Request for Review: FOIA silliness

Grosseschnauzer:
At some point can the Court provide an explicit period of time during which any interested party can submit briefs or arguments on this?
Click to expand...
The Court will establish a timeline once Abacathea and r3naissanc3r have stated how they wish to proceed. At the moment, we are on hold waiting for them.
 
In response to the FOI request placed before the Security Council of The North Pacific;

After consideration of arguments presented in the Court request thread, plus consultation with the Security Council, reviewing the original thread (which does exist), consulting TNP law and ultimately the former and current delegate it has been concluded I do not have the power to override the previous administrations decision on this matter.

My reasoning on this is as detailed below;

A decision has already been reached in regards to this matter, it is not my place to come in and suddenly reverse it. To override a decision taken by a former Administration would only serve to undermine that particular Administration and not something I'm able/willing/keen to do in this matter.

Secondly, I'd like to highlight for the courts, the biggest issue/query for all parties is as currently stands, the Security Council, in law, remains outside of the branches affected by the FOI requests. As has been discussed by myself and members of the SC, the Vice Delegate is the elected head of the Security Council, and whilst operating within that role is wearing only their SC hat. As a result, their actions whilst performing tasks appointed to that body fall under the same remit. If not, do we need to re-evaluate this in the RA? Is it unconstitutional to view it any other way? This perhaps needs to be taken into consideration when this matter inevitably goes to the courts.

While it may be seen by those requesting the information to be a "cop out" the aspects of the Security Council, including it's operation and purpose are based in the ability to consult each other and provide judgement calls in the same way that the Courts operate without concern of reprisal. To this end, my concern hinges that to do so would ultimately impinge on the ability of the council to perform to the fullest abilities.

I feel it important to note, this does not represent my feelings on the matter, this is purely an assessment of a situation which was burdened upon me. Unless the court determines that there's an obligation to provide this information, which may set a worrying trend for the future, I cannot comply at this time for the reasons outlined above.

As a final note, I believe personally that transparency is an important element in most government positions, but the institution designed to protect the region and the mechanisms which it employs in doing so should be given some leeway at the same time, what I can do though, in my own personal willingness to improve/work alongside the region as I promised in my electoral campaign is try and be a bit more transparent in the rejection(s) of any future applicants. Whilst specifics will still be retained to the Council if from the off I state reasons the member was rejected at the time of the rejection it may allow for a little more transparency rather than simply "X rejected at this time".

I hope the above at least would be considered a progression to all viewing parties and brings at least something of a step forward were some may feel this role has been lacking in the past,

Yours,

[me]
 
I really like this decision in terms of not overturning the previous decision. I didn't like the court's reasoning for waiting to review this to get your take on the matter, quite honestly.
 
Abacathea:
After consideration of arguments presented in the Court request thread, plus consultation with the Security Council, reviewing the original thread (which does exist), consulting TNP law and ultimately the former and current delegate it has been concluded I do not have the power to override the previous administrations decision on this matter.
Click to expand...
You do realize the previous administration did not actually come out with an official decision, correct? They never actually denied the FOIA. More precisely, they simply hinted at a denial without actually giving one.

I'm a little confused as to what decision you're specifically talking about. Their decision to falter and not give an actual official answer?

Abacathea:
Secondly, I'd like to highlight for the courts, the biggest issue/query for all parties is as currently stands, the Security Council, in law, remains outside of the branches affected by the FOI requests
Click to expand...

That is 100% incorrect. The laws, let me show them to you:

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.
Click to expand...

Article 7. General Provisions

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
Click to expand...

The FOIA affects the Government, in general, and the Security Council is part of the Government. Therefore, the SC is totally subject to FOIA requests.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Abacathea:
After consideration of arguments presented in the Court request thread, plus consultation with the Security Council, reviewing the original thread (which does exist), consulting TNP law and ultimately the former and current delegate it has been concluded I do not have the power to override the previous administrations decision on this matter.
Click to expand...
You do realize the previous administration did not actually come out with an official decision, correct? They never actually denied the FOIA. More precisely, they simply hinted at a denial without actually giving one.

I'm a little confused as to what decision you're specifically talking about. Their decision to falter and not give an actual official answer?
Click to expand...
As I said Blue, I have no desire to get caught up in all of this too deeply, nor fall out with you, if I sense it heading that direction especially in relation to the latter, I'll be removing myself further from this conversation. I've considered both sides, and I believe the court needs to definitively resolve this, taking the above into consideration.

The previous Admin decision I was acknowledging was this

The Vice Delegate has made his reasoning known to the public for this particular case. The thread in question should remain private in order to maintain the privacy of Security Council members who discussed the matter in that thread. I am concerned that allowing this FOIA request would lead to an overall undermining of the privacy of the Security Council and a weakening of the Security Council as a deliberative body.
Click to expand...

I believe this in itself is a valid point and concern, and whilst I have perused the thread in question and can confirm as DD previously stated that the conversation was limited to whether or not they were deemed a threat to regional security, I fear this might not be sufficient enough to dissuade you from your current course of action.
 
Abacathea:
I believe this in itself is a valid point and concern, and whilst I have perused the thread in question and can confirm as DD previously stated that the conversation was limited to whether or not they were deemed a threat to regional security, I fear this might not be sufficient enough to dissuade you from your current course of action.
Click to expand...
It's interesting to note the Democratic Donkeys never said what the result of the SC's deliberation to release the thread was. All he literally said was "Only a few members have replied so far, so I am not able to give you a definite answer. It is currently a solid "No" though".

For all we know, the remaining SC members voted "yes".

This is what concerns me Abacathea: the prior Delegate, McMaster, left the decision to release the thread up to the prior Vice Delegate, Democratic Donkeys, a decision that, in-and-of-itself, is legally shaky. The prior Vice Delegate never denied the request, he just hinted it might be denied.

You, Abacathea, are deferring to the decision the prior administration made about the FOIA request, however, the prior administration didn't make a decision, they just deflected and stalled until they weren't in office anymore.

That's really not a "decision" at all, and I don't understand how you don't have the power to override something that was never a thing to start with. >_<

You must understand how very silly and frustratingly confusing this looks to me, Abacathea. Essentially, this line of discussion can be boiled down to this:

Abacathea: I refer to the prior decision made by the prior government
Wolf: What decision?
Abacathea: That one *points to empty space*
Wolf: THAT'S NOT A THING!
 
Blue Wolf II:
Abacathea:
After consideration of arguments presented in the Court request thread, plus consultation with the Security Council, reviewing the original thread (which does exist), consulting TNP law and ultimately the former and current delegate it has been concluded I do not have the power to override the previous administrations decision on this matter.
Click to expand...
You do realize the previous administration did not actually come out with an official decision, correct? They never actually denied the FOIA. More precisely, they simply hinted at a denial without actually giving one.

I'm a little confused as to what decision you're specifically talking about. Their decision to falter and not give an actual official answer?

Abacathea:
Secondly, I'd like to highlight for the courts, the biggest issue/query for all parties is as currently stands, the Security Council, in law, remains outside of the branches affected by the FOI requests
Click to expand...

That is 100% incorrect. The laws, let me show them to you:

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.
Click to expand...

Article 7. General Provisions

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
Click to expand...

The FOIA affects the Government, in general, and the Security Council is part of the Government. Therefore, the SC is totally subject to FOIA requests.
Click to expand...
As a note on you point concerning whether or not the SC is subject to FOIA.

Putting my SC hat in the spirit of 'duality':

Revealing the methodology, reasoning and sources of information used to make determinations as to whether or not a security threat exists could and generally would tend to damage the ability of the SC to perform its mandated purpose because:

1.) Said methodology, reasoning and sources of information are 'proprietary' - we do not want those who seek to threaten the region to know what methods we use because it would give them an advantage in skirting our security checks.

2.) Revealing certain information would jeopardize the ability of the SC to gather such information in the future by exposing sources and methodology.

3.) When dealing with the function of the SC, which is regional security, a certain level of secrecy is needed. Would the NPA want to have constant FOIA requests concerning it's methods and activities or FOIA requests as per the reasons certain military actions were taken and the reasoning involved? I think not.

4.) The next thing that will be requested pertaining to private deliberations of the SC is subjecting Private Messages (PMs) to FOIA.


Putting on my Justice hat, in the spirit of "duality":

I have no comment as a Court Justice as per the merits of this FOIA request as any comments made will surely be misconstrued and/or interpreted the wrong way. Discretion being the better part of valor, silence at this time shall be considered golden.

That is until the Court deliberates (quite privately, by the way) on this matter.
 
Blue,

It's 1.30am here, so I'm not going to get into anything overly serious at the moment, I hope you can respect that. My hope was to catch you during the week and see if any solution could be made to avert this car crash. I havent been able to get a hold of you.

I can assure you, if there was a kink in the system such as you allude to above, it would serve me no benefit to conceal it. If anything should it come out and I looked like I was conspiring, I'd have a sizeable amount of egg on my face. All I can give you at this time is assurances that nothing was afoul here. I'd like to think you'd take that at face value considering our working relationship until present, but I'm not sure you can given your level of investment in this situation, and I acknowledge that. But I do feel that McM's point, whether or not he deferred to DD at the time, is still one of concern, and what I based my call off of. This was, the speaking delegate at the time, saying he believed the thread should remain private.

I'm not suggesting there should be no accountability in the SC by any means. It is not the Illuminati of TNP, but it is the security force of the region, and to that end, they need to be able to work within a set structure. This request, in my personal view threatens that to an extent.

Furthermore, you hit on to something that I need to address too, if the Delegates deferring of the decision to the VD was legally shaky as you say, then it would stand to reason, that for me, as the newly elected VD to release a document based on legally shaky grounds would in itself, be legally shaky, which is all the more reason for me not to so.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from. I'm heading to bed, so the response time will obviously be significant here.
 
Romanoffia:
Revealing the methodology, reasoning and sources of information used to make determinations as to whether or not a security threat exists could and generally would tend to damage the ability of the SC to perform its mandated purpose because:
Click to expand...
Let me go ahead and stop you right there.

There is a provision within the law that states if the "the information impairs Regional security" the FOIA may be rightfully denied. No one has said anything about this FOIA impairing regional security. We all know what the thread was about, DD told us, other SC members have confirmed his story, so we can firmly be sure that the thread is about the rejection of two RA applicants.

No one yet has stated the release of this information impairs Regional security, no one has even suggested it, and we're weeks into this request at this point.

And who determines what information does and does not impair Regional security? Why the Delegate, for one, and the Courts, for two. And, for added bonus, neither entity has to publicly review the information requested.

So, if you're concerned about the potential future release of information that threatens Regional security, fear not, because the law already protects it. >_>

Romanoffia:
Would the NPA want to have constant FOIA requests concerning it's methods and activities or FOIA requests as per the reasons certain military actions were taken and the reasoning involved? I think not.
Click to expand...

And yet we are still subject to FIOA requests and legally have to abide by them if Regional security is not impaired. Not to mention people bitch and moan from here to hell and back again about "transparency" if we pull and operation and don't tell anyone.

Bad example, perhaps?
 
Romanoffia:
Revealing the methodology, reasoning and sources of information used to make determinations as to whether or not a security threat exists could and generally would tend to damage the ability of the SC to perform its mandated purpose because:
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has requested the SC's methodology in determining security risks be revealed. Speaking for myself, I'm only interested if the SC was consulted regarding the rejected applicants, the reason for rejection (without methodology), and what the prevailing opinion of the SC was regarding the applicants' risk to regional security (Aye or Nay).

BW has a point about the foot-dragging within the previous administration. If the rejections were solely based on them being a security risk, then fine. However, I am troubled by this statement from the previous VD:
DD:
I do believe that it is a security risk to have interlopers come in and influence our elections.
Click to expand...
Joining the RA prior to an election is not illegal. Claiming they joined solely to 'influence' the election assumes facts not in evidence. Belief does not make it so. Conversely, one could construe preventing an applicant from joining, and voting in an election is also influencing said election.
 
I will have something to say when the Court opens up the matter for briefing from interested parties.

In the meantime, BW I suggest you read more carefully both the FOI law and Article 7 of the Constitution, as well as the brief Silly String posted in the request for review thread about the FOI law and the judiciary.

Things don't point in the way you think. Que sera, sera.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I will have something to say when the Court opens up the matter for briefing from interested parties.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out on the previous page, Gross, the presentation of evidence is, legally, up to the Delegate and the officers of the Executive, not "interested parties". Maybe had you been paying attention instead of trying to insult me, you would have picked up on that.

As amusing as it might be to hear a member of a Security Council and an Admin rant on about something they have no right commenting on, I'm inclined to think the Delegate and his Executive officers can cover the matter just fine on their own. By letter of the law, the Court doesn't have to hear testimony from anyone other than the Delegate and Executive, and "interested parties" is not included in that list.
 
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.

The Delegate is a member of the executive, as is the Vice Delegate. As are the Ministers appointed by the Delegate. The Security Council is not. This exact reasoning was raised surrounding the request for FOIA about the court deliberations. If anything, this will give the court the opportunity to rule on what this power means. As SillyString has previously mentioned, the use of "government" in the constitution can have two meanings - the first being the collective government and the second being the executive government. This is a likely result of the combination of British/American usage of the word in our documents.

After reading her ruling on the court logs, I feel convinced that this section is not intended to apply to the Security Council. I don't believe it has any legal relevance to threads discussed in the Security Council area. A Delegate is not required to have access to the Security Council (as you know :p). Releasing the threads would have been on shaky legal grounds, at best. I didn't feel the law was particularly clear. In my original post I said that I didn't feel I had the authority on this matter. I left it to the Vice Delegate to consult with the SC and make a determination about whether to release the thread or not. Which would have been by consent - and therefore not a legal issue.

Additionally - I feel the privacy concerns for the Security Council are valid ones. Just as they were valid for the Court deliberations. I feel that these concerns can be valid to NPA matters as well. If that part of the law is only intended to relate to real life/personal privacy then I believe it should be amended to accurately reflect that. Administration would normally warn or caution people who violate the real life privacy of an individual, which includes repeated pestering for real life information that people are unwilling to share (see: Govindia).
 
If that's really the case, and the SC, NPA, and Court is not subject to the law, then the majority of the Government is completely immune to any FOIA request and the law should be repealed immediately because it is a useless waste of space.

It seems apparent someone thought the FOIA was a good idea and, ever since then, various parties have spent their time yanking all the teeth right out of its mouth. What use is a bill which is intended to make the Government more transparent if it can't be applied to the majority of the Government? None at all.

I'm all for repealing the FOIA law if it's useless, but let's not have it on the books and pretend The North Pacific is an open and transparent region which is accountable to its members if that's truly not the case.
 
Blue Wolf II:
If that's really the case, and the SC, NPA, and Court is not subject to the law, then the majority of the Government is completely immune to any FOIA request and the law should be repealed immediately because it is a useless waste of space.

It seems apparent someone thought the FOIA was a good idea and, ever since then, various parties have spent their time yanking all the teeth right out of its mouth. What use is a bill which is intended to make the Government more transparent if it can't be applied to the majority of the Government? None at all.

I'm all for repealing the FOIA law if it's useless, but let's not have it on the books and pretend The North Pacific is an open and transparent region which is accountable to its members if that's truly not the case.
Click to expand...
If you believe the foia is open to interpretation outside the intent of the original act, then why not draft a new act with tighter wording?

Likely to be more effective than complaining and running to the courts.
 
You believe the original intent of the act was to be an ineffective bill which does not achieve the outlined goal of "Freedom of Information" mentioned in the law's very name?

Pray tell, how did you reach this conclusion.
 
The only conclusion I am drawing is that you are being deliberately obtuse. Which is nothing new.

My point is, I think, quite simple, but I will use simpler language for you.

FOIA request not seem to be doing what you want. Suggest you try to change law.
 
Why change the law when the current one should function correctly as written?

How will changing the law really fix anything when interested parties will go out of their way to rip the teeth out of that law as well? This is a cultural issue, not a legal one, and right now there seems to be habit amongst the government in general, no one specifically, that FOIA's should be side-stepped, subverted, subjugated, ignored, or refuse, even on minor matter, such as this. I highly doubt changing the language will stop this behavior. This reckless and wanton pattern needs to end and proposing a new law when the one we already have should work fine will do absolutely nothing in the long run unless the government's culture towards FOIA requests is fixed first.

On a side note, my request is on material that is very benign and yet people are working themselves into an absolute tizzy about it. I would hate to see what happens when someone requests something actually important and controversial. New law or not.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
For the record, I'm pretty sure I never voted for the original version of the law, and I don't recall suggesting anything about it when the legal code was codified.

Original proposal debate:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/634239/1/?x=25
Original proposal vote:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/634377/1/?x=25

So far I haven't found any amendments, and I'll have to look for the constitution committee threads tomorrow.
Click to expand...
For some reason all of the threads related to the Constitution Committee a couple of years ago were mixed into the other RA threads of the time.

In any event, I cannot find any discussion of the FOI law during that period. So the only guidance there is on the IOA law is from the original debate and vote.
 
In accordance with Clause 19 of the Freedom of Information Act, Blue Wolf has filed a request with the Court for information pertaining to the Security Council's discussions on the rejections of Madjack and Rach from RA membership.

Information subpoenaed under a Freedom of Information request may only be denied if it meets at least one the following criteria:

1) The release of that information would impair Regional Security;
2) The information does not belong to the Executive Branch

As is laid out in the Constitution, the Vice Delegate is an executive official. Their actions, and the records thereof, accordingly, belong to the Executive Branch and are not exempted from expectations of transparency.

The Delegate, and any designated executive officials, are ordered to either release the requested information, or to provide evidence to the court that such release would impair Regional Security.

Due to the sometimes sensitive nature of security concerns, the Court is willing to receive and review this evidence in private if the Delegate so requests.
 
It would appear that the Court has decided to deny other parties the opportunity to submit briefs on this matter, and once against it appears the need to force the Court to treat all citizens fairly as required under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is being underscored by ignoring my sinere request for an opportunity be to be heard.

Would the Court prefer to proffer that opportunity, or shall I move for the recall the entire Court for its abuse of authority and disrespect of the citizenry?
 
Grosse, this isn't a request for review (despite the misleading title of the thread.) This is a request for information under clause 19. The court is not ruling on the constitutionality of a law or procedure, but rather is just making a ruling on whether information provided to it by the executive meets one of the criteria to be withheld under the FOIA. No brief process is called for.
 
In the Court's determination, this is not a request for review and therefore does not follow the procedures for such requests as laid out in the Adopted Court Rules.

While a standard request for review requires the filing individual to have standing but also lays out a period for any party to submit a brief on the matter, requests for information under the FOIA law may be made by any citizen interested in its release and are presumed binding unless the Court can be convinced that Regional Security is at stake. The law requires that a chance be given for that case to be argued, but it also requires that it be argued by the Delegate or designated officers of the executive.

Any citizen wishing to make that argument would be free to either provide that argument to an executive official to make on their behalf, or to become a designated executive official at the discretion of the delegate. But external briefs fall outside the law's mandates.
 
First, just to remind Silly String:

Silly Strong:
Grosseschnauzer:
At some point can the Court provide an explicit period of time during which any interested party can submit briefs or arguments on this?
Click to expand...
The Court will establish a timeline once Abacathea and r3naissanc3r have stated how they wish to proceed. At the moment, we are on hold waiting for them.
Click to expand...

If it is captioned as a "request for review" by the party that submitted it, then it should be regarded as such, and not look for excuses to disregard the interests of others, such as a sitting member of the Security Council whose participation in the discussion is involved.

Further, the essence of the planned submission was taken into account by the now sitting Vice Delegate in framing a response to the Court. One would think it would be pertinent and relevant, and not an further opportunity for an obnoxious Justice to once again treat this undersigned with disregard and disrespect unworthy of an alleged "Justice." (You have a now very consistent and unwavering hostility towards me that will not be forgotten in the future.)
 
Titles are not prescriptive. If Blue Wolf had titled this thread "Filing of Criminal Charges for Espionage", that would not make this an indictment and would not obligate the Court to establish a plea deadline.

Nothing within the request as filed is seeking a review of the law as it stands on the books. Its scope is, on the contrary, quite clearly constrained to seeking to exercise the law as written. It therefore is not a request for review, but the exercise of a legally established right to request the release of information.

The statement that the Court would establish a timeline for how to proceed should not be construed as anything more than what it was. It was not a promise to follow a particular methodology, or to receive briefs, or to even continue with these proceedings at all. It was a statement that we would establish a timeline once the current administration had had a chance to become familiar with the issue and take a stance on it, and once we had had a chance to familiarize ourselves with the law surrounding this and determine how to proceed.

If the complaint is the lack of specific deadline given for the executive branch to respond to the Court's order, we would prefer that they comply promptly but are able to establish such a deadline if it is necessary to do so.

On a pronominal note, I would like to issue a general reminder that statements issued as "the Court" are made on behalf of the Court as a whole - either by majority or unanimous agreement of the justices. Statements in the first person, on the other hand, are made on behalf of one individual. If you wish to chalk Court decisions up to personally directed hostility you are of course free to do so, but it may be worth bearing in mind that these decisions are joint.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Would the Court prefer to proffer that opportunity, or shall I move for the recall the entire Court for its abuse of authority and disrespect of the citizenry?
Click to expand...
Didn't you already get your fill of motioning for useless recalls when you called for the recall of the Speaker for making a decision you, specifically and personally, didn't like and got defeated 35 to 1?

Perhaps we can make it 40 to 1 this time around.
 
SillyString:
In accordance with Clause 19 of the Freedom of Information Act, Blue Wolf has filed a request with the Court for information pertaining to the Security Council's discussions on the rejections of Madjack and Rach from RA membership.

Information subpoenaed under a Freedom of Information request may only be denied if it meets at least one the following criteria:

1) The release of that information would impair Regional Security;
2) The information does not belong to the Executive Branch

As is laid out in the Constitution, the Vice Delegate is an executive official. Their actions, and the records thereof, accordingly, belong to the Executive Branch and are not exempted from expectations of transparency.

The Delegate, and any designated executive officials, are ordered to either release the requested information, or to provide evidence to the court that such release would impair Regional Security.

Due to the sometimes sensitive nature of security concerns, the Court is willing to receive and review this evidence in private if the Delegate so requests.
Click to expand...
This is to acknowledge the Court's order. I am currently waiting for clarification from the Court on a matter that will determine what information I am required to release for compliance with this order. I will execute the Court's order as soon as the Court clarifies that other matter.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
First, just to remind Silly String:

Silly Strong:
Grosseschnauzer:
At some point can the Court provide an explicit period of time during which any interested party can submit briefs or arguments on this?
Click to expand...
The Court will establish a timeline once Abacathea and r3naissanc3r have stated how they wish to proceed. At the moment, we are on hold waiting for them.
Click to expand...

If it is captioned as a "request for review" by the party that submitted it, then it should be regarded as such, and not look for excuses to disregard the interests of others, such as a sitting member of the Security Council whose participation in the discussion is involved.

Further, the essence of the planned submission was taken into account by the now sitting Vice Delegate in framing a response to the Court. One would think it would be pertinent and relevant, and not an further opportunity for an obnoxious Justice to once again treat this undersigned with disregard and disrespect unworthy of an alleged "Justice." (You have a now very consistent and unwavering hostility towards me that will not be forgotten in the future.)
Click to expand...
Silly String, it seems that every time I have made a request of the Court in the past few months, it has been you that has responded in a tone that barely masks what I clearly see as your personal hstility. Your reply might have credence if the other justices were actually responding and not just you.

Further, it is the same tone of dismissiveness and barely concealed hostility in your posts that frequently shows up if I am involved in a discussion in the Regional Assembly, and the same dismissive histile one is there as well.

So no it isn't my imagination, and yes you are setting out a track record for the ages that only a blind fool could not see is happening.

I have to question whether you could ever be objective and fair in any further request I may file or make of the Court in the future, and do not be surprised if I ask you to disqualify yourself in such an event at any time in the future, Not allowing people to be heard is in and of itself contemptous on your part, and the pattern has already emerged, whatever the excuses of the hour are that you use.

(I fully disagree btw, that the Vicd Delegate acts as a member of the Executive when acting in his constitutional role of chair of the Security Council, and a couple of recent Court decisions would support that contention as well. How odd that a brief that would make that point is denied even being heard because it is inconvenient for the favored petitioner in this matter?

Nothing like biased favorism to work in your favor, eh, Blue Wolf?
 
SillyString:
In accordance with Clause 19 of the Freedom of Information Act, Blue Wolf has filed a request with the Court for information pertaining to the Security Council's discussions on the rejections of Madjack and Rach from RA membership.

Information subpoenaed under a Freedom of Information request may only be denied if it meets at least one the following criteria:

1) The release of that information would impair Regional Security;
2) The information does not belong to the Executive Branch

As is laid out in the Constitution, the Vice Delegate is an executive official. Their actions, and the records thereof, accordingly, belong to the Executive Branch and are not exempted from expectations of transparency.

The Delegate, and any designated executive officials, are ordered to either release the requested information, or to provide evidence to the court that such release would impair Regional Security.

Due to the sometimes sensitive nature of security concerns, the Court is willing to receive and review this evidence in private if the Delegate so requests.
Click to expand...
There are three reasons:

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

The first is that the release would impair regional security. The second is that the release would impinge on the privacy of private citizens. The third is that the information does not belong to the executive branch.

In my earlier post in this thread I made it clear that there was a privacy concern that should be considered. Similarly to the privacy concern of the courts on their deliberations. Has this been overlooked or held to be invalid?

Are all Security Council discussions in which the Vice Delegate participates considered to be subject to FOIA as part of the executive branch?
 
The request for review I submitted is essentially about the last issue you mention in your list. So we will have an answer when the Court makes a judgment on my review.
 
mcmasterdonia:
In my earlier post in this thread I made it clear that there was a privacy concern that should be considered. Similarly to the privacy concern of the courts on their deliberations. Has this been overlooked or held to be invalid?
Click to expand...
You are correct, I was in error. The Court will also accept evidence/arguments from the Delegate and any designated executive officers that this information can validly be withheld due to privacy concerns - following, of course, an answer to r3n's request for review.

How odd that a brief that would make that point is denied even being heard because it is inconvenient for the favored petitioner in this matter?
Click to expand...
Grosse, the law is clear on procedure, and it has been confirmed by prior courts' FOIA hearings. This is such a hearing and will follow those guidelines.

Legal briefs belong in Requests for Review, of which there is one open and accepting submissions. Perhaps you might try your luck in the appropriate thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top