Request for Review re Recent AG Election

Mall

TNPer
If an RA member's nation CTE during an election and the speaker fails to update the list of RA members is that vote valid or invalid? Please refer to this thread for further details. It seems absurd to claim that illegal votes should be allowed simply because the speaker failed in their action. As such I also request that, if necessary, the Court retroactively remove GBM from the RA at the appropriate time thereby striking out that vote.

Keeping in mind that in this case there is an election in the balance and a quick decision is important, I thank the Court for its time.
 
In the spirit of an open Democratic process I would also appreciate if the court could induldge us in this manner. It is a very time sensitive matter. If a run off race is to be had so be it. If the court deems GBMs vote is valid and PaulWallLibertarian42 is the elected AG then so be it. That way we can fill the vacancy in the AGs office as soon as practical to not createa prolonged vacancy in that department.

I happen to agree with the ruling of the Election Commissioner. It may be a matter of convenience for the PWL42 campaign - but it is also the legal presidence that has been set. The RA speaker keeps and maintains a list of RA members. If a nation CTEs the speaker notes it and request their removal. If the nation restores itself prior to the speaker can make note of it then that nation is restored and the speaker cannot act to remove them. This had been the practice since I have been here. It is the same practices that govern RA members on internal votes in the assembly. If someone has missed 4 legislative votes and not been active for over 20 days...and in theory should be removed for inactivity...if the speaker fails to act..and the person then voted in a proposal legislation vote..then the speaker cannot act. The same as if a nation CTEd during a vote then restored itself before being noted by the speaker. If the speaker misses it then the situation is corrected the speaker cannot act retroactivly. The person gets a free pass so to speak.

I am sure the speaker can expand on the process if need be.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
In the spirit of an open Democratic process I would also appreciate if the court could induldge us in this manner. It is a very time sensitive matter. If a run off race is to be had so be it. If the court deems GBMs vote is valid and PaulWallLibertarian42 is the elected AG then so be it. That way we can fill the vacancy in the AGs office as soon as practical to not createa prolonged vacancy in that department.

I happen to agree with the ruling of the Election Commissioner. It may be a matter of convenience for the PWL42 campaign - but it is also the legal presidence that has been set. The RA speaker keeps and maintains a list of RA members. If a nation CTEs the speaker notes it and request their removal. If the nation restores itself prior to the speaker can make note of it then that nation is restored and the speaker cannot act to remove them. This had been the practice since I have been here. It is the same practices that govern RA members on internal votes in the assembly. If someone has missed 4 legislative votes and not been active for over 20 days...and in theory should be removed for inactivity...if the speaker fails to act..and the person then voted in a proposal legislation vote..then the speaker cannot act. The same as if a nation CTEd during a vote then restored itself before being noted by the speaker. If the speaker misses it then the situation is corrected the speaker cannot act retroactivly. The person gets a free pass so to speak.

I am sure the speaker can expand on the process if need be.
Also keep in mind the Court decision involving TD's RA membership being recognised despite the Speaker making a mistake. I would suspect that such leniency might be extended to GBM in the matter of this election for the same reasons.
 
Roman:
Also keep in mind the Court decision involving TD's RA membership being recognised despite the Speaker making a mistake. I would suspect that such leniency might be extended to GBM in the matter of this election for the same reasons.
Possibly. I won't presume to speak for the Court, but the fact that the ballot in question significantly impacts the election result (run-off or PWL42 victory), may come into play. :shrug:

Question: Will a THO be necessary, given that at least one Justice has cast their vote for the OP? I'm unsure on Court procedure for this situation.
 
Admin Hat
PaulWall has been masked as AG seeing as though the results have been certified. If the court reverses this decision or seeks some sort of stay on the results please post a request in the admin requests area to remask PaulWall.
 
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
1. The Regional Assembly will elect an Attorney General by plurality vote every four months.
It is clear from the above that the speaker failed in its duties, thereby corrupting the Election.

As a member of the RA and a candidate in the election I have standing as an affected party.
 
This request is accepted. Given the nature of the issue, the time period for accepting briefs will be cut short. Please have them in within 48 hours if possible.

The Court requests an official statement from the Speaker's Office on its procedure for determining the removals of RA members.

Edit to note: "Member of the RA" is not accepted as standing under the Court's prior ruling on the definition of affected party. The Court accepts the petitioner's candidacy in the election in question as standing, as the decision to count or discount this particular vote directly affects its outcome.
 
Brief filed with the court of The North Pacific on August 26th, 2014 2:15PM:

Thank you Chief Justice SillyString for agreeing to hear this case in the spirit of an open democratic process. It was a close race and I applaud candidate Mall for exercising his rights to challenge the Election results. I feel a region is ran best when it is ran open and honestly. As a Candidate in the August Attorney General Special Election I petition that I should also have standing in this request for review.

Firstly let us review the ruling from the Election Commissioner:(http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8157962&t=7230431 )

"
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.


Under my reading, loss of Regional Assembly membership takes effect only upon being announced by the Speaker. I believe this has also been the policy of the Speaker's Office itself, with respect to both removals from and admissions to the RA.

As far as I can tell, the Speaker never removed GBM from the RA Registry, or requested removal of her masking in the admin thread, or made any other announcement to that effect.

For this reason, I do not believe GBM ever lost her RA membership during the vote, and therefore I decided not to discount her ballot.

It is my belief based on presidence of how the Speaker of the Regional Assembly maintains the RA Roster that the Election Commissioner made the proper ruling.

Great Bights Mum was an RA member at the time she cast her ballot making her vote be legal and binding. While it seems true her nation did Cease to Exist momentarily she was able to revive it in a timely manner. The Speaker did not notice this by the indication he did not make note of it in the Admin Request thread to have her removed from the RA. Infact it doesnt look like anyone noticed it until AFTER the election results were posted when Flemingovia inquired about it.

The Procedure the Speaker seems to follow is if someone needs to be removed due to inactivity or CTE'ing the speaker makes a note of it in the Admin request thread. If a nation CTEs or was inactive and technically due to be removed but then votes in an RA proposal vote thread or revives itself before the Speaker announces it in the Admin thread then that nation cannot have its RA privledges removed. If the Speaker fails to act then the speaker loses its opportunity to act and that nation remains a legal part of the RA -- in Great Bight Mums case --- her ballot for Attorney General is thus still a legal binding ballot.

Futhermore, I would like to cite the Request For Review concerning Treize_Dreizehn RA Admission: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8141388&t=7152796

In that review the court opined that TDs RA admission was illegal however he was allowee to remain in due to acting in good faith and contributing to the RA.

Similarly I would at this time petition that upon being certified by the Election Commissioner I have acted in good faith in assuming the role of Attorney General by doing the following:

I took my oath of Office here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8157969&t=7019276

Made an Admin request to be masked here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8158006&t=6917173

Actively seeking and reviewing applications for AAGs (Assistant Attorney General) Here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8158058&t=7230889

Here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8158060&t=7230890

And Also by linking to the Application in my Forum Signature.

Also in the very same forum signature I welcome TNPers to PM me if they feel they have been a victim of a crime and link them to the thread that instructs members how to file a criminal complaint.

Futhermore I have sent a Forum PM as well as a In game TG to the Former AGs In TNP nation - requesting the former AG send over any case files he may have. As I had prior knowledge as an AAG that Former AG Treize told me he was potentially working on a case - though no thread exists in the AG office and no Criminal Complaint exists. I felt it my duty to do my due dilligence on it since I had forknowledge based on an IRC conversation to at least make an attempt to check up on it. (I can provide excerpts of said IRC conversation as well as copies of the PM and TG I sent -- to the Chief Justice, Privately upon request - as it is sensitive and secretive AG subject Matter on a potential investigation I rather would not post that in a public thread.)

I have demonstrated that I am acting in good faith while serving in the Role of Attorney General and request that the court allow me to continue serving in that capacity.

However, if the court deems a runoff election nessicary and desired then in the spirit of democracy I also welcome that. In the effort that whoever gets dully elected AG does so with a clean slate and does not have a specter of tomfoolery hanging over their candidacy and election.

Thank you to the court and to Chief Justice SillyString for allowing me to submit my brief to you today. I hope you will graciously consider it.

*edited: to fix a spelling error.
 
As the Court has seen fit to request such:

The present practice of the Speaker's Office as to the removal of members from the Assembly is automated, to an extent, in that there is a script that checks as to whether the nations of members of the Assembly are still in the region, highlighting on the rolls those nations that are not in the region at the time the script runs (the scripts used check other things, such as whether a member has been active the forum in the last thirty days, but as this is not the matter of this review I shall not further digress, unless the Court would request it); the Speaker checks the rolls to see those nations that have been highlighted and then checks those nations in-game, if the nations highlighted are in the region when the Speaker checks them, it is not presently the practice of the Speaker's Office to remove those nations; if they are not in the region, the Speaker will remove them from the rolls and request that they be remasked accordingly.

With regard specifically to Great Bight's Mum, the most recent check of the rolls before the conclusion of the election was on the 18th of this month, at which time I removed three members of the Assembly (relevant request for remasking), and the next check thereafter will have been shortly after the announcement of the results, as I had noticed the remark of Flemingovia that Great Bight's Mum's nation had Ceased-to-Exist, the check at that time showed that her nation had been highlighted, however on checking it in-game it was in the region so I have not removed her from the Assembly.
 
Thank you for your explanation, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple followup questions:

Zyvetskistaahn:
if the nations highlighted are in the region when the Speaker checks them, it is not presently the practice of the Speaker's Office to remove those nations
Is this a practice which you adopted independently, or was it also the practice of your predecessor(s)?

If you chose this approach independently, can you explain why you believe that it is the best practice? If it is inherited from a previous holder of the office, can you state the rationale that was given to you at the time?

With regard specifically to Great Bight's Mum, the most recent check of the rolls before the conclusion of the election was on the 18th of this month, at which time I removed three members of the Assembly (relevant request for remasking), and the next check thereafter will have been shortly after the announcement of the results
Generally speaking, how frequently do you check the rolls to update membership status?
 
In answer to the first, it was also the practice of my predecessor, though I do not know as to whether it was the practice of Speakers prior to him.

To the second, I cannot recall as to whether any specific rationale was explained to me at the time, it was stated by the then Speaker as being the practice (here), before my joining the Speaker's Office as a deputy, and I did not inquire as to specific rationale, to the best of my recollection.

To the third, generally I have checked the roles at my commencing and ending of votes in the Assembly (there have been few of these recently, so checks due to this have became less frequent) and when admitting members (which has, as of late, been every week or so).
 
Thank you.

From the linked post,
It is the general policy of the Speaker's Office that if we do not notice that a member is out of compliance with membership policies until after they have brought themselves back into compliance, they will not be removed from the rolls.
Mr. COE, can you explain for the Court why you believe that this is the best practice and adopted it for the Speaker's Office?
 
Essentially, it came down to this: if a Regional Assembly member has a nation in the region, and is in compliance with all other membership requirements, there is no justification for removing them, even if in the past, they may have been out of compliance. Furthermore, proving that someone's nation *used* to not exist is a tricky thing, and someone taking that to court could be messy.

Besides, the law is clearly intended to apply to nations that CTEd and aren't immediately coming back. Lapsing for a few hours is not a reason to remove someone's RA nation, especially if they're *in existence* when you notice the lapse.

If that strikes anyone as incorrect, ask yourself: do you really think Great Bights Mum isn't involved enough to the region to deserve a voice in the AG election? Policy is informed by reality.
 
If it pleases the Court,

Section 6.1.13:
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
In the above quoted section of the Legal Code, bold mine, the Speaker is tasked with removing any nation who leaves The North Pacific or ceases to exist.

In this matter the Court must determine the scope of Section 6.6.13 of the Legal Code. It is my belief that the letter of the law must be enforced and upheld. This particular section of the Legal Code states that the Speaker WILL PROMPTLY remove any nation who CEASES TO EXIST. Therefore once a nation has Ceased to Exist they are no longer a member of the Regional Assembly, pending the announcement of the Speaker. The law as written does not allow for leniency when a nation is restored before the Speaker gets around to formally removing them.

It is my belief that an immediate runoff election between Mall and PaulWall should be ordered. GBM is indeed a fantastic player and someone who has done great things for this region. However, the law should not and cannot be enforced on a case by case basis. It is also my belief that this particular section of the Legal Code should be further discussed by the Regional Assembly.
 
Silly string,

Given what you said here....

Edit to note: "Member of the RA" is not accepted as standing under the Court's prior ruling on the definition of affected party. The Court accepts the petitioner's candidacy in the election in question as standing, as the decision to count or discount this particular vote directly affects its outcome.

....I have refrained from commenting. Given that comments now seem to be being made by all and sundry with no standing in this election, I wonder if I might chip in?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Furthermore, proving that someone's nation *used* to not exist is a tricky thing, and someone taking that to court could be messy.
This section is factually incorrect. I tried to prove that GBM's nation *used* to not exist and it was quite easy.

sorry for the image size but as you can see, there's no issue proving GBM CTE'd six days ago. What COE says just is not correct that it is a tricky thing to prove a nation at some point did not exist.

GBM_CTE_3.jpg
Note: Edited by SillyString to spoiler large image.
 
The court requested briefs be filed in 48 hours. It has been passed 48 hours. Should briefs then be considered closed and due to the time senstive nature will a ruling be made promptly?

And as Flemingovia pointed out the Chief Justice said in this thread that merely being an RA member did not give one standing. The affected parties - the AG Candidates had standing - and the court asked the presence of the Speaker and former Speaker to answer questions concerning how RA membership and removal is monitored and conducted, I know I am not a justice, but IMO, I feel no other briefs should be considered unless you were an affected AG candidate, Mall or myself, or you are answering the courts questions RE: Speaker membership removal procedures. My question thusly is will these other briefs from normal RA members be considered? After the court ruled simply holding RA membership in this instance does not grant one standing in this request for review.

Thank you.
 
I misunderstood what the CJ meant by "standing". On re-reading I get what she was saying.

Ultimately, this comes down to two things:

the first is whether it is the decision of the Speaker or the membership criteria that determine whether one is or remains a member of the RA. Logic says it should be the latter. Therefore GBM's membership of the RA lapsed when her nation CTEd. Whether the Speaker spotted it or not is immaterial.

this is consistent with past practice. When I was removed from the RA a few years ago when my nation CTEd I got pretty annoyed and I asked why the Speaker at the time did not just tell me and let me revive my nation. I was told that the Speaker's job was not to make decisions but simply to record what had taken place. It was not his decision that removed me, but the dying of my nation.

The second issue is whether the Speaker acted "promptly" in removing GBM from the RA. Even if Zyvet's actions were consistent with past practice, i think most impartial readers would conclude that he did not act "promptly" in this case, and the practices of the Speaker's office need to be tightened up. If he had been acting as promptly as he should, then GBM would have been removed from the RA list during the vote.

I have thought a lot about this, and conclude that the fairest solution would be to re-run the ballot.

PS the chief justice requested that briefs be filed "within 48 hours if possible." As those on IRC know, I was chasing a killer Real Life deadline and it was not possible for me to file a brief before now.
 
flemingovia:
The second issue is whether the Speaker acted "promptly" in removing GBM from the RA. Even if Zyvet's actions were consistent with past practice, i think most impartial readers would conclude that he did not act "promptly" in this case, and the practices of the Speaker's office need to be tightened up. If he had been acting as promptly as he should, then GBM would have been removed from the RA list during the vote.
If it please the court, I would like to first express my regret for allowing my nation to CTE. I think the amount of controversy it has stirred up is unfortunate.

The issue I would like to emphasize is that the vote was legal at the time it was cast, since my nation had not yet CTE'd.

Also I would like to rebut the point made in the above-captioned quote. GBM was revived after 33 hours. I think most impartial readers would not agree that "promptly" should mean "daily." From a practical standpoint, that is an unrealistic burden to place on the Speaker.
 
I was thinking more in terms of general lessons that can be learned from this. While daily checks may be seen to be unrealistic (although i do recall speakers who checked every day), weekly checks seem insufficient.

My other point still stands: I think when you CTE, whether it is for 33 hours or 33 minutes, your RA membership lapses. Whether the list recognises this is pretty immaterial. If this is not the case, then it leads to enormous scope for favouritism from the Speaker who could, for example, remove from the RA someone they do not like and tip off by PM someone they do like, when nations CTE.

It cannot possibly be right that removal from the RA depends on who spots the CTE first.
 
Flemingovia:
My other point still stands: I think when you CTE, whether it is for 33 hours or 33 minutes, your RA membership lapses. Whether the list recognises this is pretty immaterial. If this is not the case, then it leads to enormous scope for favouritism from the Speaker who could, for example, remove from the RA someone they do not like and tip off by PM someone they do like, when nations CTE.
Hyperbole aside, this is a valid point. However, I believe the salient factor is the effect GBM's vote has on the AG election. Since there are no criminal cases pending (that I know of), or before the Court, I think a run-off would be prudent.
 
falapatorius:
Flemingovia:
My other point still stands: I think when you CTE, whether it is for 33 hours or 33 minutes, your RA membership lapses. Whether the list recognises this is pretty immaterial. If this is not the case, then it leads to enormous scope for favouritism from the Speaker who could, for example, remove from the RA someone they do not like and tip off by PM someone they do like, when nations CTE.
Hyperbole aside, this is a valid point. However, I believe the salient factor is the effect GBM's vote has on the AG election. Since there are no criminal cases pending (that I know of), or before the Court, I think a run-off would be prudent.
I have to disagree about the salient point. I think Flem raises the salient point. Regardless of the effect this has on the election, the potential favoritism that could be shown by the speaker's office is very concerning. And even if favoritism does not exist, the potential and likely varied application the Speaker's RA removal process is concerning. By varied, I mean the Speaker is not checking daily the CTE'd nations at a set time each day. I recall when my nation left the region the speaker removed me from the RA (even though I had previously resigned 7 days prior and changed my citizen nation 6 hours before the post). In that instance, simply because my nation remained in the region I was allowed on the rolls of the RA. In my opinion had I voted after my resignation - I didn't - none of those votes should have counted even though the Speaker's office didn't realize I was effectively, or rather legally, a member of the RA.

It's the same in this case, just because the Speaker didn't realize GBM had forfeited her RA membership doesn't mean that she didn't. At this point, I'd like to invoke a section of the Bill of Rights that comes into play here. This is from Rights number 9

No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.

The last part is the crux of the issue "equal and fair" treatment. Here again, if the Speaker's office is unable to perform checks at the same time for all nations, then I believe the Speaker is - not intentionally - not treating nations equally and fairly. If GBM was "lucky" because the Speaker looked 35 hours later, but in my case I was "unlucky" because the Speaker looked 6 hours later (though still i had resigned/registered as a citizen...but i digress) then that is not equal and fair treatment under the exact same laws. Now this right speaks of the Constitution, but BoR 10 does talk about equal and fair treatment with respect to voting under "fundamental laws" so I'd argue the Legal Code and other rules are covered by the BoR.

I think the only answer that can be concluded in this case is that GBM's vote is invalid and that she forfeited her RA membership when her nation CTE'd. Further, any nation that CTE's forfeits their RA membership regardless if the speaker notices or not. The only way I can see around this, is if the speaker began a policy that was pretty airtight and could be applicable all the time to tall nations. I don't think that's physically possible and if it isn't then a strict interpretation of the laws/rules should apply equally to all in my opinion.
 
COE is correct. Standing is not required to submit briefs; all submissions will be examined.

The Court will now deliberate and render a verdict.
 
court-seal.png

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Mall on Regional Assembly Membership

Opinion drafted by SillyString, joined by Kiwi and Blue Wolf II
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Mall.

The Court took into consideration the briefs filed by PaulWallLibertarian42, Hileville, flemingovia, and Great Bights Mum, as well as two statements from Zyvetskistaahn and one from Crushing Our Enemies in response to Court questioning.

The Court took into consideration portions of Chapter 6.1, Section 6 of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
11. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
12. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
14. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
15. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.

The Court opines the following:

The Court has two questions under its consideration. The first, dealing with the nature of RA membership, asks when that membership is lost - is it at the exact moment a violation occurs, or is it once that violation is noticed by the Speaker's Office?

When considering this question, the Court weighed four factors. The first is the language of the section in question, which states:
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
14. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
The wording of these clauses does not definitively answer the question, but it does lean toward one side. They are blunt, assigning direct responsibility for their duties to the Speaker, and declaring that the Speaker's actions are a necessary component - and not an afterthought - of ensuring the law is followed. Because these clauses are phrased as they are, focusing on the Speaker's duties rather than simply declaring that Regional Assembly membership is lost under certain criteria, the Court finds tentative support for the latter position.

As admission and removal are two sides of the same coin, the Court also notes the wording of the RA admission clauses:
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
Despite the fact that the Speaker has very strict limits on when an applicant is to be denied and when they are to be accepted, under these clauses the Speaker still possesses the final duty of action. An applicant is not accepted after passing the security checks, nor rejected after failing them, until the Speaker declares that such is so. Despite the Speaker's lack of discretion in the decision, their statements on the matter are explicitly performative - in contrast with the passive change of status allowed for by 6.1.10.

Second, the Court took into consideration the existing practice of the Speaker's Office. According to the testimony of the previous two Speakers, Zyvetskistaahn and Crushing Our Enemies, as well as a former Deputy Speaker, PaulWallLibertarian42, it has been the practice of the Speaker's office for over a year and a half to follow the latter interpretation. That the Speaker's Office has, for such a significant period of time, held a consistent position on the matter lends weight to the Court's tentative reading of the Legal Code. We are loathe to interfere with that practice without considerable legal justification.

Third, the Court considered each interpretation's potential for abuse, should any individual with the inclination to do so ever take office as Speaker. As a number of briefs mentioned, there is risk in declaring that membership depends on the Speaker's Office noticing a violation. It is possible for a Speaker to use such an interpretation to immediately remove members they dislike, while quietly alerting members they prefer and allowing them to rectify the problem.

However, the opposite interpretation is similarly open for abuse. A Speaker could pretend not to notice a violation, just to keep someone in the RA. They could get away with this easily in many cases, particularly with less prominent members, whose national events are unlikely to attract public notice. This is true even if the Speaker genuinely does not notice a violation - TNPers are far more likely to notice a well-known nation CTE and resurrect than a relatively unknown, new RA member. Moreover, this interpretation opens up a much more serious possibility for abuse, and it is this: The Speaker could use prior noncompliance as a weapon to disrupt a political opponent - for example, by unveiling the fact that a candidate in an election temporarily was out of compliance with the requirements months prior, thus invalidating their candidacy without sufficient time for them to rejoin and be eligible again. Or, alternatively, the Speaker could use this as a blackmail tool, threatening to remove someone's membership at a critical juncture based on prior noncompliance unless they act a certain way.

Both of these options are open to some abuse, but the largest risk of it comes from allowing the Speaker to impose penalties on RA members for noncompliance despite them being in compliance at the time of the punishment. This gives the Speaker the inappropriate ability to determine the setting and circumstances of a member's removal from the Regional Assembly. The Bill of Rights prohibits ex post facto laws; it is in this same spirit that the removal of Regional Assembly members who are in compliance with all membership requirements is and ought to be illegal.

Finally, the Court considered what is and is not possible for the Speaker's Office, taking into account the law and the tools at their disposal. We note that the wording of 6.1.13 and 6.1.14 is identical with respect to the operative clause, and that therefore the Speaker's obligations under each must be interpreted to be identical - that is, we must rule that membership is lost at the same point under each clause.

The former interpretation runs into trouble here. Although it is possible, using NationStates tools, to determine a nation's existence and movement history, it is not possible to do the same with a member's activity history on this forum. The Speaker's office is enjoined to remove RA members who fail to log in for more than 30 days, and yet, if they do not see this occur and the member in question logs in before they do see it, there is no way for this to be discovered. Indeed, if the nation in question was not themselves aware of exactly how long they had been away, they cannot even be called to task in one's imagination for failing to acknowledge their loss of membership and resign. To rule that their membership was lost, and should be removed, is to issue an unenforceable ruling.

As for the relevant tools, the Court notes that the Speaker's Office owns a script which regularly checks each RA member's most recent activity and the location of its nation. While this script catches violations that exist at the time it is run, it cannot look back in time and see what a nation or member did earlier. This script greatly enhances the functioning of the Office, and is what allows it to carry out its duties under the law. Should the Court rule in favor of the former interpretation, this Script would become useless, and the Speaker's Office would be obligated to manually check the nation and forum account of every RA member - a tedious and time consuming task that is quite likely to go undone.

Drawing on all of the above factors, the Court rules that statements from the Speaker's Office on the state of an individual's membership in the RA are explicitly performative. That is, membership is neither gained nor lost until the Speaker's Office acknowledges that fact, with the sole exception of the two week limit on the waiting period for RA applicants.

Additionally, the Court rules that when RA members are removed from the Regional Assembly for failing to meet at least one of the requirements laid out in 6.1.13 and 6.1.14, they must be failing to meet those requirements at the time of their removal.

Second, the Court considered whether the Speaker met the requirements to act "promptly" to remove members of the RA not in compliance with the requirements.

"Promptly" is an interesting word. It is distinct from "immediately", in that it allows some time to pass between an event and its response, but it is also distinct from any particular stated time period, in that it is unspecific as to how much time is permitted.

Since the law is deliberately unspecific, the Court would grossly overstep itself to provide a specific time period within which the Speaker - or any other government official bound by a "promptly" clause (of which nine are scattered throughout all three governing documents) - must act. Additionally, there is no time period within which a member could not come out of compliance and then back into it again before being noticed - thus, in this case, promptness has no bearing on the overarching legal question.

The Court therefore rules that whether a government official is carrying out their duties "promptly" is a matter for the Regional Assembly to judge. There are any number of options open to RA members who feel that laxness has occurred, from writing a petition to the official in question, to drafting legislation to change those clauses, to outright recall.
 
I find this ruling rather disappointing. It's disappointing the court took the following view:

Both of these options are open to some abuse, but the largest risk of it comes from allowing the Speaker to impose penalties on RA members for noncompliance despite them being in compliance at the time of the punishment.

For future RA members and future Speakers, the simplest and most fair way to maintain/monitor RA membership is to ensure that all nations (unless deployed) are maintained in TNP. In this manner, there is not potential for abuse unless the speaker does not "promptly" review the comings and goings of the RA members. The court actually did not define "promptly" in this case and left the rather vague definition as is continuing to give the Speaker a considerable amount of latitude.

But the ruling effectively says - if the speaker doesn't see you, you're in the RA. Even if the speaker does see you, if you're in compliance by the time he sees you, you're still a member of the RA.

That is the easy way out and not in keeping with good legal practice, in this humble citizens' opinion.
 
punk d:
But the ruling effectively says - if the speaker doesn't see you, you're in the RA. Even if the speaker does see you, if you're in compliance by the time he sees you, you're still a member of the RA.

That is the easy way out and not in keeping with good legal practice, in this humble citizens' opinion.
The alternative is worse - if the speaker doesn't see you (or takes pity and says nothing) you can stay in the RA, but you can be removed days, weeks, months, or even technically years later if someone else did notice and decides to screw with you, or you piss the speaker off and they decide to be vindictive.

It is, ultimately, not right for RA members to have to live in fear of future retribution for a simple lapse which was quickly remedied. Nor is it right for certain infractions (brief nation CTE) to be able to be punished more consistently than others (going just over 30 days without logging into the forum).
 
I think you are overcomplicating what is a fairly simple matter.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that people should be removed from the RA for a brief CTE that happened years ago. that is not how Speakers have acted in the past 10 years, and nobody is suggesting they do now. Speakers have tended to work with a mixture of good administration and common sense. It has been fine up to now.

But it is not unreasonable to say that if a nation CTEs during a ballot, their vote should not count in that ballot. Maintaining a nation is a condition of RA membership, NOT being on the RA list, and once the nation lapses, so does the membership.

Now I am sure lots of nations have had brief CTEs and have quietly revived their nation before the speaker noticed. Fair play to them. But when it happens during a ballot, and where that vote decides the result of the ballot, then common sense ought to prevail, and the fairest outcome of this would have been a re-run.

As it stands myself and others like me who have been chucked out of the RA because our nation CTEd now have a right to feel aggrieved, because it turns out that what we were punished for was NOT allowing our nation to CTE, which was our fault, but not noticing it before the Speaker did.

Can I have my seniority in the RA back, please?
 
SillyString:
punk d:
But the ruling effectively says - if the speaker doesn't see you, you're in the RA. Even if the speaker does see you, if you're in compliance by the time he sees you, you're still a member of the RA.

That is the easy way out and not in keeping with good legal practice, in this humble citizens' opinion.
The alternative is worse - if the speaker doesn't see you (or takes pity and says nothing) you can stay in the RA, but you can be removed days, weeks, months, or even technically years later if someone else did notice and decides to screw with you, or you piss the speaker off and they decide to be vindictive.

It is, ultimately, not right for RA members to have to live in fear of future retribution for a simple lapse which was quickly remedied. Nor is it right for certain infractions (brief nation CTE) to be able to be punished more consistently than others (going just over 30 days without logging into the forum).
I completely disagree that the alternative is worse.

If all RA members believe that if their nation CTE's they are immediately removed from the RA then whether the Speaker notices or not the expectation of an action is there for all.

What the court has done is take the easy way out and make things just as murky as they are today when the simple answer - your nation CTE's you must reapply, is quite effective, standard, not reliant upon the Speaker to 'notice'.
 
Given the term 'promptly' is vague at best, and the existing practice of the Speaker's office, this decision is not surprising. I mostly agree with it. Ultimately, this falls on the shoulders of the Speaker. But it I think it would be unfair to expect the Speaker to monitor elections 24/7. RL circumstances can affect forum activity.

The unfortunate result of this decision is that the election could be seen as 'tainted'. I mean no disrespect to the Court, or the AG candidates, but that's a reality.

Perhaps there may be remedy via the RA. If election commissioners were permitted to render a ballot null and void if they observed a nation CTE during the election (regardless of whether they revived immediately or not)? Just that though, RA membership standing is the Speaker's purview. Election commissioners tend to be around quite a bit during an election.

*edit* I think the 'best interests of the region' (fairness, democracy, transparency, etc.) could have been cited as a reason for ordering a run-off.
 
flemingovia:
I think you are overcomplicating what is a fairly simple matter.

I do not think anyone is suggesting that people should be removed from the RA for a brief CTE that happened years ago. that is not how Speakers have acted in the past 10 years, and nobody is suggesting they do now. Speakers have tended to work with a mixture of good administration and common sense. It has been fine up to now.

But it is not unreasonable to say that if a nation CTEs during a ballot, their vote should not count in that ballot. Maintaining a nation is a condition of RA membership, NOT being on the RA list, and once the nation lapses, so does the membership.

Now I am sure lots of nations have had brief CTEs and have quietly revived their nation before the speaker noticed. Fair play to them. But when it happens during a ballot, and where that vote decides the result of the ballot, then common sense ought to prevail, and the fairest outcome of this would have been a re-run.

As it stands myself and others like me who have been chucked out of the RA because our nation CTEd now have a right to feel aggrieved, because it turns out that what we were punished for was NOT allowing our nation to CTE, which was our fault, but not noticing it before the Speaker did.

Can I have my seniority in the RA back, please?
'Common sense' Justices don't get elected in TNP.

You get what you pay for.
 
Not a ruling I agree with personally, but that's not important.

I am curious as to which parts each Justice helped in crafting? The process for rulings is just so fascinating to me, and it would be marvelous if the Court would indulge a layperson's curiosity in this regard. :)
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Not a ruling I agree with personally, but that's not important.

I am curious as to which parts each Justice helped in crafting? The process for rulings is just so fascinating to me, and it would be marvelous if the Court would indulge a layperson's curiosity in this regard. :)
Finally, something I can't be blamed for! :lol:

You'll have to wait until the Court declassifies the deliberations, probably just after the next election cycle.

All levity aside, I am naturally happy with the decision mainly because I am an AAG. :P

That said, were I still a Justice on the Court, I would have weighed in the issues of The Spirit of The Law and The Letter of The Law.

The ruling was, for better or worse, an absolute Letter of The Law determination, IMHO. The matter as to the Spirit of The Law is an entirely different animal, of which I will make no determination as to the species of animal.

As for a layperson's curiosity about this ruling, the Court only has to issue its explanation in the form of a ruling, the explanation being in all reality, optional.

The reasoning and deliberations will come out later and be used a political fodder at a later date, which is a sad thing.
 
Back
Top