FOI Request: Release of Court Logs from TNP v Grosse

Kiwi

Kiwi

TNPer
Pursuant to section 6.2 of the Legal Code, I hereby petition the Delegate to seek out and release the Court discussion log from TNP v Grosseschnauzer.
 
I would also like to see more details as to the Court's reasoning, though I would be satisfied with mere explanation if the Court can provide it. Failing that, I join Kiwi in his request.
 
I think this request is unwise. Court deliberations are undertaken with the assumption by all parties that their words are private. I am worried that this sort of request may become routine, and Court discussions will lose all pretense of privacy, and will turn into political events, where members of the Court will be conscious of how their words will be received by the public (at the expense of justice).

Naturally, I would turn this information over to the Delegate upon his request, I think it would be better for everyone if the Attorney General withdrew his request and sought other means of recourse. This recourse would naturally depend on the reason for his request. If he is merely trying to figure out why he lost the case, I am quite willing to discuss the verdict with him on IRC, and I'm sure Romanoffia and Blue Wolf are willing to as well. If he is concerned about the precedent the verdict may have set about how fraud is interpreted, he has standing to file a request for review to clarify any and all points of ambiguity in the definition.

Also, I will not that no one yet has even asked the court for elaboration on its decision. To jump straight to FOI requests before taking that simple step seems odd. Perhaps it's just that I don't understand the reason this request is being made, as the AG hasn't included one in his request.
 
To be fair, it was one of the magistrates on the case who suggested that a FOI request was the way to go, and implied that the information would only be forthcoming with such a request.

However, I do not agree with this:

I am quite willing to discuss the verdict with him on IRC, and I'm sure Romanoffia and Blue Wolf are willing to as well. If he is concerned about the precedent the verdict may have set about how fraud is interpreted, he has
Click to expand...

Too much takes place on the ephemera of IRC, with no paper trail or record. If there is to be a fuller explanation as to why the hearing officers believe that Grosse is innocent, then a fuller explanation ought to be posted on the forum, or a log of the deliberations released.
 
Firstly, I apologize. It's been a crazy week for me.

I have considered this and have been careful to balance the public interest in transparency and the need for the court to function as a body with a focus on what the law says, rather than what is the most potentially popular move.

I have also viewed the thread in question. Releasing this thread is definitely not a concern for regional security - the key issue here is the privacy of the individuals involved in the thread.

The deliberations of the court chambers are expected to be private. I would not like to create a situation where deliberations on court matters are constantly released and I feel that they should be addressed on a case by case basis. As it stands, deliberations remain in a private archive and can only be viewed by an administrator or a serving Justice. The public remains unaware of the goings on of the court chambers or how the Justice's reach a decision. It is unknown to the public which matters are particularly contentious and often it is unclear what discussion and involvement was given by each of the justices in the case to actually reach their decision. It would be impractical for the Justice chambers to be public while the case is ongoing - this would lead to lobbying and interference in the court system. It would be impossible for some to resist the urge of speaking to a Justice about something they had said in that particular thread - and impossible to resist attempting to change their mind.

I do not feel that the release of this thread will create a domino effect in which all deliberations will be released. However, we do need to balance the need for the court to function and the desire for a true understanding of the verdict. For that reason, I am going to suggest an alternative option that is not delineated in our legal code (oh no!).

In order to protect the integrity of the Court to function and go about it's business privately and the privacy of the individuals involved, I suggest that the Chief Justice go into further detail about the ruling and how the verdict was reached. I expect that this would be done in consultation with Justice Romanoffia and Temporary Hearing Officer Blue Wolf II. This should be done via a post on the regional forum, and not on IRC.

As this decision will be coming over the new year, I will extend a one week deadline till midnight Sunday 5th of January EST. yay deadlines!

If the Attorney General and Defence Attorney is still not satisfied with the details provided by the Court after their release I will approve their application and order that the threads be released immediately. I hope that the Court and the applicants on this matter will be satisfied with my approach on this matter.
 
I have no problem with the entire log and thread being released, none of which I can currently see now anyway, considering my THO masking has been pulled.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think this request is unwise. Court deliberations are undertaken with the assumption by all parties that their words are private. I am worried that this sort of request may become routine, and Court discussions will lose all pretense of privacy, and will turn into political events, where members of the Court will be conscious of how their words will be received by the public (at the expense of justice).

Naturally, I would turn this information over to the Delegate upon his request, I think it would be better for everyone if the Attorney General withdrew his request and sought other means of recourse. This recourse would naturally depend on the reason for his request. If he is merely trying to figure out why he lost the case, I am quite willing to discuss the verdict with him on IRC, and I'm sure Romanoffia and Blue Wolf are willing to as well. If he is concerned about the precedent the verdict may have set about how fraud is interpreted, he has standing to file a request for review to clarify any and all points of ambiguity in the definition.

Also, I will not that no one yet has even asked the court for elaboration on its decision. To jump straight to FOI requests before taking that simple step seems odd. Perhaps it's just that I don't understand the reason this request is being made, as the AG hasn't included one in his request.
Click to expand...
Apologies - I discussed this last night with COE briefly and I was drafting a response to what was said but I fell asleep before posting it.

Anyway I'll post it here for the benefit of people anyway
Kiwi:
Having re-read this comment from you COE a few times (yay for reading things through properly) I just want to say that in no way was this meant to come across as rude or impolite. Indeed, the recourse suggested by one of the standing Justices at the time was a FOI request. I had considered some sort of review of the offence but that's not what I want. I want more detail on the current situation because it provides an appropriate case study for anyone wishing to defend or prosecute such a claim in the future.

I will say that in any Court proceedings it is proper (if not simply good manners) to address the arguments put forth by both the defence and the prosecution. I completely agree with your comment to me privately that you have conformed to previous decision lengths by previous Courts. With all due respect to previous Courts and their decisions, I'm uncomfortable with a decision that effectively says "One of the elements wasn't met but we're not going to go into any detail of why or even address specifically what we believe the elements of the offence to be". Although the former exaggerates unfairly.

The decision as it stands would allow someone to get out of ANY fraud as long as they put "I believe" somewhere in the midst of it. There is no other evidence that reflects that Grosse believed anything with the exception of the two words above. It is reasonable to believe that Tim was going to coup the region but it doesn't necessary follow that Kingborough was aiding in this endeavour. Perhaps a further explanation might incorporate such phrases as "The Court found the argument compelling", "The Court didn't understand what the defence / prosecution were getting at here" or "The submission by the prosecution / defence was unintelligible" or "The Court relied on X evidence over Y and Z so subsequently this evidence's probative value left little doubt that the burden of proof was not met" or some such use of phrasing.

Beyond that it is the Court's obligation (as it is the Attorney Generals) to point out where the law is currently inadequate. As it stands (correct me if I'm wrong) but the level of intention necessary is unbelievably high. Short of someone saying "I was trying to damage Mr. X by making it up", it is going to be near impossible to prosecute. Eluvatar may be quite right to state that this was never intended to be a defamation provision, if that's the case the Court should comment on whether this is the case. Subsequently the Court should state that in future if there is no evidence of any intention that the prosecution can adduce from day one, the charges should be dismissed. There's just no point in continuing with such a farce, otherwise.

Does the Court really believe that a 120 word response is appropriate when my submissions alone were well over 3000 (if I recall correctly)? I'd rather the Court took a bit longer and rendered something a bit more substantial and ultimately USEFUL for future counsel.
Click to expand...
Anyway that's a great choice McM - I appreciate that you've taken this approach of dealing with it. If the Court wants more detail of what I would like to see in the judgment, they can ask.
 
For the record, defense counsel is acting on his own accord as to this matter, I have not been consulted nor have agreed to this request being made.

As a former Chief Justice, I am fully aware of the importance the the deliberations of the Court in reaching a decision be confidential, and in having its judgment and reasoning be reflected in the released ruling. That process can be difficult at times, and can be misunderstood by those who do not participate as a member of the Court concerning how a ruling was reached.

Part of the problem may be stylistic, in that the current form of rulings often do not explain the reasoning as completely as was the case during my various terms as a Justice on the Court.

I have not spoken publicly about this case even though it is now legally concluded, and I do not plan to.
 
My two dimes - I think releasing court deliberations via an FOI request is a bad idea. The justices need the ability to speak privately on cases before them without fear that they will constantly be subject to FOI requests, imo. The tact I took as CJ and Justice was to be as forthcoming in thought process as possible.

Knowing more information is not always beneficial to the process. If people have opinions on a matter regardless if you give them more or less information, they may never be satisfied. Weighing that with the need for the justices to deliberate in private, I'd go for a situation where we don't release information unless the public has an overwhelming need to know. I don't believe that situation has arisen in this fraud case.
 
I have serious objections to this interpretation of the law, and I strongly believe that the Delegate using his administrator access to release private court deliberations would be both illegal and a terrifying precedent.

The law states:
15. The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
16. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
17. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and
18. Citizens which do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.
19. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
20. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.
Click to expand...

To break this down clause by clause:

15. The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.
Click to expand...
Clause 15 clearly bounds the expectations of disclosure to the Executive branch, and Executive officers, alone - and specifically to actions. It makes no provision for disclosure to the RA of court activities, nor of legislative ones, though as the RA is the body disclosed to that latter absence at least makes sense. If the Court had any obligation to disclose its inner workings beyond rendering verdicts and writing rulings, it would say so. It does not - therefore no correlating obligation to the Executive exists in the Judicial branch.
16. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
Click to expand...
Clause 16 when taken alone may appear rather broad, but in the context of the law itself it clearly is expanding on the expectations that clause 15 places on the Executive branch. This is made even more clear from the choice of wording within the clause - the capitalization of Government, conforming with the British English meaning of the Executive branch, as well as specifying requests made to the delegate and Executive officers - and not to officers of the other branches.
17. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, who are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security or unduly impinge on the privacy of private citizens, and
Click to expand...
Clause 17 follows up clause 16 by obligating Executive government officials to respond to FOIA requests with certain exceptions.

Again, the restriction to Executive branch disclosures is clear both from context and wording. The specification of regional security restricts the context away from both legislative and court functions - it is difficult to imagine any court deliberation on an already rendered verdict to possibly pose a threat to regional security.

Moreover, the use of the word "departments" is telling. While it is not used anywhere else in the Constibillocode, it was nevertheless deliberately chosen and there is a great deal of information in its meaning. A department is something with a specific scope that is nevertheless subordinate to a central authority - The Judiciary and the Legislature are branches of government, but they are not departments; they are subordinate to no single figure. Rather, departments is an appropriate term to use to refer to executive ministries - which clearly do fit within the linguistic scope of the term.

The rest of the section deals with issues relating to regional security exemptions, which calls upon the Delegate and Executive officers to argue the case for security before a private court. This goes back to the previous point made, where the scope of this entire section clearly points to the Executive branch alone. In addition, the fact that this case is made to a court indicates that the Judicial branch cannot possibly have been involved earlier in the process - for it to have been involved in the initial FOIA request would represent a blatant conflict of interest later.

Precedentally speaking, if any deliberations from any court case are forcibly made public, that sets the stage for all of them to be made public - and that would seriously interfere with the court's ability to discuss an issue and come to an answer. They would be rendered unable to speak their minds within the court's walls free of the fear of public opinion reprisal, and that would lead to gross miscarriage of justice.

To extend the FOIA to court deliberations is wholly inappropriate and, by my reckoning, blatantly illegal. It is unfortunate that I lack the standing to challenge any such action in court if it were to occur.
 
SillyString, I'm not sure your conclusions are clear from the text of the law.

Clause 15 clearly bounds the expectations of disclosure to the Executive branch, and Executive officers, alone - and specifically to actions. It makes no provision for disclosure to the RA of court activities, nor of legislative ones, though as the RA is the body disclosed to that latter absence at least makes sense. If the Court had any obligation to disclose its inner workings beyond rendering verdicts and writing rulings, it would say so. It does not - therefore no correlating obligation to the Executive exists in the Judicial branch.
Click to expand...

Clause 15 notes who should disclose information (the delegate and appointed gov. officials) but only bounds the information by the phrase "any governmental action not already disclosed by officers of the Executive". It's not clear to me that this restricts the information to executive activities only. I don't see why legislative or judicial actions would not be governmental actions. Whether a log of deliberations is an "action" is another matter.

Moreover, the use of the word "departments" is telling. While it is not used anywhere else in the Constibillocode, it was nevertheless deliberately chosen and there is a great deal of information in its meaning. A department is something with a specific scope that is nevertheless subordinate to a central authority - The Judiciary and the Legislature are branches of government, but they are not departments; they are subordinate to no single figure. Rather, departments is an appropriate term to use to refer to executive ministries - which clearly do fit within the linguistic scope of the term.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the use of that word is as telling as you assert. Departments may be subordinate to a central authority, but the Constitution itself can certainly be that authority.

Just thinking out loud...
 
My opinion about releasing the logs of the court deliberations is a bad idea as it compromises the courts ability to make decisions independent of political concerns and which would set up a situation in which political concerns would be of importance to deliberating justices.

Also, given the construct of the TNP Court, the Justices are not only acting in the capacity of enforcement of order and procedure, but also as jurists in the capacity of members of a jury. Traditionally and in the interest of an independent Judiciary, jury deliberations are considered to be private and, for lack of a better term, ephemeral. If a jury can be questioned about it's deliberation process and lines of reasoning, it taints the whole process in the same way as demanding of a voter in an election his reason for voting for one candidate or another, or, in the event of a private ballot which is case, demanding to know whom the voter voted for and why (which would destroy the whole point of the option of an Australian Ballot method).

And finally, requiring the Court to render a clarification or further detailed decision on a case would essentially open the door for a not-guilty verdict to be judicially reexamined which would necessarily conflict with double jeopardy as it would call into question what is essentially a decision by a jury.

Additionally, such a request for the Court to detail in further granularity in a final decision and opinion is essentially a request for the Court possibly to set an unintended precedent or a precedent for that matter. This would be asking the court, in no uncertain terms, to consider the option of setting a precedent (or not as the case may be) after the fact, which, again, would be a violation of double jeopardy because it is asking for a re-adjudication in terms of a modified, after the fact, a final court decision. This would also be essentially asking the court to act in a way that is tantamount to a forced matter of possible forced legislation from the bench.

Reduced to its ultimate simplicity - if one wants a line of reasoning why a certain law is interpreted in order to change the law, it is better for someone in the RA to propose a change in the law or refinement thereof rather than to ask the court to engage in legislation from the bench after a decision has been rendered. It is better to apply legislation to refine the application of laws and principles of laws rather than to ask the court to do it. It's part of the checks and balances process in which in the end, the people are the ultimate arbiters of everything through the constitutional process.
 
Clause 15 notes who should disclose information (the delegate and appointed gov. officials) but only bounds the information by the phrase "any governmental action not already disclosed by officers of the Executive". It's not clear to me that this restricts the information to executive activities only. I don't see why legislative or judicial actions would not be governmental actions. Whether a log of deliberations is an "action" is another matter.
Click to expand...

Bounding the who also bounds the what, in this case.

Governmental actions undertaken by the RA and the Court are inherently and necessarily public - the RA cannot pass a law in secret, and the court cannot issue a verdict that never sees the light of day. Even in the case of private RA deliberations and a sealed trial, if such were to occur, the resulting action would never be in need of disclosure.

It is the executive branch that deals in secrets - from treaty negotiations to intelligence gathering to military operations, it is the only branch which can take actions and keep them under wraps.

The clause also references information not yet disclosed by the respective Executive officer - that is, respective to the category of the action. While an undisclosed military operation does have a respective Executive officer, namely the Minister of Defense, there exists no Executive officer with respect to the Legislature or to the Judiciary (The AG, while an Executive Officer, exists with respect to the AG's office and not the Court proper).

(And of course, I consider discussions as distinctly different from actions - there is no obligation to disclose discussions.)

I'm not sure that the use of that word is as telling as you assert. Departments may be subordinate to a central authority, but the Constitution itself can certainly be that authority.
Click to expand...

In this I would strenuously disagree, based on how that word is sensibly used.

In the real world, one never hears "department" used to refer to a branch of government. Departments are executive subdivisions - in the US, you can find State, Justice, Homeland Security, etc - whose functions are independent of one another, but whose leadership is all subordinate and responsible to the central Executive head. In other contexts the word is used, as in "department store", the same principle can be seen - the various departments all deal with different categories of product, and may have separate management and staff, but those department managers all answer to a central store manager, by whom they are also likely hired.

"Department" has also never been used in TNP to refer to the RA or the court - we have had innumerable discussions about branches of government, the COI laws regarding deputies, whether the SC is a fourth "Security" branch all its own or something else entirely... not once was "department" used in this context as a synonym. It simply does not and cannot substitute.

Edit: In no context whatsoever that I can think of is the word "department" ever used to indicate subdivisions which are controlled by a central document. It is far more reasonable to interpret its usage in the FOIA law in a way which is in line with both the existing semantic scope of the word as well as the general gist of the rest law, rather than one which supposes that the authors deliberately coined a brand new usage of the term.
 
For the record, I do agree that these logs should not be released. However, what I'm questioning is this particular interpretation of the law itself. Perhaps the law itself is ambiguous on some points and would benefit from judicial clarification.

Governmental actions undertaken by the RA and the Court are inherently and necessarily public - the RA cannot pass a law in secret, and the court cannot issue a verdict that never sees the light of day.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Inherently public, perhaps. Necessarily public, I'm not sure, at least for the RA and potentially for the judiciary. I'm not sure what in the Constitution would prohibit the RA from taking an action behind closed doors or would prohibit the judiciary from a private ruling (though §7 in the Bill of Rights requires that all trials be public). Such action is not provided for in our legal code, but I think it's a possible interpretation of Article 2 for the RA to take action that isn't necessarily public.

In the real world, one never hears "department" used to refer to a branch of government.
Click to expand...

Maybe the misunderstanding here is not how department is used in other nations/regions but how it is used, or more accurately, not used, within our own legal system.

"Department" has also never been used in TNP to refer to the RA or the court - we have had innumerable discussions about branches of government, the COI laws regarding deputies, whether the SC is a fourth "Security" branch all its own or something else entirely... not once was "department" used in this context as a synonym. It simply does not and cannot substitute.
Click to expand...

Department has never been used in TNP (legal code or Constitution) at all, except for the single use within this law. This, of course, is a problem. If we're going to use 'department' as a technical term then we need a technical definition.

Additionally, our Constitution does not define 'branches' of government either. We have executive, legislative, and judicial 'categories', but there are 'government officials' in each of these categories.


I appreciate this discussion, it's quite interesting. You're points have forced me to spend some more time reading the Constitution and reminding myself of the authors' intent. And if the Delegate does decide to release these logs we will end up seeing how the judiciary interprets this law, as I assume there will be a challenge in court if one of the parties with standing objects.
 
Yes, the inconsistency in terminology is definitely a problem in the document - no denying that. :P But lacking a clear consistency of use or established definition in law, we must rely on a word's existing semantic scope, for that is surely what the authors of the law in question were drawing from when they wrote it.

Governmental actions undertaken by the RA and the Court are inherently and necessarily public - the RA cannot pass a law in secret, and the court cannot issue a verdict that never sees the light of day.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Inherently public, perhaps. Necessarily public, I'm not sure, at least for the RA and potentially for the judiciary. I'm not sure what in the Constitution would prohibit the RA from taking an action behind closed doors or would prohibit the judiciary from a private ruling (though §7 in the Bill of Rights requires that all trials be public). Such action is not provided for in our legal code, but I think it's a possible interpretation of Article 2 for the RA to take action that isn't necessarily public.
Click to expand...
I say necessarily public because I cannot imagine a situation where the results would not be public. First of all, the RA votes in a forum which is visible to guests, so even if a discussion were held in private (as some have been, like the discussion on whether to deny Treize's application to the RA), the resulting vote would be public. Second, even if a special private voting forum were established, it's hard to see this as undisclosed - Clause 15 obligates the Executive to disclose to the Assembly, which is itself the entirety of voting TNPers. The RA isn't masked, structured, or empowered to do things which its whole self does not (or cannot) know about.

In terms of the Court, the BoR does require public trials, and it's hard to envision any situation where a private verdict would be workable - the closest we get is in the sealed FOIA hearings allowed for in the latter part of this law itself, and even that doesn't allow the final decision itself to be hidden. The only possible case I could think of of a non-public ruling would be extrajudicial - that is, a court officer voluntarily acting as a private mediator to prevent an interpersonal conflict from going to trial, and that sort of non-governmental action wouldn't be subject to the FOIA anyway. When else could the court possibly act in secret? I'm wracking my brain, but not coming up with anything...

I appreciate this discussion, it's quite interesting.
Click to expand...
I concur! :blush:
 
If the Court releases more information about their ruling then this issue will temporarily stop to be an issue. And then we can go to the Court for a review of it's meaning :P Or amend it as necessary.
 
It's funny, I actually remember there being a slight protest to the idea of putting the IRC log of our decision on the forums specifically for the reasons we are discussing in this thread, that it might be FOI'd.

I really don't see why this is an issue. The Court should be open, its decisions should be on historical record, and the reasoning for the decision should be available for reference in aid of future cases.
 
Blue Wolf II:
It's funny, I actually remember there being a slight protest to the idea of putting the IRC log of our decision on the forums specifically for the reasons we are discussing in this thread, that it might be FOI'd.

I really don't see why this is an issue. The Court should be open, its decisions should be on historical record, and the reasoning for the decision should be available for reference in aid of future cases.
Click to expand...
I really hope you are not suggesting that there was a discussion among the hearing officers as to how a FOIA request might be evaded?
 
Personally I don't think the inner logs should be released. I am certainly unhappy with the length of the decision though - perhaps a happy middle ground could be reached in reforms? i.e. make it clear that executive workings are the only thing subject to FOI requests but place a requirement that Court rulings contain mandatory information?

Just a thought.

I must say it is amusing the Court considered such a possibility.
 
If I may bring up one thing - we don't have protocols around ruling lengths or what needs to be included in a ruling. Whoever is the chief at the time has complete discretion over how much or how little they wish to explain their decisions.

I hope folks won't think this is a stretch but, if someone posts a lot or a little, if there are some who disagree with a ruling there will be some rumblings. I believe this comes with the territory of being a justice and well, judging issues.

But, for the sake of consistency perhaps adopting a standard form that must be used when issuing rulings would help. I still believe court deliberations should be conducted without fear of FOI requests regardless if I agree with BW that I couldn't care less if people saw my backroom posts. I generally try to stick with the motif, what I say privately I own publicly.
 
flemingovia:
I really hope you are not suggesting that there was a discussion among the hearing officers as to how a FOIA request might be evaded?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, Justices are not required to post IRC logs of their private conversations, even in regards to a ruling. It wasn't so much a discussion about how to evade FOIA, it was a talk about if it was even necessary to place the IRC log upon the forums, where it would then be subject to an FOI. In fairness, there was nothing forcing us to put the IRC log on TNP forums, we simply did it as a matter of record,
 
I would like to formally withdraw this request. I have however requested a review of both the fraud law (with some specific questions) and the legality of FOI requests of judicial records. As some of you may have found out, I personally don't agree with the inner workings of these decisions being released. In the present case I acknowledge that at least one justice is okay with their release. This is fine. The precedent itself however, is something that I do not want for our legal system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top