs his chin... or muzzle. "I've been a delegate for some two years, and probably will be one again in the future. I've served as a judge, forum admin, legislature, etc. My track record has been one of diligence and care, someone who normally gets the work done and with the least amount of drama possible. But judges, I can't drop this issue. I am taking a stand, a stand for my beliefs and what I feel is right. Laws are meant to guide us, not constrict us. I do not want to re-apply for RA. I don't believe I should have ever been removed in the first place."
"I feel so strongly about this, I wish to submit a few demands. First, I want all my votes that had been discounted since my removal from the RA to be recounted. Second, I want immunity for however many voting periods this court decision takes. If it takes two voting periods, I want to be able to miss that many consecutive voting periods without it being counted against me in any way, shape, or form. I feel I would be voting right now if I was still in the RA and, since I should still be in it, the fact that I cannot is a slap in the face of democracy or the very principles TNP is said to be built on. Third, I demand that the citizen mask be a much different color than the RA mask. I might have been able to see when I was and was not RA had I not gone from an orange name color to... an orange name color."
Todd sits down in his seat, leans forward, and folds his hands in front of himself. "Thank you."
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I want to advise the Court that former Attorney General Eluvatar, who filed the original request for review in this matter, will be filing the requested statement of views for the Attorney General's office.
Thank you, Justice Hileville, for making this forum available for input from the citizenry at large. Perusing the Bill of Rights, we find:
10. 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.
Since Mr. McCloud was accepted into the RA, but was not masked before the start of voting, he was unable to vote as was his right. He is entitled to his right to vote. Did the powers that be protect his right to vote, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? No! Instead of the protections to which he was and is entitled, he was stripped of his RA membership altogether. For shame!
For those who are so intent on dissecting the minutiae of the convoluted procedural legislation guiding the RA, I fear that they have lost sight of the big picture. The fundamental democratic rights of our citizens, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, takes precedence over Law 28, 29, 299, etc. The pesky regulations amount to gerrymandering and are infringing on our basic constitutional rights
As such, Mr. McCloud should be reinstated to the RA with an effective date of March 30, 2012. Furthermore, those responsible for this situation owe him an apology. Even if it was a mistake, oversight, confusion or knee-jerkiness, please do the right thing.
10. 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.
Since Mr. McCloud was accepted into the RA, but was not masked before the start of voting, he was unable to vote as was his right. He is entitled to his right to vote. Did the powers that be protect his right to vote, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? No! Instead of the protections to which he was and is entitled, he was stripped of his RA membership altogether. For shame!
For those who are so intent on dissecting the minutiae of the convoluted procedural legislation guiding the RA, I fear that they have lost sight of the big picture. The fundamental democratic rights of our citizens, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, takes precedence over Law 28, 29, 299, etc. The pesky regulations amount to gerrymandering and are infringing on our basic constitutional rights
As such, Mr. McCloud should be reinstated to the RA with an effective date of March 30, 2012. Furthermore, those responsible for this situation owe him an apology. Even if it was a mistake, oversight, confusion or knee-jerkiness, please do the right thing.
Todd McCloud
TNPer
Todd stands up. "Quite right! Quite right! And let this be a lesson for anyone else who gets choked by the very law that is supposed to protect them. Thanks, GBM!"
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
Office of the Attorney General of The North Pacific
Eluvatar, assistant attorney assigned to prepare a brief on this review.
May it please the Court,
In this brief we must consider these documents:
Relevant sentences from the bill of rights:
Relevant passages from the Constitution:
Relevant clauses of TNP Law 28:
Membership in the Regional Assembly is voluntary, so bill of rights clause 3 is not violated by the law or its implementation.
Equal treatment and protection is generally understood to mean that it should be treated uniformly, without prejudice. Therefore, the bill of rights' clause 10 means that there should not be exceptions, we should not interpret the law more strictly for some and less strictly for others.
Finally, the Constitution's requirement that the Assembly create and maintain a uniform procedure for membership and removal is much in the same vein. The process must be created but more importantly it must apply to everyone the same way. There is an additional requirement imposed here that the process must not be arbitrary; drawing members by lot would be equal treatment, but would not be uniform.
Therefore it is clear that the bill of rights demands only that Regional Assembly membership changes be implemented in a process where who the RA member is is not a factor, and every applicant and member is treated the same.
TNP Law 28 requires that no one be admitted while a vote (or election) is in progress. Therefore, Todd McCloud was approved the 26th and admitted the 29th. However, forum administration made an error and did not mask those nations which awaited admission on the 29th in a timely manner. One such nation asked for clarification of their situation on the 30th and were masked, but Todd did not. This violated Todd's rights under the bill of rights. Todd was not masked until April 4th.
The law requires that if a member misses 2 votes which do not overlap but are one after another, that they be removed. (Unless they have informed the Speaker of an absence in advance). Todd McCloud missed the re-vote on recalling the Delegate which opened March 30th and ended April 6th, 2 days after he was granted access to the Regional Assembly floor. Todd McCloud was counted as missing the vote on the Omnibus bill which began April 5th and ended April 12th.
The two votes overlap, so Todd McCloud should not have been removed because of subsection A.
(Subsection A of course says that two "consecutive" votes must not overlap).
Todd's rights were in fact violated under the bill of rights as the process established was not followed correctly.
It would appear that a reasonable remedy would be to order the restoration of Todd McCloud to the Regional Assembly, and judicially noting that he was not validly removed and therefore continued to be a Regional Assembly member de jure. Therefore Todd McCloud would be eligible to be a candidate in the upcoming May elections, having legally been a member of the Regional Assembly for the preceding 30 days.
Thank you,
~Eluvatar
Eluvatar, assistant attorney assigned to prepare a brief on this review.
May it please the Court,
In this brief we must consider these documents:
- The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific
- The Constitution of The North Pacific
- THE NORTH PACIFIC LEGAL CODE (TNP Law 28)
Relevant sentences from the bill of rights:
Bill of Rights:
Relevant passages from the Constitution:
Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 1:
Relevant clauses of TNP Law 28:
andTNP Law 28 Article II Section One Clauses 5-6:
TNP Law 28 Article III Section Two Clauses 3-4A:
Membership in the Regional Assembly is voluntary, so bill of rights clause 3 is not violated by the law or its implementation.
Equal treatment and protection is generally understood to mean that it should be treated uniformly, without prejudice. Therefore, the bill of rights' clause 10 means that there should not be exceptions, we should not interpret the law more strictly for some and less strictly for others.
Finally, the Constitution's requirement that the Assembly create and maintain a uniform procedure for membership and removal is much in the same vein. The process must be created but more importantly it must apply to everyone the same way. There is an additional requirement imposed here that the process must not be arbitrary; drawing members by lot would be equal treatment, but would not be uniform.
Therefore it is clear that the bill of rights demands only that Regional Assembly membership changes be implemented in a process where who the RA member is is not a factor, and every applicant and member is treated the same.
TNP Law 28 requires that no one be admitted while a vote (or election) is in progress. Therefore, Todd McCloud was approved the 26th and admitted the 29th. However, forum administration made an error and did not mask those nations which awaited admission on the 29th in a timely manner. One such nation asked for clarification of their situation on the 30th and were masked, but Todd did not. This violated Todd's rights under the bill of rights. Todd was not masked until April 4th.
The law requires that if a member misses 2 votes which do not overlap but are one after another, that they be removed. (Unless they have informed the Speaker of an absence in advance). Todd McCloud missed the re-vote on recalling the Delegate which opened March 30th and ended April 6th, 2 days after he was granted access to the Regional Assembly floor. Todd McCloud was counted as missing the vote on the Omnibus bill which began April 5th and ended April 12th.
The two votes overlap, so Todd McCloud should not have been removed because of subsection A.
(Subsection A of course says that two "consecutive" votes must not overlap).
Todd's rights were in fact violated under the bill of rights as the process established was not followed correctly.
It would appear that a reasonable remedy would be to order the restoration of Todd McCloud to the Regional Assembly, and judicially noting that he was not validly removed and therefore continued to be a Regional Assembly member de jure. Therefore Todd McCloud would be eligible to be a candidate in the upcoming May elections, having legally been a member of the Regional Assembly for the preceding 30 days.
Thank you,
~Eluvatar
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the request for review made by Eluvatar on Todd McCloud's removal from the Regional Assembly
The Court took into consideration the following:
Article 2:
as well as:
Article 3:
in addition the Court also took into consideration the following:
Relevant parts of the Bill of Rights:
The Court has determined that Todd McCloud was removed from the Regional Assembly illegally as the two votes that he was said to have missed overlapped. Todd McCloud had his rights violated by wrongly being stripped of his Regional Assembly membership. Furthermore the Court has determined that Todd McCloud being masked in the middle of a vote wrong. The administration staff needs to be more careful when masking new members of the Regional Assembly.
The Court hereby orders the following:
1. Todd McCloud's membership in the Regional Assembly must be restored immediately and will be effective from March 29, 2012 when he was accepted.
2. All votes in which Todd McCloud has missed since his removal cannot count against a removal from the Regional Assembly.
The Court also recommends the following:
1. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 contains a typo which includes "]" after the word "whose". This should be fixed immediately.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The Attorney General notes the error pointed out by the Chief Justice, and points the Court's attention to Law 32 which spells out the procedure for such corrections.
Is this the point where I lol at the absurdity of TNP?Grosseschnauzer:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
Actually TNP Law 32 is in applicable in this case as it specifies a specific class of error that this does not fall under.Grosseschnauzer:
Actually this is almost certainly an error on the part of whoever edited the actual legal code document. I'll check the vote page; this is probably a leftover from insertion/deletion annotation.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
Done.
Todd McCloud
TNPer
Thanks, folks.
I'd also like my votes re-instated (no more of this 'Todd tried to vote but...' jargon) seeing as I was removed on illegal grounds.
I'd also like my votes re-instated (no more of this 'Todd tried to vote but...' jargon) seeing as I was removed on illegal grounds.
Grosseschnauzer:
The Chief Justice does not believe TNP Law 32 applies in this case. Furthermore the Court is not required to submit items to the Regional Assembly in this case. It was the Court stating we have found an error and it should be fixed. The Court did not say how it was to be fixed just that it should be immediately.
I thank Eluvatar for fixing this grammatical error.
flemingovia:
Thank You
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Interesting. Does this decision effect all those members who were accepted into the RA on March 29, 2012 but not admitted until a later date, or just Todd?Hileville:
Todd McCloud
TNPer
You know... it would have to be everyone, I would imagine, as there was no ruling made on the reasons why I contested the votes (put in during a vote, voting present which was correct for the time). Rather, it was for the votes overlapping, which would mean anyone who was thrown out during these votes should still be a member of the RA.Blue Wolf II:
Todd McCloud
TNPer
Thanks for sorting the issue out, Hile.