ReaperCop

The Grim Reaper

The Grim Reaper

TNPer
ReaperCop - April Special Elections 2016
The Grim Reaper for TNP Justice​

Who is the Grim Reaper?

Hi! Many of you don't know who I am, because you don't use IRC or browse Roleplay. To you, I say, I'm Grim. I'm probably best known as a Roleplayer, although I've also been a raider (in the Cat Burglars, and as a floating independent under various names, including Siam Meow and Vortiaganica), and one of the founding members of the first Osirian government. To that end, I was a participant in their first constitutional convention, and in their first Great Kenbet - court - as Nicholas von Sinterklaas. I also assisted in the foundation of the People's Republic of Lazarus, as Meow Zedong, participating in their People's Congress and as an active participant in their cultural media output.

I am assuming all of you now know who I am - at least, to a reasonable degree. I don't intend to get into an epistemological discussion here (I'm a constructivist, by the by) and so I will instead assume all of you understand my background as an NSer.

We'll now focus on getting you up to speed with the Grim Reaper as a TNPer.

Again, as a TNPer, I've mostly been focused on RP. My RP nation is Imperium Augustum, and is held in relatively good standing for its contributions to particularly bilateral and closed RP, as well as RP advice here and there. As Minister of Culture, I will be the first person to admit my tenure has not been everything it could have been. I have been led to believe that my selection was particularly to facilitate my involvement with TNP's World Fair booth - a role that I believe I carried out excellently, organizing the porting of CSS elements from a prior World Fair forum. This was a role I undertook with virtually no prior familiarity with CSS. Since then, my tenure has been marked with what has become par for the course for the Culture Department - an unfortunate lack of public facing. Behind the scenes, I've made significant contributions to future teamwork and planning, but I have been unable to competently organize a cultural team to undertake events planning.

I do not believe that my failings in the Culture Ministry - in organizing and leading a team - will carry over to the TNP Judiciary. My weaknesses have been in attempting to subdelegate tasks, and make use of skills and knowledge I cannot personally access. In contrast, where I have the capacity to work independently - bringing opinions and knowledge to the table of peers, rather than as a team leader and a manager - I believe I have shown capacity in my work, in attempting to organize new modes of thought in improving RP, parallel to my Culture Ministry. Furthermore, I believe I have shown that I can capably navigate unfamiliar environments. CSS aside, I identified the skill and knowledge deficits I had in Culture, and prepared documents and plans that could acknowledge a need to improve and adapt.

My weaknesses do not apply to an environment where I can access the letter of the law, and make legislative interpretations independent of external knowledge. The spirit of the law, in my view, is relevant ONLY in current contexts. Where some may expect it to be appropriate for me to act as a facsimile of past legislators, I am more than capable of reading what is available, and independently coming to my own conclusions.

What does the Grim Reaper mean for the Court and the RA?

My contributions to the RA are, for the most part, little known.

I've mostly participated in the occasional commentary in the RA. Notably, one of my first contributions to TNP was as a Temporary Hearing Officer -
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8209130&t=7362484

I do not feel it appropriate to maintain any particular position on that matter, beyond the ruling that I discussed with the Justices and enjoined without reservation. However, I will happily field questions on my opinion of that case, if it is seen as necessary (I will not be commenting on the procedural elements of that case - merely its jurisprudicial implications).

I also made the following contribution to the RA:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7410718/1/

The proposal in question was in order to make it possible to extend citizenship rights to members of TNP without an account in NationStates. The means by which it would have done so is by making it possible for the Regional Assembly to allow such a member to substitute their forum account for an in-game nation whereever required by TNP law. You will notice that my presence in the thread is minimal - this was intentional, as I did not believe the proposed amendment was optimal. I did, however, believe that it was a reasonable contribution to TNP legal canon, and intended that the thread be used to discuss alternative means of achieving the same goal - some of which had already been mentioned to me by various members taking up sympathetic viewpoints in said thread. This is the reason I chose not to actively discuss my proposal - I was waiting to see reasonable discussion on the merits of either the proposal, or of alternatives, before defending the goals of the proposal itself.

In hindsight, I would have responded to Post #3 in that thread - by Falaptorius - asserting that the proposed law would have required constitutional provision. It was a reasonable objection that was not engaged with - not least, by myself - throughout the course of the thread, in favour of discussions on the merits of the goals of the law. Whilst I was aware of the constitutional wording - hence the awkward wording of my own amendment - the proposal was an attempt to write a solution that did not require constitutional amendment.

I am not in favour of constitutionalism by any means. However, I do not believe that my proposal was a reasonable jurisprudential response to my concerns over constitutionalist objections to the concept of non-resident citizens.

Are you partisan as heck?

I'm a constructivist - we are all partisan.

Are you active?

I believe it has been extensively shown that whilst I am inconsistent in terms of regular activity, I am fully capable of stepping up to meet crunchtimes, indicating with good notice where I expect not to be able to do so, and being virtually continuously available to negotiate said crunchtimes over IRC.

Flat whites?

A type of coffee - microfoam on an espresso. Generally considered to be a stronger drink than the latte or cappuchino, because both generally topped with milk froth - thicker and richer than microfoam.
 
What is your favorite decision on the (TNP) books, and why? What is your least favorite, and also why?

What highly controversial issue do you hope is not brought before the court during your term?
 
Between the other candidates, choose which of the following you'd: kill, marry, and adopt.

As a serious question, how do you feel about the latest rulings/cases of the court and how you'd improve them, if they needed to be improved.
 
SillyString:
What is your favorite decision on the (TNP) books, and why? What is your least favorite, and also why?

What highly controversial issue do you hope is not brought before the court during your term?
Click to expand...
I'll start with your third question.

What highly controversial issue do you hope is not brought before the court during your term? - SillyString

In terms of controversial issues, I don't particularly mind dealing with any issue on its own merits. My main concern in the court is trying to negotiate issues of Freedom of Information. It's not something that has ever been handled particularly well in the North Pacific - the role of the Security Council, as a portion of the Executive, for example, was brought into question here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7194732/1/ for the purposes of FOI requests. In that thread, the TNP FOIA's constant issues as a piece of legislation are fairly apparent - whilst it is a piece of legislation that may have workable implications in law, those are not necessarily agreeable implications. More importantly, the contextual cues called for by the TNP FOIA are difficult to navigate and problematic to apply. The decision I cite, whilst an exceptional piece of judisprudence, is one that ultimately did not produce meaningful precedent in favour either of transparency or of a defined separation of powers between the Executive and the Security Council (as opposed to solely the Vice Delegate, whose dual role IS well defined in said decision).

In the real world, I'm quite firmly in favour of FOIAs and government transparency, and I believe the same allows for heightened community activity and engagement. That being said, I don't have the longevity to negotiate the contexts surrounding classified documents.

Related to this, it is perhaps not surprising that a case I followed behind the scenes was the following:

What is your favorite decision on the (TNP) books, and why? - SillyString

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7387845/

This is the most recent case on the books - to an extent, showing off how new I really am to TNP jurisprudence. However, it is a case that was directly relevant to my interests at the time - discussing the relationship between the in-game and the off-site elements of the North Pacific, as is exemplified by my old proposal for the Amendment of 6.1.

It was a case that I believed would characterise the relationship between a largely independent, unfettered in-game military, and an off-site elected community. Whilst the in-game military was even then subject to the foreign affairs policies of the elected government, there was not ample oversight, in my opinion, over how they maintained their conduct within the game in service to that foreign affairs agenda. At the height of discussion surrounding the case, I made comments on IRC regarding my fears that TNP military gameplay was angling to become separate in all but name - using the region and offsite as a recruitment tool to a largely unrelated organization. Somewhere around the time, I wrote a satirical/extreme delegatial platform for an election, proposing that the Minister of Defense be appointed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs - meant to instigate discussion on that very relationship.

Ultimately, the decision was a very capable response. The court clearly defined its own scope, in relation to the decision - outlining modes of communication that would meet the requirements it, at the time, expected of an NPA operating within the confines of the Legal Code. In defending those confines, they considered the operational reality of the NPA to make it clear that they did not believe the NPA had been operating in contravention of the law. Instead, the decision established a common law policy regarding the extension of this operational reality from simply in-game conduct to an acknowledgement of the in-game/off-site relationship. This is why it is my favourite decision in TNP.

It should also be mentioned that I'm quite fond of the decision reached in: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7097834/2/

Establishing that one must be a citizen of the Regional Assembly for the 15 days preceding an election to stand as a candidate, I found r3n's work in the matter comprehensive in discussing both precedent and constitutionality. However, whilst the decision itself is one of the finest pieces of jurisprudence anywhere in NS, its implications and ruling are ultimately rather limited, and, in my opinion, were common-sense. It is therefore not my favourite decision.

What is your least favorite [decision on the (TNP) books], and also why? - SillyString

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7057305/1/

I found virtually every stage of this decision confusing and needlessly disorganized - from the very R4R itself to the ruling. The decision itself was not comprehensive - leading to a farcical process of exploratory discussion on the role of Deputy Ministers in TNP - and poorly phrased as a piece of writing.

That being said, my main concern with the decision was, indeed, the precedent it set for the role of Deputy Ministers in TNP. The implications of the ruling were to place Deputy Ministers firmly within the auspices of the Executive branch, with almost minimal concern for any presumptive constitutional expectation of such. I do not believe that this was warranted - Deputy positions are often used to train new players, in a region where most experienced players already have commitments in government. Instead, my view is that Deputy Ministers are invested with the powers of the Ministry they serve under - for the purposes of FOI requests, for example, they are members of the Executive Ministry by virtue of their senior Minister, and not in their own right. Recognizing Deputy Ministers as an extension of Executive Ministers, rather than Executives themselves, opens up the realm of Deputy Ministership to members of other branches without impacting on their role within the auspices of their Ministry.
 
Bootsie:
Between the other candidates, choose which of the following you'd: kill, marry, and adopt.

As a serious question, how do you feel about the latest rulings/cases of the court and how you'd improve them, if they needed to be improved.
Click to expand...
"Between the other candidates, choose which of the following you'd: kill, marry, and adopt." - Bootsie

There are, at the moment, only two other candidates. I shall therefore include myself.

As I am already dead, I cannot be killed. I must, therefore, kill Guy, as he lives in the harsh and problematic (in a sociological sense) wastelands of suburban Melbourne. I can only wonder as to the degree to which he commutes through the city proper, wherein coffee shops and his beloved Church St. act as facsimile watering holes for hipsters and 'false hipsters', also known as lumberjacks, who use the guise of the hipster to hide their axes and predate on young coffee-drinking nerds unfamiliar with the scent trails of hipsters.

I would obviously be left to marry myself, finding myself ample company in the cold nights and warm days. However, I must admit that I would insist on separate beds. Whilst I am by no means a cold partner, I find myself wanting for sleep at the best of times and require the isolation to get comfortable.

I would therefore be left to adopt Gracius Maximus, who will find himself in good company with the rest of the Montresors. Probably. I dunno. Bunch of former delegates and the like in my family, so he'll probably get on alright. Guy was a delegate too, but that was merely a respite from spending every waking day hiding from dropbears.

"How do you feel about the latest rulings/cases of the court and how you'd improve them, if they needed to be improved." -Bootsie

Part I., Requests for Review.

The last two R4Rs include one in which I was the THO, and another which I have discussed in my post after your questions as an exemplary piece of jurisprudence. Preceding those two, there were two more cases in 2015.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7276072/1/

A relatively simple case troubled by procedural matters. I agree with the ruling - that as a member of the Attorney-General's office, SillyString had standing, and that the ruling contradicted the law as it was written at the time of the R4R. Comments were made that the ruling was not binding - however, the issue raised for review was within the substantiative body of the ruling, regardless of whether or not the court chose to issue a ruling that would have otherwise been entirely phrased as an opinion. While I would willingly have accepted the defense for the numbered list in the said ruling, as it was prefaced as a "suggested opinion", I would not have accepted said defense for the substantative portion of the ruling outside that list. The 'belief' of the court is the intent and the matter of its decisions - anything that forms a portion of a ruling, enjoined by multiple justices, must include some statement of fact.

For what it's worth, FOI rears its head yet again - although Judicial FOI is fundamentally distinct to Executive FOI.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7357706/3/

In substance, I agree with the decision of the court. However, I believe that as a valid option available on the ballot, 'Abstain' should not be treated differently to a candidate. In other words, I believe that a voting period should be restarted if the option to abstain for an election is not clearly identified to voters on the ballot, regardless of if the EC has indicated that voters may abstain otherwise. New players who peruse a ballot without familiarity with TNP may feel unfamiliar with candidates, but still wish to vote for one or more candidates in a multiple ballot election (the norm in TNP). Alternatively, they may simply wish to meet quorum, and be unfamiliar with the Abstain option. It is not unimaginable that they would 'donkey vote' - select candidates at random - to make their legitimate ballots valid, unaware that they may simply abstain. Indeed, the matter of multiple ballots improperly filled came up in the latest election: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8275847&t=7511614

I believe there is no legitimate reason to treat 'Abstain' and any given nominee distinctly from each other as options on the ballot, and I would oppose a law changing such in the RA.
 
"How do you feel about the latest rulings/cases of the court and how you'd improve them, if they needed to be improved." -Bootsie

Part II., Criminal Cases

There was one criminal case conducted through 2015 - The North Pacific vs. The Democratic Republic of Tomb.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7393401/4/

During the submission of a (http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7389618/1/) to the Attorney-General's Office, it was decided to file against Tomb as a sole defendant, in light of the fact that evidence submitted by Eluvatar was interpreted by the complainant as a) suggesting Gladio, one of the accused, was not involved in the events infringing upon the law, and b) that actions taken by Eluvatar, one of the accused, that could be argued to have infringed upon the law were conducted under duress. That decision was one made by the complainant in discussion with the Attorney-General.

This case is an exceptionally important one - whilst the crux of the complaint covered the responsibility of the Executive to 'encourage' free speech in the North Pacific, during the course of the case, the concept of duress and the investiture of power were both discussed. Furthermore, during the case, questions were raised as to the definition of a 'fair trial', and whether the right to a fair trial had been preserved wherein a defendant selects a defense counsel that is absent, by two R4Rs filed by Blue Wolf II and dismissed by the court on the basis of a lack of standing.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7408400/1/
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7410638/1/

A 'peanut gallery' was established for the case here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7402636/5/

Tomb was accused, as then-Delegate of TNP, for attempting to abrogate the right to free speech held by Flemingovia as a condition of acceptance to the North Pacific Army. It was alleged that Tomb had instructed Eluvatar, Minister of Defense, to request that Flemingovia restrict criticism of the NPA to the realm of 'constructive' criticism, rather than satirical pieces. Eluvatar was not a defendant, as the criminal complaint suggested he was "compelled to do his duty as an appointment [by Tomb]". When Flemingovia declined the request and chose not to withdraw his application, Eluvatar cited the Bill of Rights and Tomb responded by instructing Eluvatar to deny Flemingovia's application.

Note that dates are as to the GMT timezone itself (i.e. London time, or +-0 hours).

It is, firstly, notable that the then-Speaker, RPI, indicated to the Court that Tomb was on a leave of absence until the 25th of May (posting on the 20th). Tomb acknowledged his LOA, and requested that the Court delay his case until the end of his LOA, then naming Mall, Belschaft, and Romanoffia as his defense counsel. On the 21st, Tomb specifically rescinded his leave of absence and requested the Court start the case procedure, entering a plea. At that point, I believe it is disingenous to argue that Tomb had not, of his free will, indicated his willingness to participate in a fair trial. Furtheremore, this was /then/ followed by a schedule, to which Tomb agreed on the 24th of May, requesting that the trial be postponed to the Tuesday of the following week, after the Memorial Day weekend. To quote, "the defence is comfortable with the rest."

During the process of evidence submission, the deposition was primarily undertaken by Gracius Maximus as prosecutor, and Romanoffia as Defense Counsel. Tomb, Flemingovia, and Eluvatar all attested to the accuracy to various IRC logs, and whilst Romanoffia requested to depose both Eluvatar and Flemingovia, only questions directed to, and responses by Eluvatar are apparent.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7397133/1/
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7401242/1/

It is my opinion, firstly, that the defense strategy used by Romanoffia to establish that actions taken that infringed upon Flemingovia's right to free speech were committed freely by Eluvatar does not properly represent the evidence apparent in IRC conversation. I do not believe that the deposition of Eluvatar shows that Tomb was innocent of the charge levelled towards him, or that any of the questions raised could have done so. It is my opinion that had Romanoffia seen validity in his defense strategy of arguing that the actions attributed to Tomb were in fact committed freely by Eluvatar, he should have done so by discussing the matter of the appointment of the Minister of Defense, and their constitutional role, rather than whether or not the actions themselves are within the purview of the Minister of Defense. The former shows compulsion to act under duress; the latter simply the means of acting.

At this point, Romanoffia chose to resign from the Defense Counsel, at which point the Defense Counsel was left virtually absent from the proceedings of the Court. This was the matter to which Blue Wolf raised his two Requests for Review. The Court held that Blue Wolf did not hold standing to maintain his Request for Reviews, in that he was not a participant in the case at hand or a member of the Defense Counsel.

Whilst I believe that the rejection on matter of standing was a legitimate and the most workable interpretation of standing, I do not believe it is the singular interpretation of the responsibility of standing. The reason is as thusly: the Bill of Rights establishes rights accorded to any and all residents of the North Pacific.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/633856/1/#new

The ordinary manner of gaining standing in the case at hand is to do so as a representative of the defense counsel. However, Blue Wolf intended to challenge the defense counsel as being substantially incompetent. The Bill of Rights and the abrogation of the right to a fair trial is one that is relevant to all participants - the Bill of Rights is "for all nations of the North Pacific". It is my opinion that the interpretation of standing used to reject these two R4Rs, on the grounds that Blue Wolf cannot claim abrogation of his own rights by the processes of the court regarding the Democratic Republic of Tomb, is consistent with the interpretation used by the North Pacific. However, my personal preference is for an understanding of standing in the 'public interest' - for example, in the real world Canadian legal system, wherein matters of constitutionality in government legislation can be challenged on the grounds that constitutional rights may create a "genuine interest" in the outcome of the case. For example, the adoption of the ruling as precedent may legitimize an abrogation of constitutional rights that could impact on society at large - hence creating standing in the public interest.

I do not intend to pursue the matter of public interest in the courts, but may do so legislatively in future.

Regardless, I would have personally rejected BW's R4Rs regardless. His R4Rs hinged on the definition of a fair trial in the Bill of Rights as one in which a defense is provided by the defendant - however, the Bill of Rights is legislation written with the intention of limiting the activities of the government of TNP, or requiring that it act in a particular manner. No section of the Bill of Rights requires that a member nation act in any manner whatsoever, except in the role of public office. I do not believe it is reasonable to interpret the Bill of Rights as requiring that the Court permit a defendant to 'mulligan' a trial in the hopes of having a competent defense. Instead, the 'fair trial' called for in the Bill of Rights is one where the defense is permitted a platform equivalent to that of the prosecution to administer a deposition and produce evidence - in other words, that the prosecution not be permitted, for example, an extra week for deposition. The right to a fair trial is followed by impartiality, a similar concept that guarantees any defendant a platform equivalent to that of any other defendant, and a public trial, requiring that the government guarantee said platforms are open to viewing by the general public. Neither of the following two rights substantiate expectations of action by the defense - rather, they require that the court conduct cases in a particular manner without regard for a) who is being heard, and b) by whom.

Instead, I believe it is reasonable but not constitutionally required that the Court should have saught to obtain 'amicus curiae' briefs in lieu of a defense, at the point where the Court indicated they did not believe there was a substantial defense, at the Court's discretion. Should the defense have declined to hear such briefs, it would have shown that the defense felt itself to be competent. Again, I believe that this would be inappropriate without legislation arguing otherwise, but it is legislation that I believe is necessary moving forward.

Finally, I believe that the ruling in the case itself was reasonable. I believe that the suspension of the defendant's voting rights for three months, at the suggestion of the Attorney-General, was correct. I also believe that all evidence available showed that the defendant was guilty of failing to encourage free speech as required by the Bill of Rights. I do not believe a defense based on the internal conduct of the NPA, including as apparent in the evidence regarding Tomb's conflation of his role as Delegate and as the appointer of the Minister of Defense - "I'm not going to allow an NPAer to make a laughingstock out of the NPA.".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top