[Private] FOIA Requests and Private Court Deliberations

As per my opion on FOIA requests concerning Private Court Deliberation, the answer is that the Court cannot be compelled to detail it's deliberations for a number of reasons. See: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8124525&t=7139122.

Private deliberations of the court, such as IRC logs that contain the actual deliberative process are technically 'ephemera' and cannot be questioned any more than requiring a jury to deliberate in public and then have to explain and detail those deliberations (we once had juries in TNP, so there is precedent in TNP for the privacy of deliberations in judicial matters).

Synopsis of link:

Forcing the Court to make public its deliberations made in private is a violation of separation of powers and diminishes the Court's capacity to function in the form of an Independent Judiciary free of political influence and outside influence in general.

Forcing the Court to make public its deliberations made in private presents a violation of Double Jeopardy insofar as it essentially requires the reexamination of a not-guilty verdict, or a verdict in general.

The Court's deliberations must remain private in order to preserve the independence and integrity of the Court.

Private means private and as such, not for public consumption:

Section 6.2: Freedom of Information Act

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,

The Court by practice and precedent deliberates in private and those deliberations, being private are exempt under law from being made public should even one Justice (a party to a private comunication) not grant permission:


IRC is 'private property', so to speak and not under the control of TNP government or legal system unless those communications in question are conducted in a public IRC channel like #TNP on esper.net, therefore:

The Court cannot be compelled (nor can anyone else) to produce the contents of a private chat on a private channel on IRC because IRC is not under the jurisdiction of the Court, the forum or the Government of TNP.

Also, publishing logs of private deliberations of the Court which were conducted in a private channel on IRC would constitute a violation of forum Terms of Use (specifically privacy issues) unless all participants gave permission for those logs to be published.

Private Court Deliberations are also ephemeral and are private are exempt from compelled publication in the same way that Private Messages on the forum between forum members are.
 
I don't see any reason not to accept this request, so unless Flem has any objections, I'll accept this request in about 24 hours.

Since Kiwi's FOIA request was withdrawn, I don't think any of us have a conflict of interest.
 
I have no objections. I am in general agreement that court deliberations should not be subject to FOIA requests.

However, I think it should be an understood principle that a sufficient level of explanation is given with court decisions. Personally, I thought the court provided that in TNP vs Grosse, but others seem to disagree.
 
OK, since we're all basically agreed on the answer to this one, and we've established before that it's difficult for the three of us to be on IRC at once, Flem, could you take point drafting an opinion for us to review? I suggest relying heavily on SillyString's brief to support our reasoning.
 
Bump on this.

1) Obviously Roman and I still hold our previously stated views. Ator, are you in agreement?

2) Who should write this? I could, but it would probably be functionally equivalent to the brief I already submitted, and would likely constitute some sort of conflict. Are either of you up for taking it on? I give full permission to plagiarize heavily from that brief if you want. :P
 
I can take it on and run up a good brief based upon what is already submitted. I figure that eventually this matter will come up again so t'is best to get it out of the way once and for all. :P
 
Will do. I'll write something up and we can have a look at it. I'm thinking something very short and simple. :P
 
Yeah. I know. If it's worth five words it's worth 500. :lol:

Oh, I like the way you handled the request for an injunction/review by Gross. Exactly what I would have done in nearly the same (although substantially more words :P ). :clap:
 
Basic Text of FOIA Requests and Private Court Decisions:

Considering:

Privacy of deliberation concerning Court Justices and formerly Juries has always been recognized in The North Pacific. Since Court Justices have a great responsibility in deciding guilt or innocence, they must impartial and free of bias. This requires absolute privacy, immune from all external examination, any and all deliberations conducted in private for any of a number of reasons.

First, should private court deliberations be subject to the FOIA, it would have the affect of tempting Justices to tailor their deliberations to fit political pressure or other pressures and render decisions in light of those deliberations.

Second, subjecting the private deliberations of the Court to the FOIA would bind the Court to have their decisions re-examined in violation of the principle of Double Jeopardy.

Third, the Justices would be tempted to render decisions based upon political influences and considerations that cannot be considered given that Justices may only consider evidence and testimony entered into the record in rendering decisions

Fourth, privacy in deliberations is required in order to achieve an unbiased and impartial decision that is free from public examination in order to keep such deliberations unbiased and impartial.

It is also the privilege of the Court to explain or not in rendering a decision the legal or constitutional reasoning of that verdict and to have such a verdict, except upon lawful and legal appeal, free from reexamination, and that re-examination limited to and only to the contents of the record of the proceedings and the content of the opinion in court decisions.

Therefor:

It is the decision of The Court that private deliberations of the Court are exempt from any FOIA requests, and that publication of such private deliberations are absolutely prohibited under any and all circumstances.
 
Sorry this edit took so long to get out! Can you two read it over and let me know what you think?

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Kiwi.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by SillyString.

The Court took into consideration the relevant section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

Section 6.2: Freedom of Information Act
16. 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.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
18. 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
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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...

The Court opines the following:

The question before the Court is whether the Judicial branch is subject to the FOIA law, or more specifically, whether the private deliberations of the Court are subject to release upon request.

Justices are encumbered with the great responsibility of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused party, and of debating the particulars of points of law, in a way which is as impartial and free from bias as possible. The privacy of court deliberations has always been recognized and protected in The North Pacific, as it is integral to this process.

Should this privacy cease to be protected, and Court decisions be deemed subject to FOIA publication upon request, freedom of judicial deliberation would be curtailed. Knowing that their preliminary thoughts and arguments could be made public, Justices would likely be pressured to tailor their posts to fit with political sensibilities and not ruffle prominent political feathers. There would also be pressure to take into account the opinions of prominent members of the region and render final decisions in accordance with their interests, rather than relying on the opinions of the members of the Court and pursuing the path of justice.

It is clear, therefore, that applying the FOIA law to the Judiciary would be a gross violation of the principles of justice and of the integrity of the judicial process, and another interpretation of the law should be sought.

The brief filed by SillyString takes a careful look at the clause-by-clause language of the bill itself, as well as the context in which that language arose, and presents just such an alternative interpretation. SillyString argues that the FOIA law is intentionally restricted to apply the Executive branch alone, and cannot be used to force private discussions within either the Court or the Regional Assembly into the public eye. The Court agrees with this analysis, and with its conclusions.

It is therefore the decision of the Court that the FOIA law may only be used to request information belonging to the Executive branch. Private deliberations of the Court are exempt from any and all FOIA requests, and publication of such private deliberations is absolutely prohibited under any and all circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
I like it. Well done!

I think we can go ahead and publish your edit as written if there are no objections.
 
SillyString:
Sorry this edit took so long to get out! Can you two read it over and let me know what you think?
Click to expand...
Sweet. Here's the code all done up - I'd say publish it within a couple days unless Ator objects?

Code: 
[center][img]http://www.thenorthpacific.org/images/court-seal.png[/img]
[b][big][big][u]Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific[/u][/big][/big][/b][/center][center][i]In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests[/i][/center]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8125466&t=7141064]here[/url] by Kiwi.[/i][/b]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the brief filed [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8126140&t=7141064]here[/url] by SillyString.[/i][/b]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the relevant section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:[/i][/b]

[quote][b]Section 6.2: Freedom of Information Act[/b]
16. 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.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
18. 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
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.[/quote]

[b][i]The Court opines the following:[/i][/b]

The question before the Court is whether the Judicial branch is subject to the FOIA law, or more specifically, whether the private deliberations of the Court are subject to release upon request.

Justices are encumbered with the great responsibility of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused party, and of debating the particulars of points of law, in a way which is as impartial and free from bias as possible. The privacy of court deliberations has always been recognized and protected in The North Pacific, as it is integral to this process.

Should this privacy cease to be protected, and Court decisions be deemed subject to FOIA publication upon request, freedom of judicial deliberation would be curtailed. Knowing that their preliminary thoughts and arguments could be made public, Justices would likely be pressured to tailor their posts to fit with political sensibilities and not ruffle prominent political feathers. There would also be pressure to take into account the opinions of prominent members of the region and render final decisions in accordance with their interests, rather than relying on the opinions of the members of the Court and pursuing the path of justice.

It is clear, therefore, that applying the FOIA law to the Judiciary would be a gross violation of the principles of justice and of the integrity of the judicial process, and another interpretation of the law should be sought.

The brief filed by SillyString takes a careful look at the clause-by-clause language of the bill itself, as well as the context in which that language arose, and presents just such an alternative interpretation. SillyString argues that the FOIA law is intentionally restricted to apply the Executive branch alone, and cannot be used to force private discussions within either the Court or the Regional Assembly into the public eye. The Court agrees with this analysis, and with its conclusions.

It is therefore the decision of the Court that the FOIA law may only be used to request information belonging to the Executive branch. Private deliberations of the Court are exempt from any and all FOIA requests, and publication of such private deliberations is absolutely prohibited under any and all circumstances.
 
Yeah, I like to see people all anticipating the next episode. Some people watch The Walking Dead, in TNP, they watch the Court. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top