Request for Review

Zyvetskistaahn

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
TNP Nation
Zyvetskistaahn
Discord
Zyvet#9958
Your honours,

I would like to ask the Court to review the law relating to the admission of applicants to the Regional Assembly, specifically, in regard to the security check by the Vice Delegate and whether, if an applicant is rejected by the Vice Delegate and that rejection is upheld, the Speaker is required to deny that applicant at all future points at which they apply (I should note that this was my initial presumption and why I initially denied the application of Treize_Dreizehn, here); whether each application by a person would have to be rejected and upheld separately (though I presume this is not the case as the law specifies it is the applicant that is rejected, rather than the application) and whether an upheld rejection can be rescinded in any way, either unilaterally by the Vice Delegate (as was done by Democratic Donkeys, here, after which I rescinded my denial), by a resolution of the Regional Assembly annulling its previous resolution upholding the rejection, or through some other method.

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they do not pose a threat to regional security.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
9. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
10. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
14. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.

I presume that, as I am Speaker and am charged with processing applicants, I hold standing to request this review.

EDIT: Further, I would like to ask about the specific case of Treize_Dreizehn, namely as to whether it is lawful for him to be admitted to the Regional Assembly and if anything further should be done in regard to that case.
 
Let me ponder this and ask the other justices (there will be an new Justice elected to replace COE shortly).
 
This apparently got put on the back burner. I've been following the related thread in the RA and apparently I am the only Justice left standing as it appears that the others have recused themselves or indicated that they are going to recuse themselves from this matter.

At any rate, I will take a look at this and hopefully without having to appoint two THOs for the process.
 
Kinda hard to say anything's been put on the back burner when there is no apparent front burner.

But I quit, so take that for what it's worth :P
 
Romanoffia:
This apparently got put on the back burner. I've been following the related thread in the RA and apparently I am the only Justice left standing as it appears that the others have recused themselves or indicated that they are going to recuse themselves from this matter.

At any rate, I will take a look at this and hopefully without having to appoint two THOs for the process.
Click to expand...
I do not recall recusing myself on this matter.
 
I don't remember recusing myself, either, and think me being Chief Justice I shall help preside over this case.
 
flemingovia:
Romanoffia:
This apparently got put on the back burner. I've been following the related thread in the RA and apparently I am the only Justice left standing as it appears that the others have recused themselves or indicated that they are going to recuse themselves from this matter.

At any rate, I will take a look at this and hopefully without having to appoint two THOs for the process.
Click to expand...
I do not recall recusing myself on this matter.
Click to expand...
Ah, I misread a thread. Leekem seems to have recused. At any rate, I'll start a thread in the Private Chambers were we can ponder our ponderings and suss this matter out in day or two.
 
So sorry Mr. Speaker and Roman, I seemed to have misread COE question; but I would like to preside over this case. Please consider my recuse as null and void and lets get on with this trial quick and timely.
 
Leekem:
So sorry Mr. Speaker and Roman, I seemed to have misread COE question; but I would like to preside over this case. Please consider my recuse as null and void and lets get on with this trial quick and timely.
Click to expand...
As you have already come to an opinion quite publicly on the matter, and stated publicly that you would be recusing yourself because of it, it would be entirely inappropriate for you to attempt to remain on the case now.
 
I feel that, as so often in TNP, folks are interpreting grounds for recusal too broadly.

To hold opinions is part of being human, and no justice goes into a case without having an opinion on the case, or on the general point of law surrounding it.

Grounds for recusal would be if 1) the justice has a personal involvement in the matter at hand or 2) (s)he has an opinion so strongly held and inflexible that it renders them incapable of listening objectively to the evidence and reaching a fair verdict based on that evidence. The issue is not whether one has an opinion, but whether one can change that opinion.

I doubt if Leekem has a personal involvement in the case, and so long as he can listen to the evidence objectively I see no reason for recusal. As a fellow justice I would support his presiding in this case.
 
Yeah Leekem, do what you want. There aren't any rules regarding you recusing yourself. And if anyone whines about you going back on your word, don't listen to them. Chances are if they have been playing this game for a while then they have gone back on their word before, and just want to have their cake and eat it too. Nothing wrong with changing your mind. :)
 
Leekem:
So sorry Mr. Speaker and Roman, I seemed to have misread COE question; but I would like to preside over this case. Please consider my recuse as null and void and lets get on with this trial quick and timely.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not a trial. It is a Request for Review.
 
There will be now!

I'll get this discussed with the other justices and we will issue a review on this matter.
 
The Court is now accepting briefs on this issue. Briefs will be accepted until a ruling is made, which will be no less than three days from now.
 
Brief

The law doesn't make any provision for overturning the VD/RA's decision on an applicant, and does not provide explicit direction for what to do if a denied applicant reapplies. Since no special procedure is given, it seems to me that there are two possibilities:
  1. Once an applicant is denied, they are denied forever; or
  2. If a denied applicant reapplies, they go through the same system as they did the first time.
One might be tempted to consult the intentions of the original authors of this legislation, and doing so results in some limited help. As someone who contributed to the language of the bill that created this situation, and in looking over past discussions in the debate thread, and speaking to others who contributed language to the bill, I can say a few things with relative certainty:
  1. This exact situation (an applicant who was denied reapplies under the next Vice Delegate and is admitted) was not envisioned by the original authors;
  2. It was not the intention of the original authors to allow a denied applicant to reapply ad nauseum, being denied each time, flooding the RA with votes to uphold their rejection;
  3. It was not the explicit intent of the authors for applicants to be denied permanently with no possible recourse for joining the RA years down the line.
It is important to emphasize number (1): the authors did not seriously think about the possibility of an applicant reapplying and being admitted after being rejected the first time. This means that the ultimate answer to this question is not found in the intent of the authors, but is rather an unintended consequence of the language they chose to use. The only time that re-application was considered, it was assumed that it would be denied again. Serious thought was not put into the possibility of a new Vice Delegate reconsidering the decision of a previous one. Some provisions for admission after being denied were considered, but none made it into the final draft of the bill.

The term "applicant" as opposed to application was used deliberately to accomplish the intent of number (2) above. It was presumed that denying an applicant as opposed to the applicant's application (the term used throughout the rest of the section) would prevent reapplication. I argue that, indeed, it does prevent reapplication. Once an applicant is denied, they are denied permanently. This was not the explicit intent of the authors, but ultimately, I would argue that the final language of the bill did not reflect their intentions perfectly. Since no provision for admission following a rejection was ultimately adopted, I argue that rejection under the current law is permanent.

Thus, when Treize_Dreizehn reapplied for admission into the RA, his application was invalid, and should not have been considered. When he was ostensibly admitted into the RA, it was in violation of the Legal Code, and his continued presence in the RA chambers and TNP government is also illegal. I urge the court to order his removal from the RA and positions in the government, as his admission should never have occurred in the first place.
 
Brief:

I would like to submit my own brief on this issue, though I hope the court will bare with me as I am not a professional lawyer but am a mere citizen on the Regional Assembly and my expertise is as a mere clerk and micro-farmer.

I would like to point out that there is a current proposal being voted on which mandates that a Vice Delegate must hold consultation with the Security Council to determine if someone is a risk or not so it would not merely be the VDs decision but the VDs with input from the members of the SC so the VD could have some clout to back up his or her decision that he or she was not acting hasty but instead on the recomendations of the SC, and further amendment to that section would allow the RA to hold a vote at thier descretin presumable when a previous denied applicant decides to reapply that would allow the RA to vote to overturn a previously upheld rejection and let the applicant into the halls of the RA.

Just because the original authors did not think reasonably that a person would try to reapply once denied, and since as it is currently written there is no provisions in place for a procedure for how to handle denied applicants reapplication I feel it should be left up to the discretin of the Vice Delegate to change thier mind if an applicants situation changes or a new Vice Delegate to reverse a former VDs decision.

If the new proposal goes into effect I feel if a Vice delegate wishes to reverse a denied application they would have to consult with the Security Council and then let the RA vote on the applicant. Concurrently if it passes it will have the clause inserted about the RA can vote to overturn a previous upheld decline, as such I feel the RA could act on thier own to propose a vote to overturn a previous decline and allow someone into the RA without the Vice Delegate or the Security Council deciding to review a particular case. The RA could act alone to reverse a decision or the VD could decide to reverse a decision consult with the SC then propose it to the RA for a vote.

Futhermore I feel it abhorrant to suggest a declined application means the applicant would be denied for life, as from my limited time here I have learned and been told the TNP is a place of 2nd and sometimes even 3rd chances.
I feel strongly the VD, SC, and RA can work together and a system be in place to allow previous denied applicants admission into the RA if the RA and SC and VD feels the person has demonstrated a good faith effort to correct whatever mistake(s) that led to them being disqualified in the first place.

I hope the court will consider my words when making a determination on this case. Thank you for the courts time.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
*snip*
Click to expand...

I'll keep this Brief:

The idea that the absence of clear language defining what happens when someone reapplies necessitates the strictest possible interpretation of the law is laughable. The law contains no provisions for reapplications. An applicant's denial is not specifically permanent... and the Vice Delegate was well within his power to make the call of treating the application as new.

To say that all denials have permanency is to say that mistakes can never be made in their application. If new evidence came to light exonerating a previously denied RA member, I think we can all agree that a re-evaluation of the denial would (and should) be in the offing. We should apply that logic to all applications unless there is a strongly compelling reason not to, or a specifically worded restrictions we must follow.

In the absence of anything specific on the subject of re-application, the least strict interpretation must necessarily be applied. To do otherwise would be to create law, rather than interpret it.
 
With the recent passage of an amendment concerning the Vice Delegate checks, and the opportunity for the RA to overturn a ruling on a previously declined applicant.

here

And the delegate McMasterdonia approving it and enacting it into law here

I am unsure, how that will affect the courts ruling. But I just wanted to let the court be aware of the changes in this regard as it factors into this possible review.
 
We have no specific date. This request will be handled after the previously filed open request has been answered, both of which will hopefully be concluded SOON(tm).
 
I cannot express this more strongly.

This request was made to the court on Jan 28 2014. The question put to the court was around the legality of TD able to legally be a member of the RA if his prior application had been rejected. The relevant law is here

7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

Clause 8 not only implies but specifically states that it is only the RA that can overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant. In other words, once the RA rejects an applicant that rejection remains in place in perpetuity until the RA overturns it. If this were not the case, there would be no need for clause 8. CoE, in his brief, made a similar point.

I strongly urge the court to rule on this matter forthwith and not place this on the backburner. This is not a frivolous request but the decision the court makes has bearing on a member of the RA. If the court finds as CoE and I believe, this means every act TD has made these past months are illegal.

Every act he makes further also will be illegal. If the court finds in the alternative then clause 8 might as well be removed because it does not have the effect that was intended. By "intention" I'm not speculating, I'm saying the intent of clause 8,as stated allows the RA to "overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote."

I am giving the court 48 hours to respond to my "urging" or I will seek alternative means to get the court to get its "butt in gear" as it were.
 
Id like to note as previous noted clause 8. Has been enacted into law recently. This review was filed months ago, and the law has changed since, while the court had been letting this pile dust.
 
Just to note, clause 8 was only recently added to the legal code. It does not apply to this case as all of the pertinent events in it were prior to clause 8's existence. That said I of course wouldn't mind a speedy decision here.

I would note of course that the court can just as easily rule that all my actions so far have been legal actions while still denying me my membership in the RA. There's a term for that, but I cannot remember it for the life of me. Though I would of course prefer to remain a contributing member of TNP's society. ;)
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Just to note, clause 8 was only recently added to the legal code. It does not apply to this case as all of the pertinent events in it were prior to clause 8's existence. That said I of course wouldn't mind a speedy decision here.

I would note of course that the court can just as easily rule that all my actions so far have been legal actions while still denying me my membership in the RA. There's a term for that, but I cannot remember it for the life of me. Though I would of course prefer to remain a contributing member of TNP's society. ;)
Click to expand...
Acting in good faith?
 
We are working on it. However, as this is a tricky issue and as our time in the preceding weeks has been focused on the other outstanding requests for review, an exact time frame for when a decision will be ready cannot be provided.

Roman is a very optimistic Chief Justice, and we are doing everything we can to meet his desired time frame. But the three of us agree - and I think you will as well - that making a correct ruling is more important than simply rendering something at all.

So... "SOON".
 
A correct and expedient ruling is the best case scenario. But "correct" is in the eye of the beholder. I think timing, at this point, is really the issue. How you decide impacts quite a number of things. If you decide TD never should have been allowed to be a member of the RA, then his participation within the H&H trial is certainly up for questioning especially if you find H&H guilty.

Lots of legal complications around this ruling depending on which way you all decide.
 
Actually, Douria's membership in the RA is immaterial with respect to his participation in the recent trial. Under current law, the AG may delegate prosecution of a criminal matter to anybody they wish - that person need not be an RA member, or even a TNPer. Douria could have prosecuted the case either way.

I agree that there are legal complications in question, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top