Pre-Trial Ejections

I have re read the OP. And also r3ns comments. And I could support such legislation if r3ns suggestions were considered and also a working definition if exactly what a "security threat to the region" entails - be that endotarting too close to the legal endocount, supporting/spreading an unendo campaign, aiding and abetting an enemy or infiltrating and committing espionage etc.

Has been demonstrated before - "security threat" has been used - at least where RA admission is concerned as a "catch all" term for the Vice Delegate to block someone the "community didn't like" basically - http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7089760/1/

It would be nice if "security threat" could be defined in this instance to help it also not be a "catch all term" for the delegate and court to agree to eject someone simply "not liked" prior to a trial...on the grounds of "security reasons"

"A matter of National Security" - The age old cry of the Oppressor. - Captain Jean-Luc Picard

2ca49640466058cf1aec77e270fad918.jpg
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
It would be nice if "security threat" could be defined in this instance to help it also not be a "catch all term" for the delegate and court to agree to eject someone simply "not liked" prior to a trial...on the grounds of "security reasons"
Click to expand...
This is not a bad suggestion at all, and I wonder if it would fit this particular bill or a separate amendment to the legal documents would be better.
 
We have generally taken an approach, throughout TNP law, of not defining "security" threats. This is evident in several places (Criminal Code, VD's block of RA applicants, several Security Council provisions, FOIA law). An amendment to define security threats would need to amend all those parts of the Legal Code for consistency.

Given how broad the term is, I prefer that we continue the same way and leave it undefined and up to the court. The court can determine what a security threat is in a reasonable manner, and the court's decisions create precedent clarifying the term for the future.
 
I agree. Trying to define security threats too specifically reduces our ability to shift and adapt as unforeseen ones pop up.

PWL, do recall that when the VD attempted to misuse their power in this way, it was rejected by the RA.

There are a lot more fun things for the Court to conspire to get away with, if it were going to do so at all, than approving a single ban against an individual. :evil:
 
I wasnt suggesting that at all. Just that the vague nature of "security threat" has become a catch all broad term. And I sourced it with the original RA Security Check Legislation back in 2013. (Which I was not part of Nationstates at that time) - which defined a 'security threat' (paraphrasing) as someone PNG or an undesirable they wished to not allow in. By that very nature.... there is a probability for abuse...they could just not like someones avatar or posting style and say "oh security threat".

Do I think the Delegate and the court would conspire to eject a nation that wasnt liked under the guise of "security threat" no more so then I think a Vice Delegate would block someone they didnt like from joining the RA under the term "Security Threat."

No. Ive been here around 6 months. Each person has their own posting style and ways about them. I am optimistic and feel the court, delegate, government, and veteran players are well intentioned. On a given day I am about 75-80% convienced theyre honest. And only 15-25% skeptical of some veteran oligarchical conspiracy to run things and stifle new opinions. (Its perfectly normal to keep a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism.)
 
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
Usually indictments are presented by the AG, not the Court, so the Court issuing an indictment is technically impossible. The AG issues indictments, not the Court.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is one of my major complaints with the current law, which talks about a nonsensical "indictment to ban".

I am not sure what the intent of the original author(s) was - perhaps they meant an injunction to ban? In any case, the use of the wrong word has resulted in a very muddled law where the "Government" seeks an "indictment to ban" and then, separately, presents "criminal charges", and it's unclear if the Court can grant the "indictment to ban" and reject the "charges", or whether granting the "indictment" inherently grants the charges against a nation unseen, and it isn't clear if "Government" refers to the Delegate as head of the executive, or the AG as filer of charges - and even less clear since the AG was under the Judicial branch, not the Executive, when this was written and passed.

So basically the current law is terrible. But that's normal for TNP. :fish:
Click to expand...
I can concur in spades that the current law is screwed up.

The intent I was speaking of was what you said the intent of your proposed law was.

Ironically, one of the actual functions of an AG is to defend the 'state' (meaning the government) from legal challenges in RL instances (US Law). Usually, in Constitutional issues, the AG will act before a Court to defend the law in question (or not, depending upon the flavour of the law being challenged). Technically, an AG is a law-enforcer which is an executive function in English Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law systems, or Positive Law systems in general. The French system has the AG as part of the Court/Judicial branch which makes the presumption of guilt the main issue (that is, one is guilty as charged unless proved innocent, and, which is why so many heads were lost in the French Revolution).

The current law indeed is quite similar to the French mode and somewhat in contradiction to the TNP BOR in certain instances.

Perhaps changing the wording of your proposed Bill to indicate that the Delegate cannot eject a nation for being a 'security threat' unless certain lines have been crossed by the accused would make it clearer?
 
I totally see r3n and SS points, but I never meant to list a specific detailed and extensive list if security threats, but perhaps to define certain guidelines, to prevent possible abuse of the term.
 
I hereby motion for the following version of this proposal to enter Formal Debate:

Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the Legal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

  • A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
  • The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
  • The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
  • If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
  • Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
  • The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
  • If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Good edit - it doesn't interfere with the function of the Security Council and appears to be singly applicable to criminal charges/proceedings/security threat issues.

Security Threats are fairly well defined given the SC mandate, but the question is, does the Delegate have to do through the Court to act upon recommendations of the SC to eject a clear and present threat like an endo-tarter? Or is such a threat more akin to a military threat for which executive action requires no permission to enact (such as repelling an 'invader', etc.)?
 
The removal of a security threat without them facing criminal charges may or may not be covered by the bill of rights, which says that an individual "with authority to act" can declare that an immediate removal is necessary. It is unclear if we have established, by law, who has the authority to act under that clause, since two sentences later the BoR indicates that the Delegate does not have that authority simply by nature of their position.
 
Romanoffia:
Good edit - it doesn't interfere with the function of the Security Council and appears to be singly applicable to criminal charges/proceedings/security threat issues.

Security Threats are fairly well defined given the SC mandate, but the question is, does the Delegate have to do through the Court to act upon recommendations of the SC to eject a clear and present threat like an endo-tarter? Or is such a threat more akin to a military threat for which executive action requires no permission to enact (such as repelling an 'invader', etc.)?
Click to expand...

I would think that in such a case the nation could still have the right seek a review or appeal the action in the court. Assuming all the elements are met it would be a fairly straightforward case.

I do wish we made it simpler for the Delegate to be able to ban nations (within reason) without having to go through the whole bureaucracy. Especially nations who are conducting unendorsment campaigns or spamming (note: not adpsamming) and being generally annoying on the RMB.

Perhaps we need a RMB Standards Act.
 
Silly String:
The removal of a security threat without them facing criminal charges may or may not be covered by the bill of rights, which says that an individual "with authority to act" can declare that an immediate removal is necessary. It is unclear if we have established, by law, who has the authority to act under that clause, since two sentences later the BoR indicates that the Delegate does not have that authority simply by nature of their position.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity, I'll quote the relevant section of the BOR. (bolding is mine)


BOR:
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
Although the BOR makes no reference to criminal charges (filed or pending) as a cause to ban, other than what's authorized by the Constitution and Legal Code, I find the bolded part a bit confusing. I presume the SC has authority to act in this fashion, so I'm guessing the VD (as Chair of the SC) qualifies as an official of a government authority with authority to act, and therefore may order an ejection based upon evidence (credible hopefully) of an immediate threat to regional security? If I'm correct ( :unsure: ), does that not establish, by Law, an authority to act under that clause?
 
I think that clause is reserved for emergency circumstances. Like if we were forced to declare a state of emergency and govern using the bill of rights using the final clause in the section.

But yes, I think your interpretation is a valid one. For example: if we had a rogue Delegate and the Security Council was close to removing them from power, that clause could be used to remove the rogue Delegate by ejecting and banning them. In any case that clause still guarantees the right of appeal.

Regarding who has the authority to act, I think it would depend on the circumstances and who was available at the time. I certainly think that the Delegate, Vice Delegate and Security Council could fall under that category.
 
Ok.. thanx. That does clarify it for me. I'll leave it up to Silly to determine if her bill impacts this clause, or vice versa. I've had enough reading for one day. :P Of course, the right to appeal should still apply.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Regarding who has the authority to act, I think it would depend on the circumstances and who was available at the time. I certainly think that the Delegate, Vice Delegate and Security Council could fall under that category.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but the law isn't clear - the BoR doesn't say WHO has the authority to act, just that IF they do, they can order a ban. The Legal Code and Constitution don't explicitly establish any elements of the government as having that kind of blanket authority, while the rest of that clause in the BoR explicitly excludes the Delegate. "Shall not exercise... unless expressly authorized".

In some cases the Delegate may have that authorization, as they are at times empowered to act by the Consticode, but it's not at all clear if they (or anyone else) possess the requisite authority outside of situations specifically enumerated in the law.

It's complicated. I'd like to amend that clause to be clearer, but I'm not sure I'd get the votes for a BoR amendment. :P
 
I agree it is complicated, but given that the clause is yet to be used and tested I think it is okay for now. I think when we need to use such a power, the least of our concerns would be how exactly it fits within the clause to be quite honest. But depending on the situation, I think the argument can be framed to allow for the exercise of such power using the BoR, given the additional protections it also offers to those banned.

I agree with you that it could have been improved.. but that is why having documents that are so rigid like a bill of rights can be so frustrating, almost impossible to amend.
 
  • The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
Click to expand...
I would still prefer this to explicitly say "security threat" and not just "threat".

  • With the approval of the Court, the Delegate may eject or ban nations who represent an unacceptable threat to the safety or security of the region and who are either facing criminal charges or will be facing them imminently.
Click to expand...
Given the amended form of Section 3.3. and how this clause is being reworded, I believe this clause is now completely redundant. Can we just repeal it, or is there some use to it that I am missing?

Regarding the issue of ejecting without criminal charges and the BoR issue, I believe it is easier to instead amend the constitution and legal code to enumerate more cases when the Delegate is explicitly authorized to eject a nation. We already have some cases listed, e.g., for adspam etc., and it may be worth expanding the list to include certain security circumstances.
 
I'm not sure about the second one, honestly. I'm not sure what the point of that set of clauses is in general, except maybe to organize all the permitted cases of ejection and banning in one place? But even then it isn't complete.

I could be okay with striking it unless anybody sees a compelling reason to keep it.

Edited the post to include the first suggestion.
 
I am adding in a section to correct a formatting error in previous legislation. The new version reads as follows:

Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the Legal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

  • A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
  • The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
  • The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
  • If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
  • Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
  • The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
  • If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.
Click to expand...

The Preamble of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:
In order to present a clearer and more comprehensible legal system, the Regional Assembly undertakes to keep the law of the North Pacific organized and clear. This Code will be divided into several Chapters, which may contain Sections. Clauses must be numbered consecutively within a Chapter beginning with the number 1. Clauses may be referenced by chapter and clause number, but clause numbers will not be considered part of the law, nor will they have any legal effects. The Speaker will manage the numbering of clauses in accordance with the above requirements.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This law puts more restrictions on the delegate, gives more power to the court, and provides more latitude for the court procedures.

There's only one phrase that comes to mind, "Hell's to the naw"
 
punk d:
This law puts more restrictions on the delegate, gives more power to the court, and provides more latitude for the court procedures.

There's only one phrase that comes to mind, "Hell's to the naw"
Click to expand...
Roman - even you support this?

I'm disappointed. If there is one bill that should give us all and you pause for concern it's this one. We are giving, imo, too much power to the Court and curtailing our delegate even further. That's a coup recipe if I ever saw one. Hopefully, I'm just one relatively insane RA member who is wrong, but this bill scares the mess out of me. I'm unsure why so many of my fellow RA members are so eager to give the court more power and less oversight of their criminal procedures.
 
I admit that I am not sure about this either. The provisions surrounding ejecting and banning are already very restrictive and only provide for very limited circumstances where it is legally allowed to happen.

As I said earlier in the thread, I would prefer that we allow the Delegate to have more of a day in the banjection of nations. R3n pointed out a way this could be achieved.

However I do not see this piece of legislation as being necessary at this point, and perhaps I am missing the glaring loop hole that exists, but I honestly cannot see it.
 
Punk D:
We are giving, imo, too much power to the Court and curtailing our delegate even further.
Click to expand...
This was my concern as well. The Court is not known for expediency, so I'd be worried about it's ability to address time-sensitive issues.

Punk D:
I'm unsure why so many of my fellow RA members are so eager to give the court more power and less oversight of their criminal procedures
Click to expand...
I think it's a perception that limiting Executive Power seems a good idea. But at what cost?
 
Limiting the Executive is one thing, but this gives a significant amount of power to the courts &...and I stress the "AND"...reduces the RA procedures that the court has to follow with respect to criminal procedure.

In essence, this bill creates more stringent procedures around delegate ejections but eliminates many procedures for the court. And most of the RA is just nodding along while this is being done.
 
Punk D:
And most of the RA is just nodding along while this is being done.
Click to expand...
Par for the course, perhaps? :shrug: On the other hand, it could be a case of: "well, the current and former delegates don't seem too concerned.. so it must be kosher." I don't subscribe to that mindset, but it could be a factor. Mind you, McM (previous and possible future Delegate) has expressed some uncertainty.
 
reading this over...I see that Section 5.4 and 6.5 allow the delegate to eject sans Court notification/approval. I guess this only covers pre-trial ejections and not endo ejections.
 
Punk D:
I guess this only covers pre-trial ejections and not endo ejections.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

I do agree with ensuring the right to appeal any ban, but if you look at:

If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
Click to expand...

First:

If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is a good idea. The moderating Justice is hearing evidence in a criminal trial. Approval for a ban would be another separate proceeding. One that should require a majority opinion.

Second:
If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably confident that TNP is relatively careful who we put in the Justice chair. One can assume Justices have the best interests of the region as a guiding principle. But.. one can also assume the CJ would take the lead in most/all of these situations. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a simple majority opinion would be better imo. I don't like the idea of a single Justice (who may be new to the job, is not versed in security matters, or just happens to be the only one around at the time) deciding a nation's standing in the region.

It seems that you have to balance time constraints with fairness. Sure, leaving the decision up to one Justice is probably quicker, but is it fair (rhetorical)? I still think the existing procedure is ok. My :2c: anyway.
 
I do not think this restricts the Delegate any more than he already is restricted. The Delegate can still eject under exactly the same circumstances he could before.

The only thing the bill does is clarify and improve the current procedure for handling the ejections after they happen. And I think it is worth passing the bill for that.
 
r3naissanc3r:
I do not think this restricts the Delegate any more than he already is restricted. The Delegate can still eject under exactly the same circumstances he could before.

The only thing the bill does is clarify and improve the current procedure for handling the ejections after they happen. And I think it is worth passing the bill for that.
Click to expand...
It does the exact opposite for Court procedures, however.
 
It doesn't, actually. Under current law, a single justice of the court can make a unilateral decision about whether a defendant can be banned, and the law states that that decision a) cannot be overruled by the majority of the court, and b) cannot even be appealed by the defendant. It also allows the delegate to strip RA membership from a defendant, which could, in the wrong hands, provide an easy mechanism for political maneuvering by bringing charges against a political rival and stripping their RA membership to prevent them from running for office, voting on legislation, etc.

I agree with mcm that the law around ejections and bans in general needs to be changed. However, the scope of such a change is much larger than what this bill is intended to accomplish. My goal with this was simply to fix a really awful, probably unconstitutional section of the Legal Code in order to better protect the rights of defendants and TNPers in general. It was not to tackle the delegate's powers in full, though I would be happy to collaborate (with mcm or anybody else) on a bill that did just that.
 
punk d:
punk d:
This law puts more restrictions on the delegate, gives more power to the court, and provides more latitude for the court procedures.

There's only one phrase that comes to mind, "Hell's to the naw"
Click to expand...
Roman - even you support this?

I'm disappointed. If there is one bill that should give us all and you pause for concern it's this one. We are giving, imo, too much power to the Court and curtailing our delegate even further. That's a coup recipe if I ever saw one. Hopefully, I'm just one relatively insane RA member who is wrong, but this bill scares the mess out of me. I'm unsure why so many of my fellow RA members are so eager to give the court more power and less oversight of their criminal procedures.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about the nature of this proposed law in terms of the existing law, and the implications of this new law. After careful consideration I have decided...


... to change my vote to "Nay".
 
SillyString:
It doesn't, actually. Under current law, a single justice of the court can make a unilateral decision about whether a defendant can be banned, and the law states that that decision a) cannot be overruled by the majority of the court, and b) cannot even be appealed by the defendant. It also allows the delegate to strip RA membership from a defendant, which could, in the wrong hands, provide an easy mechanism for political maneuvering by bringing charges against a political rival and stripping their RA membership to prevent them from running for office, voting on legislation, etc.

I agree with mcm that the law around ejections and bans in general needs to be changed. However, the scope of such a change is much larger than what this bill is intended to accomplish. My goal with this was simply to fix a really awful, probably unconstitutional section of the Legal Code in order to better protect the rights of defendants and TNPers in general. It was not to tackle the delegate's powers in full, though I would be happy to collaborate (with mcm or anybody else) on a bill that did just that.
Click to expand...
Notice the lack of addressing the comment which actually preceded this which said:

It does the exact opposite for Court procedures, however.
Click to expand...

This bill eliminates the structure within the legal code for criminal procedures meaning the RA gives up what little rules around criminal procedures that were in this bill.

That seems entirely antithetical to what you're trying to accomplish with the delegate and banjecting.
 
It really doesn't even do that, though. If you look at the current and the previous version of the court rules, you'll see that the Court has treated that particular section as applying only when someone is removed from the region/RA before a trial. This may not be what the authors of that section intended, but as it contains absolutely no provisions for extensions or other accommodations based on RL/other concerns, there's no way for courts to have treated it as anything else.

So all removing this does is remove an inflexible, rarely used edict about trials, and allows criminal trials where the defendant is removed from the region to be conducted under the same procedures, and with the same ability to adjust as necessary, as all other criminal trials - quite arguably a strong necessity to ensure fair treatment.

If you are unhappy with the Court Rules and want the Legal Code to cover how exactly trials should be conducted, that, like the overall matter of the delegate's ability to ban, is really an entirely separate matter. The scope of this bill is not banning, and it's not reworking trial procedures. I am personally not opposed to either one - but they're not this bill.
 
punk d:
It does the exact opposite for Court procedures, however.
Click to expand...

This bill eliminates the structure within the legal code for criminal procedures meaning the RA gives up what little rules around criminal procedures that were in this bill.

That seems entirely antithetical to what you're trying to accomplish with the delegate and banjecting.
Click to expand...
Procedural matters like how much time a defendant has to enter a plea or how long discovery period lasts are best left to the court rules. That's why we have them after all. Furthermore, the current court rules already adequately cover these issues.

I think that change is very straightforward, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top