NPO Security Recommendation

[SillyString]

Recommendation from the Security Council to the Office of the Vice Delegate​

Having reviewed the recent events in Lazarus, namely a coup perpetrated against the Lazarene government and the establishment of a new regime, the so-called New Lazarene Order, the Security Council issues the following standing recommendations to the Vice Delegate:

1. That the individuals known as Feux, A Mean Old Man, Stujenske, Milograd, Pergamon, and The Sweet Leaf, as well as any aliases of the same, fail the Vice Delegate's security check should they ever choose to apply for citizenship.
2. That other individuals who supported the rogue delegate, including Avakael, Horse, Zenny, Dalimbar, and Neo Kervoskia be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny during the Vice Delegate's security check should they ever choose to apply for citizenship.
3. That other individuals who are members of the New Pacific Order be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny during the Vice Delegate's security check should they ever choose to apply for citizenship.

Our reasoning for these recommendations is as follows:

1. The coup which formally began in April, but which definitively was in planning for at minimum a year prior, was organized, arranged, and perpetrated by the six individuals named in Recommendation 1. Through their actions, they have demonstrated that they bear no regard for the community of their region, and it is highly likely that they will perpetrate similar coups again, in additional regions. Therefore, the Security Council deems any of the six to be a likely threat to the security of The North Pacific.
2. The individuals named in Recommendation 2 supported, by word and deed, the rogue NLO regime - some overtly, as in the case of Avakael, Zenny, and Neo Kervoskia; others covertly, as in the case of Horse and Dalimbar. Because of their allegiance, a not-insignificant chance exists that they would materially support a rogue regime in The North Pacific. Therefore, the Security Council deems any of these five a potential risk.
3. Notwithstanding any public statements now that the ill-fated coup has come to an end, the perpetrators were members of the NPO, the NLO's forums were hosted on the NPO's forums, and the NPO as a whole, including both Delegate and individual members, knew about and supported the coup. The extent to which they may have been aware of the intended plans prior to the coup itself is uncertain, but it is reasonable to believe that the delegate certainly knew. Without knowledge of how far the conspiracy went, the Security Council must consider other members of the NPO to represent a similar potential risk.

We encourage the Vice Delegate, and all future Vice Delegates, to take these recommendations into account when conducting their security checks.

The Security Council voted to issue this recommendation and was in favor 5-2, with three members not voting. It is not legally binding on the VD, who retains final control over who they block from citizenship and when, but it represents the opinion of the institution.

NB: The text of this recommendation was under discussion and in its final form prior to Zenny's application for citizenship, but the vote could not close in time to make these public before the denial occurred.

 

[St George]

I question whether subjecting those who merely supported the coup to higher levels of security is really in the interests of fairness within TNP, especially the presence of several actual coupers in this region who themselves are generally considering citizens in good standard.

I would also like the Vice Delegate to clarify as to when discussion on this started, how soon Zenny's name was added to any potential draft or was brought up in the discussion.

I further query the presence of a Delete On Sight player - Milograd - on the list and wonder whether TNP's precious ink supplies could've been saved his mention.

 

[Elegarth]

Your Security Council made a few wrong assumptions there. AMOM and Milograd were not involved with Feux / Stu's plans for a long time, and only jumped ship once it had sailed, shortly before I quit the Senate. While I don't criticize the resolution at all, the allegations are actually incorrect. Would it be worth to re-write them to reflect the actual issue?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Can we kick Ivan out now too?

 

[Eluvatar]

Your Security Council made a few wrong assumptions there. AMOM and Milograd were not involved with Feux / Stu's plans for a long time, and only jumped ship once it had sailed, shortly before I quit the Senate. While I don't criticize the resolution at all, the allegations are actually incorrect. Would it be worth to re-write them to reflect the actual issue?

I'm not sure I see what you're saying is incorrect.

The statement says the coup was in planning for at least a year.

It says the coupers included AMOM and Milograd.

It doesn't say all of the coupers were involved in all of the planning.

 

[Elegarth]

Your Security Council made a few wrong assumptions there. AMOM and Milograd were not involved with Feux / Stu's plans for a long time, and only jumped ship once it had sailed, shortly before I quit the Senate. While I don't criticize the resolution at all, the allegations are actually incorrect. Would it be worth to re-write them to reflect the actual issue?

I'm not sure I see what you're saying is incorrect.

The statement says the coup was in planning for at least a year.

It says the coupers included AMOM and Milograd.

It doesn't say all of the coupers were involved in all of the planning.

It says:

The coup which formally began in April, but which definitively was in planning for at minimum a year prior, was organized, arranged, and perpetrated by the six individuals named in Recommendation 1. Through their actions, they have demonstrated that they bear no regard for the community of their region, and it is highly likely that they will perpetrate similar coups again, in additional regions. Therefore, the Security Council deems any of the six to be a likely threat to the security of The North Pacific.

You could argue that Milo should remain there, perhaps, with his PRL stuff. But AMOM was not even remotely active to be named in recommendation 1. It would be more accurate to have them both in Recommendation group 2, but that would involve lower security measures. But recommendation 2 is more factually accurate.

 

[Elegarth]

ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE POSTING; sorry.

 

[St George]

Eh. I'd argue that AMOM's history with the region and becoming the public faith of the coup warrants putting him into first category.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Can we kick Ivan out now too?

This, for sure.

 

[falapatorius]

Is this necessary at all? Has it even been done before? The VD (as far as I know) consults with the SC on citizenship applications anyway. Concerns can be raised then. This type of recommendation should theoretically apply to all known coupers and their supporters (if at all). Singling out members of the NPO (particularly the timing of this) seems less than objective. I also note the vote was 5-2, with 3 not voting. Were they abstainers? Were they absent? The potential vote could have been a deadlock.

 

[Romanoffia]

Can we kick Ivan out now too?

This, for sure.

What fun would this region be without you?

Is this necessary at all? Has it even been done before? The VD (as far as I know) consults with the SC on citizenship applications anyway. Concerns can be raised then. This type of recommendation should theoretically apply to all known coupers and their supporters (if at all). Singling out members of the NPO (particularly the timing of this) seems less than objective. I also note the vote was 5-2, with 3 not voting. Were they abstainers? Were they absent? The potential vote could have been a deadlock.

Generally speaking, the Vice Delegate may or may not consult the SC on citizenship application depending upon an applicants known history. But it rarely comes up. I think the last time a Vice Delegate brought up a citizenship application was during DD's tenure as VD.

99.44% of the time, a Vice Delegate check on applicants is a rather simple task that takes very little time to conduct.

 

[falapatorius]

Generally speaking, the Vice Delegate may or may not consult the SC on citizenship application depending upon an applicants known history. But it rarely comes up. I think the last time a Vice Delegate brought up a citizenship application was during DD's tenure as VD.

99.44% of the time, a Vice Delegate check on applicants is a rather simple task that takes very little time to conduct.

Umm.. that's.. interesting. But I'll leave that hot potato alone.

So.. from your POV, that would be a 'no' in the "necessary" ledger? Or is it because there is very little consultation, that this might be necessary?

 

[Romanoffia]

Most of the time, consulting the SC on run of the mill citizenship applications when there is no reason to do so if there is not even a hint of suspicion, would be time consuming given that the real important checks are done by the Admins (such as looking for proxying, etc.,,,).

Essentially, there is very little need for consultation beyond the obvious issues that would require consultation.

Frankly, I think paranoia concerning the NPO is largely unfounded. We don't need the NPO to subvert our government because we do a great job of that on our own without anyone's help.*


* That was meant to be sarcastic.

 

[SillyString]

I think the last time a Vice Delegate brought up a citizenship application was during DD's tenure as VD.

I feel the need to point out that I have brought up applications from at least half a dozen individuals over the past few months for discussion. At no point until now was rejection approved of.

 

[SillyString]

I question whether subjecting those who merely supported the coup to higher levels of security is really in the interests of fairness within TNP, especially the presence of several actual coupers in this region who themselves are generally considering citizens in good standard.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Individuals admitted when the option to block did not exist cannot be said to have gotten special treatment - the question is how they would be treated today.

Additionally, it's not unreasonable to take into account the length of time since any coup and an individual's actions since then. Someone might merit wariness and being blocked shortly afterward, but can earn trust back over time. GM is, as always, an example of someone who has earned some of that back (though I still wouldn't vote for him as delegate, sorry ), and who has additionally expressed regret for prior events in TNP. That matters.

I would also like the Vice Delegate to clarify as to when discussion on this started, how soon Zenny's name was added to any potential draft or was brought up in the discussion.

Discussion began during the coup, and Zenny's name was included from very early on.

I further query the presence of a Delete On Sight player - Milograd - on the list and wonder whether TNP's precious ink supplies could've been saved his mention.

Same response here. Discussion began during the coup, and Milograd's inclusion was obvious - and he was not DOS then. Additionally, given the participation of one DOS player in TNP, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for the SC to take a stand on a different one (nor is it completely unthinkable that his DOS status could be revoked).

Is this necessary at all? Has it even been done before? The VD (as far as I know) consults with the SC on citizenship applications anyway. Concerns can be raised then. This type of recommendation should theoretically apply to all known coupers and their supporters (if at all). Singling out members of the NPO (particularly the timing of this) seems less than objective. I also note the vote was 5-2, with 3 not voting. Were they abstainers? Were they absent? The potential vote could have been a deadlock.

5-2 is the total vote count, with three not voting. Voting abstain is voting.

As for why this step was taken, it was with the intent of looking toward the future. Down the line, we might elect a vice delegate who is not aware of what happened in lazarus or does not know the individuals involved, and who thus might not know to consult with the SC on an applicant. Issuing these standing recommendations, which are pinned inside the private SC chambers, is a way of trying to ensure that a future VD is alerted to their actions in advance. The VD does not consult on every application, or at least, none so far have, so this is one way of avoiding mistakes.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

For the record, I did not support these recommendations in the Security Council because I do not believe the Security Council has any statutory authority to make any sort of formal voted recommendations on security clearances for citizenship applications. The statute in question only allows for the Vice Delegate to "consult" with the Security Council, it does not say the Security Council may vote recommendations on the matter.

I pointedly take no position on the substance of the document because of these views on the lack of authority to adopt them.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I cast the other dissenting vote. I've never been a big fan of telling people to go play somewhere else.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

The statute in question only allows for the Vice Delegate to "consult" with the Security Council, it does not say the Security Council may vote recommendations on the matter.

I pointedly take no position on the substance of the document because of these views on the lack of authority to adopt them.

The statue in question also doesn't disallow a vote either. Not to mention that the Security Council creates, and votes, on its own procedures. In fact, Article 3 is the Voting Procedure of the Security Council.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

GM is, as always, an example of someone who has earned some of that back (though I still wouldn't vote for him as delegate, sorry ), and who has additionally expressed regret for prior events in TNP. That matters.

Probably a wise course of action.

 

[falapatorius]

The statue in question also doesn't disallow a vote either.

Not in so many words, but:

12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

So the SC could create these recommendations for itself, not the Vice Delegate. Note the topic title:

Recommendation from the Security Council to the Office of the Vice Delegate

Meh, I'm just not in favor of painting all NPO members with the same brush.

 

[SillyString]

I again feel the need to point out:

Article 6: Other Threats
a. The Council may consider other threats to the security of The North Pacific.
b. To report or recommend regarding such a threat, the minimum discussion period is four days and the minimum voting period is four days.

And since the recommendations are non-binding, I don't think it matters. The SC could vote on recommendations to the RA. The RA could vote on recommendations to the VD, or to the SC, or to the AG. Any body can vote on recommendations to any other body - it's only when those recommendations hold force of law that there needs to be a provision for them.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I stand on my stated position. The R.A. could have authorized the consultations with the S.C. to come with a voted recommendation in the statute, but it didn't not. Had the statute been totally silent on the topic, then SillyString, your view on recommendation would be the proper statutory construction. However, since the R.A.only provided a limited role of the S.C. to give advice, general rules of statutory construction treats that limitation as the proper interpretation.

(OOC - Seriously, see the third appendix to Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals, 1960. And I know of this book as a textbook for one of my law school courses taught by his late widow, Soia Mentschikoff. The two of them were the original "reporters" (draftsmen) of the Uniform Commerical Code. The appendix I mentions lists all the various common law principles of legislative construction.)

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The SC rules specifically say we can do it. So unless you're saying that that particular article is illegal or unconstitutional, I'm really not seeing where you're coming from, Grosse.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

And I think you are reading things too broadly. I've explained my rationale in the last couple of posts, and I can't be any clearer than that. (And if you're curious, the book I mentioned is available on Kindle as a reprint in 2012. It's on my Kindle right now.)

 

[SillyString]

Can you show me where in the legal code or constitution I can find "The Common Law Tradition"? I'm not finding anything in there, and of course TNP has not adopted legal findings from other regions.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The TNP legal system is essentially a common law based system. The Court Rules apply a basic principle of common law jurisprudence by making prior decisions binding unless a court decides a holding should be overruled.

To have it be code based, and not based on the common law, there would have to be a codification of all interpretive principles. (This is exactly what the Napoleonic Civil Code does in much of Europe, and in the US state of Louisiana.)

 

[Funkadelia]

The TNP legal system is essentially a common law based system. The Court Rules apply a basic principle of common law jurisprudence by making prior decisions binding unless a court decides a holding should be overruled.

To have it be code based, and not based on the common law, there would have to be a codification of all interpretive principles. (This is exactly what the Napoleonic Civil Code does in much of Europe, and in the US state of Louisiana.)

I didn't know Louisiana had a legal code.

 

[Romanoffia]

The TNP legal system is essentially a common law based system. The Court Rules apply a basic principle of common law jurisprudence by making prior decisions binding unless a court decides a holding should be overruled.

To have it be code based, and not based on the common law, there would have to be a codification of all interpretive principles. (This is exactly what the Napoleonic Civil Code does in much of Europe, and in the US state of Louisiana.)

I didn't know Louisiana had a legal code.

I'm originally from Louisiana and I have exactly the same sentiment.

But seriously, Common Law is a very complex term which is usually not understood by most people and even some lawyers.

The fact that we use case law and precedent in TNP Legal Code means that we, in fact, do operate under at least that aspect of a Common Law system. We also use stare decisis (overruling precedent) which is largely unique to Common Law systems.

In fact, we use the principles of common law definitions in TNP legal procedure. If you think the system is complicated as it stands in TNP, it would get so tangled that almost nothing would happen if we went to a codex type system that did not recognise common law elements. Essentially, the legal code, even for something as simple as for the purposes we have in TNP, would become absolutely voluminous (as Grosse essentially says).

 

[SillyString]

The TNP legal system is essentially a common law based system. The Court Rules apply a basic principle of common law jurisprudence by making prior decisions binding unless a court decides a holding should be overruled.

TNP's legal system is TNP's legal system, and similar to the US, it is sort of a mishmashy hybrid.

But that has no bearing on my question, which is where I can find this text in TNP law. Legal doctrines and principles and rules from legal systems which are not TNP's have no legal weight in TNP, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The Common Law Tradition exists in every English speaking nation (i.e., where English is an official language, It is even used in Israel which is based on both English common laaw and Talmudic law, which use the same sort of legal reasoning.

It is irrelevant whether its use is explicit or implicit; as I and others have pointed out the TNP legal system essentially adapts the common law tradition in its jurisprudence, and the methodlogy in interpreting statutes is indistinguishable from the RL common law tradition.

 

[SillyString]

None of that addresses my question or my point. TNP law does not call RL legal treatises as its dependencies; it is self-complete insofar as such is possible.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

It is far from "self complete." We, collectively, make a lot of assumptions that are not specifically spelled out (thank God) in our governing documents. These are things that are grounded in common law. For example: Punctuation marks will not control the plain and evident meaning of language. Things like that - common sense, really.

 

[SillyString]

It is far from "self complete." We, collectively, make a lot of assumptions that are not specifically spelled out (thank God) in our governing documents. These are things that are grounded in common law. For example: Punctuation marks will not control the plain and evident meaning of language. Things like that - common sense, really.

As I said, "insofar as such is possible." Using language beholdens us to the meaning and conventions of language; words have meanings and meanings matter. We are likewise beholden to the code that we use, and the platform; writing bold or underline tags on paper would be meaningless. It is not possible to be completely self-complete in a holistic sense.

But that does not relate to the point I am making, which is about TNP's legal code. We do not depend on other regions, or on any or all RL nations, to write or interpret or rule on our documents. We are not obligated to treat the TNP crime of fraud as equivalent to the RL crime of fraud, because we have defined it vastly differently and for good reason - and this is in fact one instance where words do not mean what they mean, because we have explicitly said that they do not. We have no provision for attorney-client privilege. We do not protect minority groups against discrimination. I could go on - we are not RL, we are not identical to RL, RL rulings are not TNP dependencies.

We do not have RL burdens of proof. Our court does not have the ability to force people to testify or to jail them if they don't. We do not have any text-based or interpretation-based limitations on the freedom of speech, and we don't have freedom of expression at all. What our laws mean and how they work is determined on interpretation by the courts - not by referring to some old book on RL systems with their own quirks.

TNP is TNP, and TNP law is TNP law, and TNP law means what it says. Cite me TNP law, not irrelevancies.

And note that I have already cited TNP law that perfectly allows the SC to vote on exactly what it's done. Whether or not some RL country or another does or does not allow something similar is entirely immaterial.

 

[Romanoffia]

I think GBM and Grosse are making the point that the same logic, rational and reasoning used in RL generally, or at least hopefully, apply in TNP's legal code.

The whole of Court Procedure, because it is not actually set by law, per se, is purely determined by the custom and tradition of the Court this is an explicit element of a Common Law System.

For instance, we do not have a specific law against perjury, per se, but someone who openly lies in a TNP Court hearing could be charged with malfeasance or violating one's oath (implied or otherwise) to give truthful testimony. Hence, in such a situation, perjury would become a function of malfeasance if such a precedent was set by the Court by decision/interpretation.

 

[SillyString]

I think GBM and Grosse are making the point that the same logic, rational and reasoning used in RL generally, or at least hopefully, apply in TNP's legal code.

I think we have seen that this is generally untrue.

The whole of Court Procedure, because it is not actually set by law, per se, is purely determined by the custom and tradition of the Court this is an explicit element of a Common Law System.

You know that's not true, right? The Constitution explicitly empowers the court to establish procedures, and the Court did so by majority vote. Court Procedure in TNP is set by law.

For instance, we do not have a specific law against perjury, per se, but someone who openly lies in a TNP Court hearing could be charged with malfeasance or violating one's oath (implied or otherwise) to give truthful testimony. Hence, in such a situation, perjury would become a function of malfeasance if such a precedent was set by the Court by decision/interpretation.

We do actually have a law against perjury, and possibly three depending on the specific offense: Fraud, Election Fraud, and Gross Misconduct.

 

[falapatorius]

You know that's not true, right? The Constitution explicitly empowers the court to establish procedures, and the Court did so by majority vote. Court Procedure in TNP is set by law.

Not exactly. A majority of Justices decide the Court Rules. The Constitution empowers them to do so (bolding mine):

12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

But to say the Court Rules are set by Law is a stretch. Allowed by Law maybe. As to what role the Common Law System plays in this.. carry on.

 

[Romanoffia]

I think GBM and Grosse are making the point that the same logic, rational and reasoning used in RL generally, or at least hopefully, apply in TNP's legal code.

I think we have seen that this is generally untrue.

OK, I'll give you that one.

The whole of Court Procedure, because it is not actually set by law, per se, is purely determined by the custom and tradition of the Court this is an explicit element of a Common Law System.

You know that's not true, right? The Constitution explicitly empowers the court to establish procedures, and the Court did so by majority vote. Court Procedure in TNP is set by law.[/quote]

Yes, the Constitution allows the Court to set its own procedure, which procedure is not set by statute, which makes this arrangement an element of Common Law Systems.

For instance, we do not have a specific law against perjury, per se, but someone who openly lies in a TNP Court hearing could be charged with malfeasance or violating one's oath (implied or otherwise) to give truthful testimony. Hence, in such a situation, perjury would become a function of malfeasance if such a precedent was set by the Court by decision/interpretation.

We do actually have a law against perjury, and possibly three depending on the specific offense: Fraud, Election Fraud, and Gross Misconduct.[/quote]

The ability to morph and Common Law Principle into a form of statue law is also a key element in Common Law Systems. For instance, we have no statues concerning 'malice aforethought', but such things are considered. If someone does something unintentionally and/or unwittingly without malice, guilt cannot be established unless the elements of Means, Motive and opportunity can be reasonably established.
[/quote]

 

[SillyString]

The ability to morph and Common Law Principle into a form of statue law is also a key element in Common Law Systems. For instance, we have no statues concerning 'malice aforethought', but such things are considered. If someone does something unintentionally and/or unwittingly without malice, guilt cannot be established unless the elements of Means, Motive and opportunity can be reasonably established.

That's not true, though. TNP does not rely on the standard of "means, motive and opportunity". It relies on evidence presented as well as arguments on intent - and intent has been defined via court ruling (and intent argument is the only place "malice aforethought" could be factored in, but strictly speaking, "malice" is not relevant. Only aforethought is.). Prior to that ruling, it was a very nebulous standard that was sometimes taken text-literal and sometimes based on RL standards and never good.

I am not arguing that TNP does not have some elements of common law (except that we only have one court for everything ever so it's not a proper common or civil law system anyway, and can't be). But TNP law is not dependent on RL law or ideas or concepts. It just isn't. It's dependent on itself and what we put into it.

 

[falapatorius]

But TNP law is not dependent on RL law or ideas or concepts. It just isn't. It's dependent on itself and what we put into it.

Dependent, no. Derived from, possibly.. depending on who drafted a particular Law and their mindset at the time.

I'd wager that some take the RL approach, while others try to avoid that.

 

[Romanoffia]

The ability to morph and Common Law Principle into a form of statue law is also a key element in Common Law Systems. For instance, we have no statues concerning 'malice aforethought', but such things are considered. If someone does something unintentionally and/or unwittingly without malice, guilt cannot be established unless the elements of Means, Motive and opportunity can be reasonably established.

That's not true, though. TNP does not rely on the standard of "means, motive and opportunity". It relies on evidence presented as well as arguments on intent - and intent has been defined via court ruling (and intent argument is the only place "malice aforethought" could be factored in, but strictly speaking, "malice" is not relevant. Only aforethought is.). Prior to that ruling, it was a very nebulous standard that was sometimes taken text-literal and sometimes based on RL standards and never good.

I am not arguing that TNP does not have some elements of common law (except that we only have one court for everything ever so it's not a proper common or civil law system anyway, and can't be). But TNP law is not dependent on RL law or ideas or concepts. It just isn't. It's dependent on itself and what we put into it.

Intent is one thing, but intent alone does not a crime make. It TNP is not dependent upon RL law, ideas or concepts, then Law itself is irrelevant because Law, indeed, is in and of itself an RL and Legal concept. So is guilt, innocence and the idea of a court in itself.

The point that I am making is that without grounding in logic, reason and rationality, then the courts are free to make totally arbitrary decisions which in turn means that people can do whatever they please and no one can stop them or punish them (because punishment is also a RL Legal concept which, according to your logic, cannot exist because no RL Legal concepts exist in TNP. I vote for Anarchy and Nihilsm, which, in turn are RL Lega Concepts which cannot exist in TNP, right?