Request for Review

court-seal.png

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Zyvetskistaahn on rejected Regional Assembly applicants​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Crushing Our Enemies.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by PaulWallLibertarian42.

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

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code of 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.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

This issue is a difficult one, and there is little legal guidance for the Court to fall back upon. While the law is quite clear on the procedure for rejecting an applicant from the Regional Assembly, it says nothing at all about reversing that decision - whether such is possible, or, if it is, the procedure by which to do so. The Court therefore found itself weighing two potential interpretations, both with elements of validity.[note]The Court considered a third possible interpretation - that, lacking any assignation of the power to reverse a previous decision, it was held by the Vice Delegate, but that that power was lost once it was assigned to the Regional Assembly by recent legislation, as seen in Chapter 6, Section 1, Clause 8 as it currently stands. However, the Court ultimately rejected this as an option. The power to alter a previous decision can, in theory, be held by more than one party. It would not be impossible for both the Vice Delegate and the Regional Assembly to have separate legal paths to overturn an applicant's rejection. It is therefore the opinion of the court that the recent amendment to this law does not affect whether or not the Vice Delegate had and holds the power to admit rejected applicants.[/note]

The first possible interpretation is that, absent any specific permission, the Vice Delegate did not have the power to overturn a previous rejection, and that Treize Dreizehn's admission to the Regional Assembly was never legal.

The second possible interpretation is that, absent any specific prohibition, the Vice Delegate may unilaterally pass previously rejected applicants in the same manner that administrators can, and that Treize Dreizehn's admission to the Regional Assembly was fully legal. Additionally, lacking any specific prohibition, the Vice Delegate may continue to unilaterally allow previously rejected applicants admission to the Regional Assembly under current law.

Ultimately, however, there is a fundamental legal principle underlying this case which the Court must rely on. This principle is as follows: it is against the spirit of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Legal Code for the executive branch to hold unilateral authority to overrule the expressed will of the legislature.

In all cases where this power exists in part, it is tempered by balance. While the executive can veto legislation, that veto can be overridden by the Regional Assembly. While the executive can deny a FOIA request, that denial can be overturned by the Court.

To rule that, in this case, a member of the executive has the discretion to ignore the will of the RA as expressed in a legally binding vote would be to reject the balance of power between the branches.

In answer to Zyvetskistaahn's questions, the Court therefore rules:

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, unless the Regional Assembly has voted to overturn their rejection. It is not necessary for each application to be rejected and upheld separately; as noted, the language specifies an "applicant" and a single vote is sufficient. An upheld rejection may only be rescinded by a vote of the Regional Assembly or a ruling from the Court declaring the previous rejection invalid.

As for the specific case of Treize_Dreizehn, the Court rules that his original admission to the Regional Assembly was not lawful. However, over the past four months he has acted in nothing but good faith. He has been a productive member of the RA, has voted on legislation and run in elections, and has served admirably in the Attorney General's office. Should the Court rule that these associated posts, votes, and actions are ex post facto unlawful, legally speaking, it would simultaneously be required to order a recount of all such legislative, non-legislative, and electoral votes, as well as a review of all actions taken as a government official and, potentially, a reopening of voting for any election in which Treize was a candidate. Such alteration of accepted fact is neither practical, possible, nor permitted by the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, Treize_Dreizehn's membership in the Regional Assembly is not revoked. He may continue to serve as a full-fledged member, entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other member. However, his original rejection by Sanctaria was upheld by the Regional Assembly, and the recent motion to overturn that rejection failed. If Treize's membership in the Regional Assembly is renounced or allowed to lapse through normal channels, he will not be able to rejoin until his rejection is overridden by a majority vote of the RA.

The Court would additionally like to apologize to Treize for the length of time it took for this issue to be resolved, and for the bureaucratic inconvenience we are imposing with this ruling.
 
As for the specific case of Treize_Dreizehn, the Court rules that his original admission to the Regional Assembly was not lawful. However,
Click to expand...

For those who follow such things, this is the point where a hitherto sensible, legal and reasoned ruling descends into absurdity and political expediency.

the conduct of Douria since his (now proven) illegal admission into the Regional Assembly is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. However, it is politically expedient - and saves the court from having to deal with the complaints that would have arisen from the logical consequence of their ruling.

Douria has never been legally admitted to the Regional Assembly. His masking and permissions should reflect this. AS things stand we have a RA member who has never legally been admitted.

classic TNP court clusterfuck, as usual. Dressing it up in a long swathe of legalese with a pretty red bow does not make it any less dumb.
 
Interesting. The court has stated, correctly in my opinion, that TD's admission to the RA was unlawful. The court has based this upon the notion that one person should not be able to overturn the entire RA, carte blanche, and opinion that was recently upheld months later.

However, the 3 person body of the court believes that it has the power to overturn the will of the RA effectively nullifying the motion to uphold the TD's application rejection, and more pertinently the recent vote which failed to reverse that previous motion.

Two RA votes months apart were outweighed by TD's service to the region. Listen, I understand the difficulty of the situation, but the authority of the RA is undermined by this decision. I am glad that a decision has been rendered in this case. But I am disappointed that the RA's authority while highlighted by the court, was ultimately disregarded.
 
Sigh...

So an illegal action is allowed because it would cause paperwork? It sure would be nice to have people on the Court that didn't care so much about hurting people's feelings or causing inconvenience. An 'I told you so' just doesn't seem to cover it.

And people wonder why I am not excited about the upcoming trial...
 
The regional assembly should not be surprised. Voters have repeatedly shown their desire to elect the blandest possible officials - people who offer no original thought, and whose sole platform seems to be not to rock the boat.

You reap what you sow. When you elect pen pushers, you get this quality of ruling.
 
Couldn't the Speaker invalidate TD's RA votes, since he wasn't legally an RA member when he cast them? That might avoid a new vote on each proposal voted on by him. I also think his candidacy for Vice Delegate would be declared invalid per:

Legal Code:
Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions
3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
4. "Candidates" are those Regional Assembly members who, during the period of the Election Cycle designated for candidacy declarations, declare themselves or accept a nomination by another Regional Assembly member as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that Election Cycle.
Click to expand...

While the Court's opinion on this matter may be controversial to some, let's not forget who started this mess..
 
I think I am correct to interpret the court's ruling that T_D is legally an RA member, but was never legally admitted. That's an important distinction to make.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think I am correct to interpret the court's ruling that T_D is legally an RA member, but was never legally admitted. That's an important distinction to make.
Click to expand...
You realize how silly that sounds.

I do not think any poster who has commented since SS's ruling has misinterpreted the ruling of the court.

The court said, TD never was legally admitted but they will not remove him from the RA because "he's been an upstanding citizen and it would be too difficult to administrate".

The more I read through the ruling the less I really like the part of overturning the RA. I need to think on it further before deciding what's next.
 
punk d:
I do not think any poster who has commented since SS's ruling has misinterpreted the ruling of the court.
Click to expand...
The ruling of the court is binding on all government bodies. Therefore, T_D is legally a member of the RA. So the Speaker cannot invalidate Douria's votes as falapatorius implies.
 
I applaud the Court's choice to ignore the specifics of legality and to simply utilize the simplest possible solution for this problem. I believe this is a step in the right direction for the Court, one which will ultimately lead to the Constibillicode being rejected entirely when making decisions. This is not a perfect step, but it is undeniably a step whereas others have simply crawled towards this admirable goal.
 
I, for one, applaud the Court. Please don't listen to the hat3rs in this thread, you are totally cool and are doing a great job. I hope you have much fun with the next issue that I helped bring to the Courts. :)
 
The Court erred when it ruled that T_D could remain in the Regional Assembly as of the ruling and thereafter. That would have been the sensible middle ground, not the muddle that was posted as a ruling. (And an option the Court did not mention or discuss, and which was immediately apparent to me.)

As it is, the ruling has the effect of nullifying the rejection of RA membership which the R.A. upheld and nullified the refusal of the R.A. to rescind the rejection; and the problem of recounting votes is overstated because I'm sure there weren't very many votes that were decided by one vote, and that assumes the one vote T-D cast was on the winning side. If it was on the losing side, it would not matter. So it has the appearance of a politically opportunistic decision.

Very sad.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The Court erred when it ruled that T_D could remain in the Regional Assembly as of the ruling and thereafter. That would have been the sensible middle ground, not the muddle that was posted as a ruling. (And an option the Court did not mention or discuss, and which was immediately apparent to me.)

As it is, the ruling has the effect of nullifying the rejection of RA membership which the R.A. upheld and nullified the refusal of the R.A. to rescind the rejection; and the problem of recounting votes is overstated because I'm sure there weren't very many votes that were decided by one vote, and that assumes the one vote T-D cast was on the winning side. If it was on the losing side, it would not matter. So it has the appearance of a politically opportunistic decision.

Very sad.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you what the sad part is, Grosse. The sad part is that the very same people who complain about the rigid and robotic application of the Law and the Constitution is just blind slavery to the 'Constibilicode' and anyone who believes it should be so is the target of derision.

And then we have the very same people who complain about there not being enough flexibility in the 'Constibilicode' bitching about flexibility being applied.

And when we apply a contradictory law using strict letter of the law we still get bitched at by the people who want us to apply the law in a strictly inflexible manner. Of course this infers that any decision made suddenly turns into a bitch-fest for the very people who bitch the most about not getting their way in terms of their political inclinations.

God forbid the court apply the law in a blind, single-minded way in terms of exactly the way the law was written and apply said laws in an academically narrow fashion - if we were to do this, the whole effing system of the Law and Constitution would come crashing down in a bout of terminal constipation and gridlock.

Before you bitch about the Court making a decision you do not agree with, I suggest you run for a position on the court or you endeavor to disambiguate the who effing legal code and Constitution so that decisions you can agree with always are arrived at.


You know what's frustrating about decisions like this?

If you booted TD from the RA, you would get raked over the coals for it. If you didn't boot TD from the RA, you would get raked over the coals for it.

First off, the law is an ass.

Second, I suspect that being an anal retentive stickler for the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law is assinine.
 
Romanoffia:
Grosseschnauzer:
The Court erred when it ruled that T_D could remain in the Regional Assembly as of the ruling and thereafter. That would have been the sensible middle ground, not the muddle that was posted as a ruling. (And an option the Court did not mention or discuss, and which was immediately apparent to me.)

As it is, the ruling has the effect of nullifying the rejection of RA membership which the R.A. upheld and nullified the refusal of the R.A. to rescind the rejection; and the problem of recounting votes is overstated because I'm sure there weren't very many votes that were decided by one vote, and that assumes the one vote T-D cast was on the winning side. If it was on the losing side, it would not matter. So it has the appearance of a politically opportunistic decision.

Very sad.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you what the sad part is, Grosse. The sad part is that the very same people who complain about the rigid and robotic application of the Law and the Constitution is just blind slavery to the 'Constibilicode' and anyone who believes it should be so is the target of derision.

And then we have the very same people who complain about there not being enough flexibility in the 'Constibilicode' bitching about flexibility being applied.

And when we apply a contradictory law using strict letter of the law we still get bitched at by the people who want us to apply the law in a strictly inflexible manner. Of course this infers that any decision made suddenly turns into a bitch-fest for the very people who bitch the most about not getting their way in terms of their political inclinations.

God forbid the court apply the law in a blind, single-minded way in terms of exactly the way the law was written and apply said laws in an academically narrow fashion - if we were to do this, the whole effing system of the Law and Constitution would come crashing down in a bout of terminal constipation and gridlock.

Before you bitch about the Court making a decision you do not agree with, I suggest you run for a position on the court or you endeavor to disambiguate the who effing legal code and Constitution so that decisions you can agree with always are arrived at.


You know what's frustrating about decisions like this?

If you booted TD from the RA, you would get raked over the coals for it. If you didn't boot TD from the RA, you would get raked over the coals for it.

First off, the law is an ass.

Second, I suspect that being an anal retentive stickler for the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law is assinine.
Click to expand...
There is an important line to be drawn between flexibility and common sense on the one side, and dumbass stupidity on the other side.

Just about the only person who does not have a vested interest who has approved of the court's decision is John Ashcroft Land.

That should be a hint to you on what side of the line this decision falls.
 
Jesus Christ some of your reactions are ridiculous.

Roman was entirely right when he said it was a damned if you do, damned if don't situation. The courts decision is indeed the best of both worlds.

We keep Douria, who is an active contributing member to this region - something some of you should do well to remember instead of acting like he's some illegal who has snuck across the border and is stealing your jobs, your money and LIVING IN YOUR SOCK DRAWER - and in future we have a clear process for approaching this situation again.

Being a court justice is the hardest position in any region in this game. Forget your delegacies, your military rulerships, your intelligence positions, being a court justice in this region in the hardest role.

You are always going to piss someone off. You are always going to slammed for being too slow, too activist, not activist enough. I would rather have to moderate a conference between Unibot and Onder than take part in one review in this region, because I may be a glutton for punishment but I'm not a masochist.

This region doesn't deserve the people we have in this court.
 
I agree with the courts decision by in large. However, what I don't agree with is the assertion that Douria has been a positive contributing member of the region as though that is something out of the ordinary. We should expect that sort of behaviour from all of our citizens. The difference in this case is that he knew he wasn't wanted here and still continued to hang around. There were plenty of arguments about this on IRC and on the forum. His election campaign was a farce. The only positive contribution has been his work as Deputy AG. He can fit in nicely along side Durkadurkiranistan.

I only hope that the RA isn't silly enough to elect him to any position of power within the game. I told one of the justices today that they should just take the criticism in her stride - it is a no-win situation regardless of the verdict. The Court is one of the most thankless jobs in the region, in fact most positions can be at times. It's the same in real life - every decision taken by leaders will have supporters and detractors. It's simply the nature of the job. As GBM said to me once, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. There is nothing wrong with criticism. It's the nature of all positions in a democratic society. Criticism and discussion should be encouraged.

The former Vice Delegate should not however take this court ruling as a legal sanction of his actions. His actions were illegal. He demonstrated a blatant disregard for the Regional Assembly when he made that choice. He continued this trend by blocking Narnia because he disliked him. His final blocks were the only ones that even made the slightest of sense. So I hope that DD does not seriously think that this court is sanctioning his decision or even saying his action was correct. It wasn't. It was a farcical decision.

Fortunately the law has been amended to prevent that from occurring again. This decision was an unfortunate blight on his otherwise, extremely commendable and positive term in office. It wouldn't have prevented me from voting him in for another term, as I believe that with the passage of the RA amendment he was aware of his responsibilities and limits of his office.

Douria will continue to be a member of the RA. Had he been removed from the RA after such a long period of time, the effects of this would have been far reaching and potentially quite damaging and problematic. The court made a logical decision because of this.
 
McM:
The former Vice Delegate should not however take this court ruling as a legal sanction of his actions. His actions were illegal. He demonstrated a blatant disregard for the Regional Assembly when he made that choice. He continued this trend by blocking Narnia because he disliked him. His final blocks were the only ones that even made the slightest of sense. So I hope that DD does not seriously think that this court is sanctioning his decision or even saying his action was correct. It wasn't. It was a farcical decision.
Click to expand...

Ah.. so you were paying attention. ;)
 
I don't know why you would have thought that I wasn't. The Vice Delegate isn't responsible to me, the RA could have held him to account for his actions. In the grand scheme of his Vice Delegacy though this proved to be the only blight on his term. He was an effective Vice Delegate and highly active on the RMB and the forum. This is the only thing he did that I disagreed with.

This issue was a very hot topic and resulted in many heated debates on the subject.
 
mcmasterdonia:
The former Vice Delegate should not however take this court ruling as a legal sanction of his actions. His actions were illegal. He demonstrated a blatant disregard for the Regional Assembly when he made that choice. He continued this trend by blocking Narnia because he disliked him. His final blocks were the only ones that even made the slightest of sense. So I hope that DD does not seriously think that this court is sanctioning his decision or even saying his action was correct. It wasn't. It was a farcical decision.
Click to expand...
I happen to enjoy farce, Mr. Former Delegate.

I am aware of what the ruling stated. I really don't care, the law never should have been passed in the first place. :P
 
The problem with the court saying Douria has contributed positively is that their estimation of positive contribution is very subjective. If this hadn't been Douria, if it had been someone else would they have drawn the same conclusion.

It's impossible to empirically answer that question with their ruling. That makes it that much more difficult to understand the standards that will apply in the future.

Variability is a killer to efficiency and even if people make bad decisions if those decisions are buttressed by repeatable steps it's more easily rectified. However, if you don't know the rules and they change from time to time, it's nearly impossible to make improvements or feel "safe" that you know what's going on.

I think the court has moved us towards that by calling an action illegal but not taking the logical conclusion of that action. This is a new precedent and any defense attorney should cite this ruling in the future to remind the court that it has set such a precedence before.
 
Precedent only applies as long as the court says it applies. It is not, nor has it ever been, a get out of jail free card. Defence attorneys shouldn't try to hide behind precedent.
 
Nierr:
Precedent only applies as long as the court says it applies. It is not, nor has it ever been, a get out of jail free card. Defence attorneys shouldn't try to hide behind precedent.
Click to expand...
You're making my point.
 
punk d:
This is a new precedent and any defense attorney should cite this ruling in the future to remind the court that it has set such a precedence before.
Click to expand...
I think it's worth pointing out that this situation is, itself, unique, which makes any attempted claim of precedent a bit of a reach.

In the course of a normal criminal trial, even in the event of a guilty verdict, the Court will be neither asked or able to declare that someone who was legally admitted to the RA was never a legal member. It will only have to decide whether or not to remove someone's current RA membership as part of an applied punishment.

That's quite different from this situation, where Douria has committed (or at least, been convicted in TNP of) no crime whatsoever. To determine that his membership was valid for the purpose of maintaining history but that it is no longer valid would be applying a punitive measure to one person for another person's illegal actions.

You are of course free to disagree with the court's decision, but there is a world of difference between Douria's method of entry into the RA and the appropriate means of addressing criminal behavior.
 
I disagree - the point is not arguing if future situations are purely analogous...or rather specifically analogous, but that the court disregarded the law deferring to - as you put it - a potentially "punitive" action against someone who did not commit a crime.

Any person could use this line of argument in any situation in the future and future courts couldn't simply disregard it because it was a different situation. That's the point of the word precedent that it provides an example - in this case line of argument - that could be used in the future.

If, the precedent the court has established here will be rejected by future courts then that speaks to something I've had a problem with the courts for years - variability, and arbitrary variability at that.

Removing Douria would not have been done to maintain history but to try to stick to the rule of law. The RA just upheld the rejection of Douria, that's not history but present. The court does not appear to have considered that in its ruling. Thus the court took the views of one person, DD, and allowed them to outweigh the RA - twice for the sake of keeping a member of the RA who has made positive contributions to the RA.

If that's not a huge loophole for future people to argue, I don't what is. But, what's also true is that the court is not consistent & so a future court could overturn this ruling using different logic just as easily. Read: I have little faith in our legal system.
 
Any person could use this line of argument in any situation in the future and future courts couldn't simply disregard it because it was a different situation.
Click to expand...
Of course they could. :blink: Precedent isn't universal; the context in which a decision is rendered matters. Declining to remove Douria from the RA as a result of this request for review in no way damages the Court's power to remove others from the RA as punishment for crimes.

for the sake of keeping a member of the RA who has made positive contributions to the RA.
Click to expand...
If that's what the concern is about, it doesn't do anything close to setting precedent. Defense attorneys have always been free to argue that the court should be lenient because of their client's positive contributions to the region - and the court has always had the discretion to do so, within the punishment guidelines laid out by the Legal Code.

We just may not have seen it happen before because of the dearth of convictions necessitating sentencing. :P
 
I'm delighted to see my original block upheld. Sort of.

It really would have been an immense pain going back and redoing all the votes. This is just a game and there's no need to take it so seriously.

That being said, I'm surprised the Court didn't just direct the RA to hold a vote on overturning the rejection, the results of which they could have ordered to be binding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top