Request for review: meaning of "private citizen"

[r3naissanc3r]

May it please the Court,

I submit a request for review relating to the exceptions laid down by Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 18 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, which I shall hereinafter refer to as the "freedom of information clause", and which I reproduce below for reference.

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

I request that the Court examine the exact meaning of the term "private citizens" in this clause. While it is clear, in my opinion, that the term is broadly meant to refer to citizens that do not hold office in the region, it is less clear under exactly what circumstances a citizen is considered a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause. I request that the Court in particular clarify the following three scenaria.

First, consider the case where some of the information that is subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that held office in the Executive at the time this information was produced, but no longer does so at the time the request for disclosure is made. Is this citizen considered a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

Second, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds some office in the region, but this office is not part of the Executive. The Court found recently in Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests that the freedom of information clause can only be used for, to quote the decision, "information belonging to the Executive branch". Should this be interpreted that, for the purposes of the freedom of information clause, this citizen is considered a "private citizen"?

Third and last, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds office in the Executive, but the information itself is unrelated to this citizen’s capacity as an officer in the Executive. Should the citizen in question be treated as a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

The answers to the above questions will determine what actions I am required by the freedom of information clause to take with regards to a request for disclosure submitted here by Blue Wolf II. Without knowing the answers to the above questions, I cannot be certain that I have acted lawfully and complied with the freedom of information clause. Therefore, I am personally affected by this law I am asking the Court to review, and thus I believe I satisfy the requirements for standing laid down by the Adopted Court Rules.

I thank the Court for their consideration.

Respectfully,
r3naissanc3r.

 

[SillyString]

This request for review is accepted. Briefs will be accepted for a period of five days.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Is this a request for open briefs from anyone?

 

[SillyString]

Yes. Anybody may submit a brief.

 

[Romanoffia]

_______

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

_______

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
The North Pacific Legal Foundation

_______​

May it please the Court,​

QUESTION PRESENTED​

A request of the Court of The North Pacific to define the exact meaning of the ter, "Private Citizen" as described in Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 18 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.

_______
​

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF
AMICUS CURIAE
​

Pursuant to the request by the Court for amicus curiae briefs, The North Pacific Legal
Foundation (TNPLF) respectfully submits this brief
amicus curiae in support one petitioner, r3naissanc3r.

Amicus considers this case to be of special significance in that it bears upon what information is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and under what conditions a person is to be considered a private citizen, and as to whether or not public citizens have any and which rights of privacy extended to private citizens.

ARGUMENT​

Since the legal code and precedent are silent as to the exact definition of the term "private citizen", it is contended that the term should be defined as commonly understood by logic and reason: a citizen or person who does not hold any official or public position.

Under this definition, any citizen of The North Pacific who holds any official or public position does not fall under the term "private citizen". The logical conclusion is that no member of any branch, particular office or public position in the government of The North Pacific is a private citizen nor is exempt from Freedom of Information requests, except were they violate regional security or violate the privacy of private citizens.

This begs three questions:

1.) Is someone who does not fall strictly under the definition of a "private citizen", meaning a public official or holder of a public position, formerly being a public official or public office holder, currently not, have any exemption to FOIA requests?

2.) Do public officials have any right to certain types of privacy extended to those who strictly fall under the presented definition of being a private citizen?

3.) What specific information which may over-lap with the public interest involving FOIA requests are exempt should they be conducted in 'private' channels not directly associated with official government communications.

Since these questions over-lap in their purvey, the answer must address all points, and lacking a specific legal definition of 'private citizen' we, for the sake of argument may look at the commonly understood definition as presented in this argument.

A person who is serving in an official position or in public office is not a private citizen. Therefore, all communications through official channels, archives, etc.,,, conducted through official channels or means are subject to FOIA requests with the specific exemptions provided for by Law. This would include private communications conducted out of the public view specifically related to subjects concerning official or public government matters.

Logically, public officials and office holders to have a right to privacy in matters not related to official government business. Private and unrelated communications would be considered exempt from FOIA requests as they have no bearing on official government business. This would not exclude from FOIA requests private communications directly to government business, however private information not related to official government business would be exempt from FOIA requests.

Former government officials or public office holders who return to the role of a private citizen are still subject to FOIA requests concerning activities directly related to their term of office and conducted in their term of office. Other communications made after returning to the role of a private citizen would be exempt as long as those communications were not related to past official actions while in office if those communications were not conducted with government officials. Any personal privacy or information unrelated to official government business, past, present or future, in any communications are exempt from FOIA request and would naturally and logically be redacted.

CONCLUSION
​

A private citizen is specifically a citizen or person who does not hold any official or public position; however, this does not exempt a former official or public position holder from FOIA requests concerning their term in office, or related and relevant information conducted with government officials or related to government business during one's term in public service.

Respectfully submitted,

Romanoffia, The North Pacific Legal Foundation (TNPLF)​

(note: edited for format and presentation)

 

[SillyString]

The period for briefs has ended. The Court will now deliberate and render its ruling.

 

[SillyString]

r3n, can you please expand on what you mean by information pertaining to an individual? Is that information posted by an individual, information that makes reference to or is discussing an individual, or something else?

 

[r3naissanc3r]

When I was originally drafting the request, I attempted to be more specific. This however turned out to be difficult, in part because of how vague the freedom of information provisions themselves are when it comes to defining "information" and "privacy".

I had two particular scenarios in mind that I would request the Court clarify about, which are the same two the Chief Justice mentioned: First, information posted by an individual. Second, information discussing an individual.

This means that a post made by individual A and which discusses individual B pertains to both the A and B individuals. Should this combined case require special consideration, I would request that the Court also clarify about it.

Respectfully,
r3naissanc3r.

 

[SillyString]

As the original filer of the FOIA request, Justice Blue Wolf II has recused himself from this case. The Court therefore names Severisen as the temporary hearing officer for this review.

 

[SillyString]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r on the meaning of "private citizen" with respect to the Freedom of Information Act

Opinion drafted by Severisen, joined by SillyString & Kiwi​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r.

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


The Court took into consideration the relevant sections of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

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.
17. All registered citizens residing in The North Pacific may request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
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
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.
20. Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by the majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
21. Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released by the affirmative vote of a majority of a three-member panel of the Court, no sooner than 2 months after the original request, once the threat no longer exists.

The Court opines the following:

r3naissanc3r has asked the Court to clarify, for the purposes of the FOIA law, the meaning of the term "private citizen" and the protections afforded by Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 18 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific. Specifically, r3naissanc3r has posed three scenaria for the court's consideration.

First, consider the case where some of the information that is subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that held office in the Executive at the time this information was produced, but no longer does so at the time the request for disclosure is made. Is this citizen considered a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

In the Court's opinion, the answer to this question is no. Individuals do not cease to be accountable to the region simply because their term has ended, and posts which were governmental in nature when made retain that status. In reverse, posts which are non-governmental in nature do not suddenly become subject to FOIA when their author joins the Executive branch. The sole relevant facts are the status of the post and its author at its creation.

Second, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds some office in the region, but this office is not part of the Executive. The Court found recently in Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kiwi on the Scope of Freedom of Information Act Requests that the freedom of information clause can only be used for, to quote the decision, "information belonging to the Executive branch". Should this be interpreted that, for the purposes of the freedom of information clause, this citizen is considered a "private citizen"?

In a previous ruling, the Court stated:

As an additional finding, on the matter of ownership, the Court holds that the author of a post owns its content, and posts made while acting in one's capacity as a government official are owned, more broadly, by the respective branch of government within which that capacity falls.

Therefore, the status of an individual discussed within a post is not relevant to the interpretation of this Act. Whether or not that citizen is a private citizen has no effect.

Third and last, consider the case where some of the information subject to the freedom of information clause pertains to a citizen that holds office in the Executive, but the information itself is unrelated to this citizen's capacity as an officer in the Executive. Should the citizen in question be treated as a "private citizen" for the purposes of the freedom of information clause?

As in the previous scenario, it is the status of the author and not the topic which determines whether a post is subject to FOIA. So long as the author is speaking in their capacity as an executive official, the law applies.

The Court expands on the above by issuing the following additional rulings:

First, the Court states that all posts made within areas of the forum which normally grant posting privileges only to members of the executive - excluding administrators and moderators from consideration - are inherently made in the author's capacity as an executive official. Such posts cannot be considered non-governmental. Posts which are made in areas of the forum more accessible to the public may be ruled non-governmental if such a determination is merited by their content and context.

Second, the court determines that there are certain types of information where all citizens, including members of the executive, retain a right to privacy, and where the disclosure of this information would unduly impinge upon that right. Specifically, real life information about any NationStates player which has not been willingly disclosed to the public is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. This information includes, but is not limited to, an individual's name, address, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, and anything which represents a reasonable risk of allowing a player's real life identity to be discovered. It also includes sensitive information for which there is a reasonable real life expectation of privacy and/or discretion, including but not limited to health status, both mental and physical, personal tragedies or changes in personal status (such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death), and other similar information. Any such information contained in a thread requested under the Freedom of Information Act must be redacted prior to the thread's release. Any such redaction must be made non-destructively, such that the original is preserved for future review.

Third, the Court rules that when a post contains a private message not authored by the poster, additional scrutiny must be used in determining whether releasing that private message without the permission of the author would unduly impinge on the privacy of a private citizen. Because the content of any such messages can be as variable as the imagination allows, the Court is unable to lay out a rule to be followed in all cases. Suffice it to say, the Court grants that there may be cases where the disclosure of a private message is appropriate, and cases where it is inappropriate. Specific instances where there is some question as to how to proceed may be adjudicated under clause 19 of the Freedom of Information Act.