Resolution to the Courts

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
I am proposing that the Regional Assembly send the following resolution to the Court regarding their inability to finalize the review request located here. This request was opened on January 28, 2014 and we are here on May 9, 2014 about 100 days later.

This is reprehensible in my opinion, and I would like to call on my fellow RA members to implore the court to make this review request a priority, heck the priority, on their docket. I do not know of another way to get the court to act. Recall is certainly an option, but I am hoping that the political pressure this resolution applies will be sufficient. I do not care about what the court decides on this matter but that it gets decided.

I hope you will join me in strongly urging the court to act on this matter in the coming days.

WHEREAS, the Regional Assembly upheld the rejection of the application of Treize_Dreizehn by Sanctaria;

WHEREAS, Treize_Dreizehn was subsequently admitted to the Regional Assembly by a subsequent Vice-Delegate;

WHEREAS, the motion to overturn said rejection is overwhelmingly failing in the Regional Assembly;

WHEREAS, an inquiry request affecting Treize_Dreizehn’s application has been open since January 28, 2014;

REMINDS, the Court of The North Pacific that the decision in this review affects the legal status of a member of the Regional Assembly;

EXPRESSES, dismay at the fact that the review decision has taken over three months and counting to resolve.

DEPLORES, the fact that Treize_Dreizehn has had to wonder if today would be the day he awoke to find out that he is no longer a member of the Regional Assembly;

DEPLORES, the fact that former Vice-Delegate Sanctaria’s initial rejection was overturned and the Court did not swiftly provide a legal remedy sought by the review request and;

CALLS UPON, the Court to finalize their review of this request and render an opinion within 72 hours of this resolution’s passage.
Click to expand...
 
Yawn. So the court is taking a long time. Bless their hearts, they're doing all they can.

Is there any evidence that they are deliberately neglecting this review? Is there any evidence that passing this will speed them up even one iota?

Pass this empty resolution if you like, but to me it just looks like agitation for its own sake. The current court had a large backlog when it took office - it's not surprising to me that it's taken them this long to get around to this one.

You mentioned recall. I am 100% certain that such a measure would result in the review being delayed even further than it would otherwise. Anytime the make-up of the court changes, discussions typically start all over.
 
The commae after "reminds", "expresses", "deplores", "deplores", and "calls upon" are grammatically incorrect. :horror:
 
I should have added an "over/under for CoE and Silly to post" right after I posted.

Silly's comments while pointing out an error do not offer a remedy.

CoE's comments are consistent with his penchant to let certain things go but other things are earth shattering.

I will not, repeat, will not be bullied by you two. I am offering this resolution because I believe the court is not prioritizing this issue. I believe that this issue should be prioritized and that the status of an RA member is of great consequence. I am hopeful that the rest of the RA believes so as well, but if they do not then they will not pass this motion.

I'm saddened that from your comments Silly is more concerned about grammar than the content of the text and CoE also gives no attention to the content of the text and how a non-ruling has affected a member's status. I hope the rest of the Assembly does not feel this way.

Sarcastic edit: Perhaps both of you would have preferred me to pass this resolution via PM and then once I gained, say, 23 signatures posted it then. :kiss:
 
punk d:
CoE's comments are consistent with his penchant to let certain things go but other things are earth shattering.
Click to expand...
...yes, how terrible of me. I should realize that every issue is of equal importance and nothing is more important than anything else ever. O_o

punk d:
I will not, repeat, will not be bullied by you two.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh, what?

punk d:
I am offering this resolution because I believe the court is not prioritizing this issue.
Click to expand...
What do you think they are prioritizing instead?
 
punk d:
Silly's comments while pointing out an error do not offer a remedy.

...

I will not, repeat, will not be bullied by you two.

...

I'm saddened that from your comments Silly is more concerned about grammar than the content of the text.
Click to expand...
As a sitting justice both currently involved in trying to resolve the final outstanding request for review and targeted by the proposed resolution, I do not believe it is my place to comment on the text of the resolution. If you or anyone else believes the court has not been doing its best - or that I in particular have not been doing my best - then that is how you feel. I do not believe the floor of the RA is the right venue for me to argue otherwise. This is particularly true because any argument on the matter comes down to "nuh uh" "yah huh", as the private court forum is private.

Proofreading and editing services, however, I provide free of charge to any and all, without boas, because i am 100% committed to the proper care and treatment of our hardworking punctuation marks. :shakefist:

Pass the thing, or don't, just dont abuse the comma. I admit, I'm not really seeing how it's bullying to express that sentiment... But if what you want is a remedy to the error, simply removing the commae will render the clauses grammatically correct. :)

Edit: I apologize for the general lack of good formatting. I'm having some computer troubles and can only access the internet from my phone. Formatting posts by copy/pasting and/or typing out bbcode is a pain in the ass in this form factor.

Edit edit: If you want to start a petition, by all means, feel free. I'm not sure why you think I would object to that, given my previous public comments about the utility of that approach.
 
Punkd, if you think the Justices ought to be recalled because they have unreasonably delayed this decision, then go ahead and motion directly for a recall. I don't see much point in this resolution and I will be voting against it.

Should a motion for recall be brought, I will be voting against that as well. I have already explained my views on the issue when you asked me about it in the debate, and I think you are blowing it out of proportion.
 
r3n - You're entitled to your opinion.

You three posting and what you are posting is of little surprise. An RA member's inclusion/exclusion hanging in the balance doesn't appear to be important to you. I get it.

It is important to me, however, and I will use every and all legal means to fix that situation. I will state plainly that I believe Douria should be allowed to be a member of this Assembly and I believe that this review request going on for months is unfair to him.

What do you think they are prioritizing instead?
Click to expand...
CoE, you should ask them that question. I'm not going to speculate.

I am also not seeking recall at the moment because I am a believer that a hard slap on the wrist can be more effective than a knee jerk recall. Just look how quickly you three responded. I have no problem with Silly talking about my grammar mistakes, r3n implying I am making a mountain out of a molehill, or CoE asking me to get inside the head of the judges to know what they are thinking if the end result is this review is completed and the answer is addressed.

That's my goal and I hope to achieve it quickly.
 
punk d:
r3n - You're entitled to your opinion.

You three posting and what you are posting is of little surprise. An RA member's inclusion/exclusion hanging in the balance doesn't appear to be important to you. I get it.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your own opinion as to why I am "unsurprisingly" posting what I am posting. That of course doesn't mean it is accurate.

My opposition to the resolution is exactly because I recognize that the issue before the Court is very important, and also very compicated. And for this reason, I appreciate that the Justices are taking the time necessary to meticulously deliberate over it. Instead of doing this, they could succumb to political pressure and rush to produce an unjust decision. Your resolution is adding to this pressure and, despite your stated intent, it can only negatively affect how the Justices resolve the legal question.
 
r3naissanc3r:
punk d:
r3n - You're entitled to your opinion.

You three posting and what you are posting is of little surprise. An RA member's inclusion/exclusion hanging in the balance doesn't appear to be important to you. I get it.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your own opinion as to why I am "unsurprisingly" posting what I am posting. That of course doesn't mean it is accurate.

My opposition to the resolution is exactly because I recognize that the issue before the Court is very important, and also very compicated. And for this reason, I appreciate that the Justices are taking the time necessary to meticulously deliberate over it. Instead of doing this, they could succumb to political pressure and rush to produce an unjust decision. Your resolution is adding to this pressure and, despite your stated intent, it can only negatively affect how the Justices resolve the legal question.
Click to expand...
Resolve the legal question?

Yes that would be awesome for them to do.

This resolution is seeking to move the justices to do just that. I am very hopeful that if others within the RA agree with me that this has languished far too long they will support this resolution.

If they do not, then the answer is they do not care to address this expeditiously and are perfectly fine with the state of limbo TD is in. I'm unwilling to accept that state of limbo and I do believe that we send a clear message to the Court by passing this resolution.

If passed, I also believe they will be able to spend the appropriate time to resolve the matter. Perhaps you do not think that "political pressure" ever leads to positive outcomes, but history would disagree with you. There are a number of instances where political pressure has led to a positive outcome and I certainly believe that to be the case here if we pass this resolution.

In layman's terms, sometimes people need a kick in the pants to wake up and realize the seriousness of a situation. This resolution is that kick.
 
Mr. Speaker,

I would like to place this motion on hold until May 16th 11:59PM EST. That's just about seven days, give or take 12 hours.

If the issue is still unresolved at that time, I would like to move forward with this motion.
 
@ Punk D:

Let me interject on this matter.

Attempting to legislate a decision from the Court is like trying to force someone to think at the point of a gun. You neither get thought nor do you force a proper or timely decision.

Second, you should be lucky you have justices on the bench who are actually working to resolve issues as quickly as possible.

As a point of irony, it seems that those who do the most work in attempting to accomplish something in a reasonable, rational and objective way generally get the most abuse for all their efforts. You can force the court to make a decision but you cannot force the court to make a wise decision as the result of a threat.

Third, If you want a snap decision without regard to being a well thought out decision, I'm sure the court can oblige.

Forth, your resolution is attempting to usurp the judicial duties and authority of the court and place it in the hands of the legislative branch. This is a essentially an attempt to usurp the authority and constitutional function of the judicial branch because you think we are not moving as fast as you would personally like us to move.

We are dealing with a complex matter of law the details of which it would be inappropriate to go into here, and not with the individual with whom this matter is concerned with.
 
punk d:
If they do not, then the answer is they do not care to address this expeditiously and are perfectly fine with the state of limbo TD is in. I'm unwilling to accept that state of limbo and I do believe that we send a clear message to the Court by passing this resolution.
Click to expand...
TD has been enjoying full membership status during this period. It's not like he is in detention or had his rights suspended.
 
Romanoffia:
@ Punk D:

Let me interject on this matter.

Attempting to legislate a decision from the Court is like trying to force someone to think at the point of a gun. You neither get thought nor do you force a proper or timely decision.

Second, you should be lucky you have justices on the bench who are actually working to resolve issues as quickly as possible.

As a point of irony, it seems that those who do the most work in attempting to accomplish something in a reasonable, rational and objective way generally get the most abuse for all their efforts. You can force the court to make a decision but you cannot force the court to make a wise decision as the result of a threat.

Third, If you want a snap decision without regard to being a well thought out decision, I'm sure the court can oblige.

Forth, your resolution is attempting to usurp the judicial duties and authority of the court and place it in the hands of the legislative branch. This is a essentially an attempt to usurp the authority and constitutional function of the judicial branch because you think we are not moving as fast as you would personally like us to move.

We are dealing with a complex matter of law the details of which it would be inappropriate to go into here, and not with the individual with whom this matter is concerned with.
Click to expand...
My only reply is this.


January 28 2014 is now 102 days ago.

Again, I'm giving the court until next Friday and then I will be putting this motion back on the docket. An additional 7 days added to the 102 should be sufficient time for the court to address the issue.
 
Oh, you'll get your decision. That I promise you.

Also, remember that the Court has no obligation to take on "clarifications" of laws. Frankly, I do not think the Court should even entertain clarifications of specific laws as that entire practice tends be prejudicial in and of itself - it is essentially permitting someone to ask the Court to adjudicate a future case or giving unfair advantage to one side or the other insofar as it narrows the scope of leeway the Court might have in its deliberations. Clarifications of law, in my opinion, should only arise as a result of a court decision or ruling on a motion.

Clarifications of specific laws which are relating to no specific case in progress is an arbitrary function of the Court and done at the pleasure of the Court.

Nevertheless, trying to force the hand of the Court by faux legislation is not a good way to go.

Also, see R3n's preceding post as a point of enlightenment.
 
I don't think such delays would have happened when Hileville was Chief Justice. He set time tables and he met them without question. It's his long run that made the Court respectable and functional.

I would hate to see all that undone so quickly.
 
If the justices spent as much time in this thread telling me what not to do as they could have spent on reviewing this issue, perhaps it would have been resolved by now.

When a person says, "hey you guys are not doing your jobs!" by picking apart either their vernacular or saying that this isn't the right thing to do, cannot obfuscate the fact that this issue is still unresolved!

As I said - I'm waiting until Friday. Roman in a different thread you said this issue would be resolved very quickly. Now you're saying that the court shouldn't even involve itself in "clarifications". Look, you're entitled to hold an opinion but you can't just change your opinion because the weather changes.

r3n's point is moot. TD just tried to get his motion overturned. If my read of the votes is correct, that motion was not overturned. So, yes TD is a full member of the RA...today. Today, being the key phrase. Depending on how you all decide this matter he may not be tomorrow. None of the other members of the RA are subject to that little conundrum that if r3n feels is semantic, I certainly don't. Thus his point about TD being able to be all he can be as an RA member should come with the proviso, "until and unless the court invalidates his RA membership"

As I said - not a single other RA member is subject to the same. And that, my friend, is why I am pressing this issue. But, due to a private note from Justice Silly I decided to give the justices a week to not push this. I'm sticking to that and I hope in the meantime you guys can come to a resolution on this matter. And I hope that TD is allowed to continue as a member of this body.
 
Seeing no resolution on this matter, and if my math is correct, we're on day 109 I would like to introduce this motion to the Assembly.

Assembly members, I hope you join me in sending a clear message to the courts that this issue must be resolved...and soon.
 
I know the Court isn't required to render a decision according to a schedule , but I thought I'd share this (for what it's worth):

In Mitchell v Overman, (1881), Justice John Marshall Harlan I of the Supreme Court of United States used these words:

"... the rule established by the general concurrence of the American and English courts is, that

where the delay in rendering a judgment or a decree arises from the act of the court, that is, where the delay has been caused either for its convenience, or by the multiplicity or press of business, either the intricacy of the questions involved, or of any other cause not attributable to the laches of the parties, the judgment or the decree may be entered retrospectively, as of a time when it should or might have been entered up. In such cases, upon the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which has been well said to be founded in right and good sense, and to afford a safe and certain guide for the administration of justice. It is the duty of the court to see that the parties shall not suffer by the delay"
Click to expand...
 
109 days does seem excessive. This vote may or may not have any legal force, but that is immaterial: it will demonstrate that the RA has noticed the lollygagging of the court, and has expressed their disapproval.

I do have one concern, and that is that the court will now reach a decision based more on petty mindedness and spite than based on the rights and wrongs of the matter.
 
flemingovia:
I do have one concern, and that is that the court will now reach a decision based more on petty mindedness and spite than based on the rights and wrongs of the matter.
Click to expand...
I don't think this vote will affect the courts one bit, one way or another. After all, it is the court's job to ignore petty stuff like this and focus on delivering justice. I am sure that the review is already underway, and that this will neither accelerate nor delay the arrival of it.
 
This is not a petty resolution. For reference, the definition of petty is this - "of little importance; trivial." I believe the court not rendering a decision after 109 days in this case is quite the opposite of petty. If it had been 21 days, 50 days, 80 days, or less maybe I'd agree with you, but we're well past 3 months and going on 4.

If the RA believes that the court can take 109 and counting days to resolve review requests, then so be it. But I hope that we do not consider waiting 109 days for a review to be petty.

PWL - his current rights are not impacted in any way. I have said this before. However, depending on how the court rules he could be stripped of his RA membership. You, Flem, CoE, nor anyone else in the RA is under such conditions. Treize himself tried to overturn the motion that upheld his rejection and he failed. If I were sitting in his shoes, that would indicate to me that most of my fellow RA members do not want me in the RA. Of course, he is free to act and be the best RA member he can, but he has a cloud over his membership that will remain until the courts resolve the issue. If you consider that "of little importance, trivial" as CoE does then you can.

I don't.

I do have one concern, and that is that the court will now reach a decision based more on petty mindedness and spite than based on the rights and wrongs of the matter.
Click to expand...

I doubt that, honestly. I don't think the justices will 'rush' to judgement if they haven't already...*chuckles*
 
Alright, if we're really going to count days, it's only been 67 days since this court took office.

As soon as they took office and selected their chief justice, they were immediately saddled with the matter of the RON law and the AG race, which they competently resolved in 24 hours.

There were two outstanding requests for review that were lodged before Douria's. The first of these was resolved 9 days after the AG race/RON matter was settled. In the meantime, they had begun the trial on the outstanding criminal charges against H&H.

The second outstanding request for review was resolved a month later, on April 28. Certainly not speedy, but a respectable timeframe.

On that same day, the court began deliberations on the H&H trial, and reached a verdict on May 5. At 38 days, this may be the shortest criminal trial in the history of this constitution.

It has been 12 days since all the matters that go ahead of Douria's review on the docket were resolved, and I personally think this court has been doing an outstanding job. I think we should take them at their word that this review is quite complex, and they are rightly taking their time deliberating on it.

Yes, Treize_Dreizehn could be removed from the RA by their opinion. In the meantime, however, he has essentially been treated as if the court ruled as far in their favor as they possibly could. The court ruling cannot improve his standing one bit - I'd say he's pretty well off, considering the jeopardy his membership is in. The court has not removed any of his rights pending the outcome of his review. They have not barred him from running for elected office or holding appointed office. He retains his right to debate, propose, and vote on legislation, as well as vote in WA matters. I don't see this review as an urgent matter. It is not as if he is in jail waiting to be freed or put to death by court order.
 
And I didn't mean that the subject matter of the resolution was petty - the review is important. But the resolution itself is petty. It's essentially a wristslap to the court and a "hurry up!" The court's job is to ignore that and focus on the review itself, independent of what other people think about it. It's why court deliberations are private.
 
This court, by my reckoning, has acted swifter than any since I originally joined TNP.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
flemingovia:
I do have one concern, and that is that the court will now reach a decision based more on petty mindedness and spite than based on the rights and wrongs of the matter.
Click to expand...
I don't think this vote will affect the courts one bit, one way or another.
Click to expand...
You have more faith in the bench than I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top