Request for Review: Court Ruling 1.1: Attorney General Discretion

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
I hereby request that the Court review the following ruling, which it issued September 15, 2012:
As per the Legal Code it is the duty of the Attorney General to serve as the Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific. Currently all cases are brought to the Attorney General in order for their office to bring the charges directly to the Court. The refusal of bringing a case to Trial is not a duty given to the Attorney General in any legal document of the North Pacific including but not limited to the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights. It is the belief of the Court that there is a fundamental issue with how the process currently works. Currently it is the belief of the Court that the Attorney General in refusing to take a case to trial is acting as a higher authority then what they are. While the Attorney General may not feel there is enough evidence to merit a trial it is still the belief of the Court that the decision on whether there is enough evidence should reside with said Court and not the Office of the Attorney General.

The Court suggests the following procedures be adopted for all trial proceedings:

1. The accuser files a complaint with the Attorney General.
2. The Attorney General Notifies the Defendant that a complaint has been filed against them.
3. Within 72 hours from the time the complaint is filed with the office of the Attorney General the Court shall be notified of the investigation into the matter by the Attorney General.
4. The investigation shall last no more than 5 days in which the Attorney General must ask for an indictment and present all evidence to the Court.
5. Within 72 hours for the request for an indictment the Court will determine if a Trial is merited based on the evidence alone.
6. Normal trial proceedings will begin at this point in time.

I believe that the above ruling violates the following portion of the Legal Code:
Legal Code 6.7:
38. The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested.
39. In the event that the Attorney General is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in a criminal case, the Delegate shall appoint an existing deputy Attorney General who is not similarly party to that case. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
40. Failing the existence of a deputy Attorney General who is able to manage the prosecution of a case, the Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case. If the Delegate is a defendant, the defence attorney, or a witness in the case, then the Vice Delegate may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case.
41. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion of any case the management of which they have undertaken.
42. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to see to completion a pending case before the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over the managing of the prosecution.
43. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
44. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
45. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to: submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges; arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment; acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case; representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial; and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
I believe that it violates the Legal Code in the following way:

At the time that ruling was given, the law regarding the Attorney General was very different. It stated:
4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
Since that time, the Legal Code underwent reordering, moving the Attorney General clauses to Chapter 6, Section 7, on 2013-09-19. Additionally, the text of those particular clauses underwent a large rewrite on 2014-03-10, resulting in the law as it stands today.

The new wording of the law explicitly allows for the power of the Attorney General to choose whether or not to hear a particular case, and such legislative amendment has rendered this particular ruling void of its legal effect.

I therefore request that the Court review this ruling and acknowledge its obsolescence by modifying it with the strikethrough tag. This, I believe, will preserve the historical record and allow future Courts to reference the old ruling while also making clear that it is not current law.

As a member of the AG's office, I have explicit standing to request this review.
 
Changed topic title from "Request for Review: Court Ruling on Attorney General Discretion" to "Request for Review: Court Ruling 1.1: Attorney General Discretion" on request.
 
The Court will take the request under advisement, pursuant to chapter 2 of the current Court Rules. As the moderating justice as defined in those rules, I make the following inquiry:

Since the subject "ruling" was expressed in a manner of "opinion," "belief," and "suggestion," the petitioner and any other appropriate party is asked to submit a brief on whether such language actually created a binding statement of the law at the time it was issued, or at any subsequent time.

There will be a five day period for submissions on the request as a whole, and as to the specific inquiry posed above.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Since the subject "ruling" was expressed in a manner of "opinion," "belief," and "suggestion," the petitioner and any other appropriate party is asked to submit a brief on whether such language actually created a binding statement of the law at the time it was issued, or at any subsequent time.
I would note that this is not entirely an accurate description.

The ruling has two parts - the latter is indeed phrased as a suggestion, and in fact Justice Hileville explicitly stated that it was not legally binding. It is not clear to me why it was included in the rulings page at all, since it was merely a suggestion, but that is not really hugely important.

The former part, however, is different. Although the ruling uses the term "belief", it cannot reasonably be interpreted to be a non-binding ruling.

First of all, the paragraph of text follows the statement "The Court opines". In 39 total rulings, that phrase appears 46 times, and it appears in each and every court ruling. It is very, very clear that the usage of this phrase means that the following text, rather than being an explanation of legal justification, is the Court's official ruling. That it is called an opinion is irrelevant; the Constitution itself states:
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
Second of all, the phrasing used is "It is the belief of the Court", in order to answer a question on the legality of the Attorney General's (in)actions. This is clearly "soft" phrasing - that is, phrasing intended to soften the impact of a statement and promote a more conversational, less adversarial tone. Contrast these two statements:
hard:
The Attorney General, in refusing to take a case to trial, is exceeding their authority
soft:
It is the belief of the Court that the Attorney General in refusing to take a case to trial is acting as a higher authority then what they are.
The "soft" phrasing is a commonly used tool in discourse, often to mollify someone influential, powerful, or respected, or tone down the controversality of the underlying assertion. However, it should absolutely not in this case be taken as indicating that the Court's official, officially-opined opinion was in any way less than legally binding - remember that despite the softness, it was indeed explicitly the Court making the statement.

Additionally, I would argue that whether or not it was binding (which it absolutely was), that is irrelevant to this particular petition which seeks to have it struck from being considered as binding due to the changes in the relevant law. Even if it was never binding (although it was), it certainly is not now.
 
Until such time as the current forum DNS issues have been resolved, this request for review will have to be placed on hold.

Access to the Court's prior rulings and other materials are required as those are currently inaccessible.
 
Just to note, there should be a pinned thread in the private chambers with a link to the rulings thread - you may need to replace the tnp address with the s13, but aside from that it will work fine.

Not as fancy as the rulings page, but functional! :)
 
Might I inquire about an update? It's been a week now since the forum links were fixed, and this is really a pretty straightforward request. :)
 
I have found that in reviewing the existing legal documents (including the Court's current rules and forms) and past court opinions related to requests for review, there are subsidiary issues that must be addressed in the context of this proceeding.

I am sure that the petitioner would prefer a carefully researched and thought out opinion given the preliminary issues that must first be addressed, and given that the context of this request for review is distinct and different than the prior determinations of the Court in the nature of requests for review.
 
Researched and thought out is good, but I'm not actually looking for an opinion, per se. Just some strikethrough tags. :P
 
Since the constitutional court seems a little stuck on this matter, in the interest of inter-agency cooperation I offer the services of the Fiqh to rule on this matter, provided Sillystring (as the person bringing the request) and R3N (on behalf of the Regional government) agree to be bound by the Fiqh's ruling.

Having looked at the paperwork I could promise a considered response within 48 hours. Guaranteed.
 
I have been ill the past few days with a case of either a bad cold or a mild flu. I haven't been online all that much.

The draft i half written, but when I feel the way I've been it is impossible to concentrate.

Silly String, there are issues you request for review presents that have to be addressed since there hasn't been a request that fits the pattern you've presented. It would be improper to just say yes, if you're not entitled to it, or if past court decisions have to be reconciled in order to reach a honest thoughtful decision.

Perhaps you've been too close to your past career as a justice to see things objectively as I am doing since I am looking at all of this with clear eyes and not assuming things I shouldn't be.
 
With all due respect, Grosse, the two remaining justices on the Court are capable of making a decision which has majority support even if you need to take time away due to illness.

I'm not disputing the fact that this request needs to be a legitimate one in order to be granted, but given that it's more of a request to update old records than a request for a new ruling on the law, it's a little concerning that it's taken 30 days so far (with no clear end in sight).
 
court-seal.png

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Request for Review filed by Silly String on behalf of the Attorney General on the Court’s Ruling issued on September 15, 2012

The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by Silly String.

The Court took into consideration the following:

A. Bill of Rights, Clause 9

B. Legal Code, Section 6.7, Clauses 38 to 45

C. Court Rules, Chapter 2

D. Court Rules, Chapter 4

E. Court Rulings (the numbers refer to the opinion numbers in the indexed list of decisions as maintained in the legal documents area of the official forums, including:

Ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as made on 6 August 2010

1. In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Tim on the Attorney General Refusing to bring Trials to the Court; Ruling delivered on September 15th 2012.

3. In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Unibot on Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, Ruling delivered on October 22nd 2012, and concerning opinion on Ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as made on 6 August 2010

17. Advisory Opinion of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the events occurring in the course of The North Pacific v. Unibot; Advisory Opinion delivered on February 12th 2013.) (No reference to opinion of September 15, 2012.)

19. Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r regarding whether or not Court decisions are irrefutably binding, as well as an ancillary question put for by Crushing Our Enemies regarding the scope of the Court's review powers (Ruling delivered on February 20th 2013.)

25. Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on the definition of “affected party” (Ruling delivered on April 22nd 2013.)

In this request, the Court is presented with a heretofore unseen type of request for review to strike a prior decision of the Court on the grounds that subsequent legislation has superceded that decision. In order to reach the merits of the request by the petitioner, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, it is necessary to determine several prerequisite questions, and in reaching those determinations, it is necessary that this Court reconcile some of its past decisions and Court Rules with the Governing Documents of TNP (i.e., the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Legal Code) which appear to be in conflict.

1. Does the petitioner have “standing” to bring this request for review as an “affected party” or otherwise?

Petitioner appears to base their right to bring this request for review on the language contained in Clause 36 of Section 6.7 of the Legal Code. (“The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”) That Clause, however, is ambiguous inasmuch as it refers to “standing” which is not defined in any of the Governing Documents of TNP, nor in the Court Rules, nor in prior decisions of the Court; and further, the Clause is facially ambiguous as to whether the “standing” is in respect of the right to participate in the request for review proceeding, or whether it is in respect of the right to initiate an request for review.

The Court has previously utilized an “affected party” approach to delineate “standing” in a request for review. (See Ruling Index Number 25; Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on the definition of "affected party"; Ruling delivered on April 22nd 2013.) This decision is further implemented in a template form to submit Requests for Review to the Court. It is important to note that while precedent is an important and necessary element to the rule of law, it is also important that the Court’s use of precedent be based on the Governing Documents of the Region, and that when the Court fabricates principles and terms of use that are not expressly created and defined in those Governing Documents, it can lead to a more limited approach to the application of those Governing Documents than ought to be intended.

The terms “standing” and “affected party” are both terms of use that are nowhere defined in the Governing Documents of the Region. “Standing,” as noted above is used only once in any of those documents, and the term is not otherwise defined in them. Likewise, the definition of an “affected party” is a term of use created by the Court without any definition for that terminology appearing in the Governing Documents of the Region other than a statement in Section 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution. Thus, this places the use of both terms roughly in the same footing that a prior Court found constitutionally deficient as to the term “resident” in its ruling of Ruling Index Number 3; In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Unibot on Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, Ruling delivered on October 22nd 2012, Concerning opinion on Ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as made on 6 August 2010.)

It has to be noted that Chapter 2 of the Court Rules with respect to Requests for Review, Clause 1, states in pertinent part that “Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law. It is not limited to any particular set of persons who may be an “affected party.” (Emphasis added.) The above quoted provisions of the Constitution and the Legal Code with respect to request for review proceedings has to be read in the context of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights which states in pertinent part, “Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. 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.

Thus, there is a fundamental tension between prior Court decisions, the Governing Documents of the Region, and the current Court Rules as to whether the previously adopted judicial definition of an “affected party” has been too narrowly defined given the language of Chapter 2 of the Court Rules and Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights.

We are faced with two opposing options in order to reconcile these conflicting authorities. If the Court is to provide judicially crafted definitions to terms adopted in the Governing Documents or by the Court, then the action of the Court to nullify the definition of “resident” in the 2010 Opinion was incorrect and needs to be overruled. On the other hand, if that 2010 decision is valid, then it was inappropriate for the Court to fabricate definitions for terms used in the Governing Document that for which the Regional Assembly did not provide a definition, and it should have looked only to the Regional Assembly to provide any and all such definitions.

The weight of precedent in the Court’s previous decisions appear to be that the action of the Court to strike the definition of residency was in error. A careful reading of the 2010 decision on Residency and Forum Administration makes clear that the use of “resident” was a label to represent a specifically described set of factual circumstances of which nations were and should be considered part of TNP, and the 2010 opinion made that clear. (While the use of nations to visit a region to post recruitment advertisements on the in-game regional message boards still remain possible, the advent of the power of message suppression by the Delegate in-game has made that option all but obsolete.) The action of the Court in Ruling Index Number 3 to the contrary was based upon a misreading of the 2010 opinion, and was erroneous. Accordingly the discussion of which nations are resident in TNP from the 2010 opinion is reinstated, and consistent with the Court’s later practices in discussing “standing” and “affected party.” (The Court notes that this conclusion was initially reached in this Opinion before the enactment of the recently adopted “Voting Rights Act,” although the terminology of “resident” and “citizen” would be consistent with the 2010 Opinion on Residency and Administration.)

We now turn to whether or not the term “affected party” has been too narrowly defined by the Court in prior decisions, and in deciding whether a party that has filed a request for review has a sufficient level of being “affected” so as to have standing. Based upon those prior actions by the Court, the petitioner here would not have a sufficient nexus to claim a status of an “affected party.”

However, as noted earlier, the language of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, coupled with Chapter 2 of the Court Rules on requests for review proceedings, suggest that the standard previously used by the Court is too narrow, and thus inconsistent with these two authorities as to the scope of who is an “affected party.” Nowhere in the Governing Documents has an intent been shown to allow a narrow view of an “affected party.” The language of Clause 9 that each Nation in TNP “is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency,” clearly evinces an unmistakable intent that the right to seek a review of governmental action is based upon this language of Clause 9.

If one labels the standard of “affected party” that the Court has been using as a “directly” affected party, then the scope of who may bring a request for review proceeding as to governmental action not included in that standard would be as “indirectly” affected parties, who have no less of a right to seek such review as a party that is more directly affected. Thus, a request for review by a member of the Regional Assembly (as it was defined prior to enactment of the Voting Rights Act, which is now a “citizen” who participates in the Regional Assembly) who may be seeking such a review with a view towards possible legislation has just as much a right to be treated as an “affected party” under Clause 9 as a citizen who claims a personal right or interest that is impaired by some governmental act. Thus, with this broader standard in mind, the petitioner here, as a representative of the Attorney General, would not only have standing to participate in a review proceeding, the petitioner would have standing to file a request for review even though they are an indirectly affected party.

Accordingly, we conclude that based upon the foregoing, the petitioner has standing to bring this request for review proceeding, and that the broader standard required under Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights must prevail in determining who may file a request for review.

2. Is the subject matter of the request for review appropriate for consideration of a governmental action in this proceeding?

The question here basically comes down to whether a prior court decision was binding upon any party, and whether the effect of such action, if any, has been superceeded by legislation since adopted by the Regional Assembly.

The petitioner seeks to have stricken the language of Ruling Index Number 1 on the grounds that its effect is in conflict with subsequent legislation concerning the duties of the Attorney General as “the chief prosecutor” of the region. At the time Ruling Index Number 1 was issued, there was a lack of clarity as to whether the Attorney General could use their discretion in deciding what criminal cases would be filed with the Court, and whether the Attorney General could use their own judgment as to the appropriateness of whether a complaint filed with the Attorney General should be presented to the Court in an indictment or could dismiss the case before any filing was made with the Court.

It is uncertain to a heightened degree whether the language of that opinion imposed anything binding on the Attorney General; the choice of words used in Ruling Index Number 1 are not binding, and there was nothing in the opinion that showed a basis in the Governing Documents that supported the idea that the Court was basing its opinion on the then existing law in any of the Governing Documents, and not a mere expression of its belief and recommendation.

This can be compared to the way Ruling Index Number 8 on essentially the same topic was drafted and the reasoning that was used in that later opinion. The later opinion made reference to specific provisions of the Governing Documents; and most importantly, the Court never made reference to or even cited Ruling Index Number 1 in its decision. That certainly tends to support a conclusion that Ruling Index Number 1 had, and has, no binding effect and that there is no conflict for the petitioner in this proceeding between that opinion and the provisions in the Governing Documents as they currently stand enacted by the Regional Assembly.

Inasmuch as the Court, in Ruling Index Number 1, did not purport to base its opinion on the Governing Documents of TNP, and at a minimum did not seek to have the the Regional Assembly enact legislation to clarify what was meant by the term “chief prosecutor” in terms of the duties of the office of the Attorney General at that time. Ruling Index Number 1 is merely a nonbinding document expressing an opinion of the Court as to what it thought the duties of the Attorney General and the Court might be, and had and has no binding effect. Accordingly, the Court finds that Ruling Index Number 1 should be declared a nullity, and that it is unnecessary for the Court to grant the petitioner’ request to strike the opinion.

(We note that we do not decide in this proceeding either the status or the effect of Ruling Index Number 8 or whether the Attorney General may bring requests for review to strike any alleged superceded opinion of this Court; we merely cite to that opinion to show the lack of effect and status that Court showed with respect to Ruling Index Number 1 and that the failure of that Court to make any reference to Ruling Index Number 1 underscores that lack of binding effect of that opinion. Because we do not decide on the purported merits on the Petitioner’s request as presented, we reserve decision on that question to a later time when the issue is directly presented for decision.)

For clarity we summarize the holdings of this Opinion as follows:

We find that a party may have a directly or indirectly affected interest to support their standing to present a request for review based upon Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, and under this finding, the petitioner has standing to bring this proceeding;

We find that Ruling Index Number 3 was incorrect in overuling the portion of the Court’s 2010 Opinion on Residency and Forum Administration, and reinstate the 2010 opinion on the question of residency, and thereby reconcile Court precedent on providing judicially crafted definition of terms in the absence of legislation, although legislation by the Regional Assembly is the preferred means of defining such terms;

We find that Ruling Index Number 1 had no binding effect by the actual langusge used in that Opinion and that not having any binding effect, it should be overruled and nullified; and

We find that having determined that such Opinion having been nullfied as not having any language consistent with binding effect, the request of the Petitioner is moot.

Accordingly, listed opinion number 1 is NULLIFIED, and the request to strike Ruling Index Number 1 is DENIED as moot.


typos and references corrected for consistency's sake.
 
In the name of the Divine God, Flemingovia I have just spent ten minutes trying to understand exactly what has been decided by the Court.

Has the presiding justice overturned a ruling and decided to reimplement a previous ruling that he himself wrote? Isn't that a clear case of grosse-misconduct?

I would even go so far to say that it may show a case of grosse-negligence towards the law and previous courts (namely the court which previously overturned the ruling he has just reimplemented).
 
I would like to request a small clarification to this ruling.

It has been the practice of most Courts since the adoption of the current Constitution to include a version of the following line in their rulings:

"Opinion drafted by <NAME>, joined by <NAMES>."

I believe that the inclusion of such lines improves transparency and aids citizens in better understanding the workings of the Court and their decisions - a ruling only joined by one justice indicates internal dissent, a justice can point to rulings they have drafted to demonstrate work ethic when running for reelection, and so on.

I ask the Court to amend this ruling and add such a line.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
In the name of the Divine God, Flemingovia I have just spent ten minutes trying to understand exactly what has been decided by the Court.

Has the presiding justice overturned a ruling and decided to reimplement a previous ruling that he himself wrote? Isn't that a clear case of grosse-misconduct?

I would even go so far to say that it may show a case of grosse-negligence towards the law and previous courts (namely the court which previously overturned the ruling he has just reimplemented).
Lord, you are missing the point.

The discussion was about prior inconsistent precedence on the use of judicially defined terms from the Governing Documents or of court derived terms. Either the Court can, and should, or the Court can't and shouldn't. Either way, one line or the other of prior Court precedent has to be overruled so there is consistency and predictability in how the Court rules.

Same principle on the scope of "standing" and "adverse party." The scope chosen in this opinion is based explicitly on the Bill of Rights; there does not appear to be any legislative basis for the narrower test that had been used. Again, this leads to a consistency and predictability that otherwise has not been there.

And I would suggest you let Flem speak for himself. You know how he hates having words put in his mouth. :)
 
I, too, call shenanigans.

Some questions for the court:

1. What exactly is the opinion of the court? How much of this published decision is obiter dicta?

2. Which justices are for this decision (or against?)
 
Eluvatar:
I, too, call shenanigans.

Some questions for the court:

1. What exactly is the opinion of the court? How much of this published decision is obiter dicta?

2. Which justices are for this decision (or against?)
There's a summary at the end of the opinion; read it.

And the conflict in president that much of the opinion is discussing is unavoidable in order to address the problems past rulings created because of the contradictions.

The same is true as to the finding on listed index opinion number one. It isn't sober dicta to find that the opinion Jon was non-binding and really said nothing of any predenential weight, that is a nullify.

This opinion had to deal with a morass of pars judicial inconsistency. The fact that past Courts ignored their inconsistencies and literally created a Gordian knot that had to be unfounded is a consequence of the lack of judicial analysis that those past decisions contained.
 
Having reviewed the Constitution and Legal Code, I would like to point out the following:

This ruling does not have legal force.

Decisions must be made by a three-member panel, and the Legal Code requires the Court to promptly appoint a THO in the event of any vacancy. In the vacancy of an appointed THO, the Court cannot legally issue this ruling.
4. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has a conflict of interest, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers from among available citizens to participate as temporary Justices.
Depending on one's stance on conflicts of interest, it may become necessary to invoke the following clause as well:
5. If all Justices are either vacant or absent or have have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.


While I thank Justice Grosseschnauzer for his personal, non-binding opinion, I will continue waiting until the Court is able to issue a legal ruling.
 
I find myself in agreement with SillyString. I look forward to seeing what the full Court has to say on this matter when it is able to reconvene.
 
Silly String, you are not a member of this Court, and you are not a self-appointed super-Court. The alleged conflict of interest does not exist. And based upon an exchange of PM's with Justice Kialga, where he indicated that he felt the opinion was ready for posting, that dictated the timing of the posting of the opinion. He had promised to post comments in a private area of the Court some days ago, and never did, so I waited several days beyond the time his promised his comments, along with his stated approval to post the opinion. Since the rules of the forum prohibit direct quotation of PMs, all I can do is paraphrase the essence. Since two Justices concurred in posting the opinion, I think the question of a Court majority speaks for itself.

I am not responsible for the sloppy, inconsistent and contradictory precedents of the Court that I encountered in preparing this decision. As one who was a member of the Court during the time since my last tenure as a Justice, you are more responsible for that sorry state of affairs than I could ever be.

And if I were you I would reconsider some of the language you used in your post. It could be construed as contempt of court.
 
TNP Constitution:
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
Emphasis mine. I think it's pretty clear that a court consisting of fewer than three justices cannot issue a legal ruling. It does not meet the definition of "The Court" which is empowered to answer requests for review.
 
To add to what COE said, if one looks through the (now declassified - you're welcome!) Court Archives, one will see that there is not a single instance of a ruling being issued by less than a three member panel - whether that consists of all justices or a mix of justices and THOs.

I may not be a Justice, but you, Grosse, are not legally empowered to act unilaterally to overturn the law, prior rulings, or precedent, and I am fully within my rights to point that out and await a legal ruling.

I'll make you a deal, though - if Justice Kialga makes a public statement that he indeed concurs with this ruling and that he concurs with you that a full Court is not required for a ruling to be issued, I will withdraw my statement that this ruling is not legally binding. Absent such a statement from Justice Kialga, however, your opinion on discarding years of precedent about full panels is, like this ruling, just your opinion.
 
I beg the Court's pardon in posting here. Please split to the relevant discussion thread if need be.


TNP Constitution:
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
COE:
I think it's pretty clear that a court consisting of fewer than three justices cannot issue a legal ruling. It does not meet the definition of "The Court" which is empowered to answer requests for review.
I disagree with that interpretation. I see no provision that prohibits the Court making a decision on this review request. Justice Grosseschnauzer is the Moderating Justice as per:

Chapter 2: Requests for Review-Adopted Court Rules:
1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.
2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.
Furthermore, when this request was accepted ( here ), the Court had no vacated positions. That occurred here. (well after the period for submitting briefs had expired)

Silly String:
Depending on one's stance on conflicts of interest,
I'd like to point out:

Chapter 4: Precedent and Appeals-Adopted Court Rules:
Section 2: Appeals

1. The petitioner in a rejected request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may appeal a decision made by an individual Justice to the Court as a whole for consideration.
2. The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.
(bolding mine) If you truly feel there is a conflict of interest here, the appropriate time to address that is pre-decision.

SillyString:
This ruling does not have legal force.
I beg to differ:

Article 5. The Court - TNP Constitution:
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
Silly String:
Decisions must be made by a three-member panel
Could you please cite that? I can't find it.

I thank the Court for it's patience.
 
I tend to agree with Silly on this. A full 3 member panel needs to be in place for a ruling. That can mean a 2-1 vote, but I do not believe 2 members of the court can make a decision absent a 3rd presence when it comes to issuing a ruling. Accepting/Rejecting a request is one thing, issuing a ruling is quite another.

I know that many times in court's pass items have languished for months due to absences/vacancies on the court. This seems like a similar situation, imo.
 
So is this issue closed now?

I note in passing that kialga has made no posts other than RA votes since 19th December.
 
As the opinion Grosse posted wasn't a legal one from the Court, I would say it is not. Hopefully the imminent election of a new justice will see progress on this front.
 
SillyString:
As the opinion Grosse posted wasn't a legal one from the Court, I would say it is not. Hopefully the imminent election of a new justice will see progress on this front.
you may hold that opinion as a private citizen, but we cannot pick and choose which court rulings we accept. I would suggest submitting a legal review of this legal review (you have standing, I do not) which would force the court to state definitively whether this is a personal opinion by justice Grosseschnauzer or a ruling by the court. It would also force the court to legally justify that.
 
I absolutely plan to do that if Kialga posts in support of this ruling and its validity without a THO, as that would constitute a majority of the Court. But an individual justice cannot act to make rulings or overturn laws and precedent, and at the moment, that is all we have evidence of.
 
As a former Justice, etc.,,, I offer this logical opinion:


The Court indeed must consist of three Justices. However, if one Justice is unavailable, and two vote the same way, then the absent justice is a moot point. A Justice being 'absent' or otherwise unresponsive does not mean that the court is incomplete.

However, if the status of the missing Justice is found by law and it is so determined that the Justice is found to have abandoned the position, then I would conclude that the Court is incomplete and no court decisions can be completed until the Court once again numbers three (3) Justices.
 
Roman, I agree with you completely. If the court is fully staffed and a member does not bother to respond to something, their mere silence is not a blocker on the Court making progress on its duties.

At the time this opinion was posted, though, the Court was indeed lacking a member. DD was removed from office under the abandonment clause, triggering a vacancy and a special election - and also necessitating the "prompt" appointment of a THO, something required regardless of whether the Court is facing any open cases or reviews. As this did not happen, the Court is, as you said, incomplete and unable to legally issue any rulings.
 
flemingovia:
Since the constitutional court seems a little stuck on this matter, in the interest of inter-agency cooperation I offer the services of the Fiqh to rule on this matter, provided Sillystring (as the person bringing the request) and R3N (on behalf of the Regional government) agree to be bound by the Fiqh's ruling.

Having looked at the paperwork I could promise a considered response within 48 hours. Guaranteed.
This is getting rather drawn out. it is astonishing and absurd that this matter was brought on 19th November 2014 and is still rumbling on. I repeat my offer, made in good faith, that the FIQH will sort this out in 48 hours, should our services be required.

This will remove the issue from the court docket, allowing them to focus on other pressing matters.
 
Personally, I would be happy for the fiqh to issue a decision on whether strikethrough tags should be placed around Ruling 1.1 to reflect its lack of continuing applicability thanks to constitutional and legal changes enacted since its issuance.

If the Court is amenable to the same and agrees to abide by the decision of the fiqh, I would be happy to withdraw this request.
 
To be clear, the Office of the Attorney General of The North Pacific supports the position of Associate Attorney General SillyString in this discussion. The AG's Office, as the defender of the public trust and prosecutor of the people's grievances, supports the legal definition of the Court, not the ad hoc definition given by a single Justice, regardless of that particular Justices penchant for overly, and unnecessarily, verbose rulings.

We thank Justice Grosse for his opinion and await the official ruling of the full Court.
 
SillyString:
Personally, I would be happy for the fiqh to issue a decision on whether strikethrough tags should be placed around Ruling 1.1 to reflect its lack of continuing applicability thanks to constitutional and legal changes enacted since its issuance.

If the Court is amenable to the same and agrees to abide by the decision of the fiqh,
I would be happy to withdraw this request.
Actually, since there seems to be broad consensus that no valid decision has been rendered by the court, if he complainant withdraws the request for review it no longer becomes the affair of the court. They do not need to be amenable or not.
 
Discussion on this matter is ongoing. I apologize for my delay; A power outage, and the subsequent restoration thereof, ensued in the frying of my modem, and I have now got service back in order.

One of us will keep you up to date, however the opinion posted earlier in this thread does not have majority support of the court.
 
Thank you for the update.

I note in passing that it is now 53 days since the request for review was posted.

The offer from the Fiqh still stands.
 
Back
Top