In accordance with the Court's recent ruling, the prior order to the Delegate to release the requested information is rescinded and this hearing is dismissed.
Request for Review: FOIA silliness
- Thread starter Blue Wolf II
- Start date
oopaah!
(it's TNP's new drinking game. Every time Blue Wolf makes a FOIA request you have to down a drink)
(it's TNP's new drinking game. Every time Blue Wolf makes a FOIA request you have to down a drink)
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
*sighs*
And, I told you so.
And, I told you so.
That's... a new twist, but one that appears to be legal. 
Abacathea, as Vice Delegate, is ordered to produce a comprehensive list of all Security Council votes and recommendations that have been conducted in private and not released publicly, with the exception of matters which are currently immediate and pressing threats.
The level of detail that must be disclosed is the final text of any recommendation, or the overall gist if no final text was drafted, as well as the final tally for any vote held.
The Court grants one week for such a list to be compiled and published, and will entertain motions to extend that period throughout.
Abacathea, as Vice Delegate, is ordered to produce a comprehensive list of all Security Council votes and recommendations that have been conducted in private and not released publicly, with the exception of matters which are currently immediate and pressing threats.
The level of detail that must be disclosed is the final text of any recommendation, or the overall gist if no final text was drafted, as well as the final tally for any vote held.
The Court grants one week for such a list to be compiled and published, and will entertain motions to extend that period throughout.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I object to Blue Wolf's request on the ground that he does not have standing, as that term is currently used in the Court of The North Pacific, and that the proper forum for this request is the Security Council itself. Given that the basis of the illegal request to the Court is a procedure adopted by the Security Council under its rule-making authority under the Constitution, the Court is not the proper forum for the request, and the Court does not have any authority at this time in that the Security Council has not acted on the as yet unpresented request, and that therefore there is nothing for the Court to review.
I make this objection as a member of the Security Council in good standing.
I make this objection as a member of the Security Council in good standing.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Well allow me to retort.
I don't need to have standing. All I'm pointing out is that the SC hasn't followed their own laws when it comes to disclosure and the Court has ordered them to obey their laws that they themselves have created. This request (which is really no longer a request for information, its a request for the SC to follow their own rules) isn't illegal, its the epitome of legality. As far as the Court's ability to make people obey the laws, I'm not sure why you think the Courts don't have that authority, Gross.
I make this counter as a former member of the Security Council in even better standing.
I don't need to have standing. All I'm pointing out is that the SC hasn't followed their own laws when it comes to disclosure and the Court has ordered them to obey their laws that they themselves have created. This request (which is really no longer a request for information, its a request for the SC to follow their own rules) isn't illegal, its the epitome of legality. As far as the Court's ability to make people obey the laws, I'm not sure why you think the Courts don't have that authority, Gross.
I make this counter as a former member of the Security Council in even better standing.
There is no requirement to establish standing when pointing out that laws have not been followed and seeking remedy.
While the Security Council subforum would indeed be a reasonable place for such a request to be filed, given the context it is not an unreasonable followup to be made within this thread.
Having noticed the Vice Delegate's recent post, the aforeprovided week is pending a conversation with Abacathea on his availability. The Court of course understands that RL events such as moving can be very time and energy intensive.
While the Security Council subforum would indeed be a reasonable place for such a request to be filed, given the context it is not an unreasonable followup to be made within this thread.
Having noticed the Vice Delegate's recent post, the aforeprovided week is pending a conversation with Abacathea on his availability. The Court of course understands that RL events such as moving can be very time and energy intensive.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
My point is that the Court is without jurisdiction on BW's most recent request since it is something that has to go to the Security Cpuncil.
The Court is overstepping its constitutional limits as it is at the moment. And let's be clear, until the request is at least directly presented to the Security Council there is no way the Court could have jurisdiction since it is an internal rule of procedure of the Security Council and has no relationship whatsoever to the FOI Act.
If need be, this can be taken as an appeal to the full Court that on this matter, in its current status, there is nothing for the Court to have jurisdiction over, reasonable in theory or or not. At best this would be a civil claim between BW and the Security Council, and since the Court has withdrawn from jurisdiction in any civil claim, there is nothing here for the Court to do. It is always possible that at a future time there may be an act of the Security Council that would be subject to review, but at the moment there is not.
The Court is overstepping its constitutional limits as it is at the moment. And let's be clear, until the request is at least directly presented to the Security Council there is no way the Court could have jurisdiction since it is an internal rule of procedure of the Security Council and has no relationship whatsoever to the FOI Act.
If need be, this can be taken as an appeal to the full Court that on this matter, in its current status, there is nothing for the Court to have jurisdiction over, reasonable in theory or or not. At best this would be a civil claim between BW and the Security Council, and since the Court has withdrawn from jurisdiction in any civil claim, there is nothing here for the Court to do. It is always possible that at a future time there may be an act of the Security Council that would be subject to review, but at the moment there is not.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Attempting a Catch 22, eh? I don't think its going to work.Grosseschnauzer:
In any case, the SC isn't following it's own rules and procedures, regardless of the FOI Act ruling. Why would the Security Council make laws if they're not going to follow them in the end and if they are unenforceable? For show or for farce?
And if the Security Council and just ignore Article 7, does that mean it can ignore it's entire guidelines? As of right now, the Vice Delegate is only Chair of Security Council because it's procedures say so. Should we expect that not to be the case in the future? It would be a violation of the Constitution, yes, but clearly following the law is not the concern of the Security Council. Should we expect the Security Council to throw the Vice Delegate out of their halls and break all their promises? When does the law breaking end if not here and now?
Upon reconsideration, the Court is remanding this issue to the Security Council. Unless there is any objection, the posts from Aba and Wolf will be split out and moved to that forum.
However it is resolved, appeals can then be made to the court if desired.
However it is resolved, appeals can then be made to the court if desired.
Posts have been split and moved. Sorry for the now nonsensical conversation in this thread. 