Court Bulletin Board & General Information

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
court_seal.png


Court Bulletin Board & General Information

Welcome to the one-stop shop for public information about the judiciary and administrative announcements by the Court! When the Court selects a Chief Justice, updates the Court Rules and Procedures, or takes other official actions unrelated to an ongoing trial or review, a post will be made in this thread.​

Appeal an ejection or ban that was made before the conclusion of your trialCourt Filings
Ask the Court general questions, or make requests besides those listed here.You're in the right place! Post in this thread.
Comment on an ongoing trial or reviewThe Public Gallery. Please do not post in a trial or review thread unless you are party to the trial, or filing a brief for the review.
File a briefThe official thread for the request for review.
File criminal chargesCourt Filings (use the appropriate template, found here)
Request the recusal of a Justice, or appeal a decision by a single Justice in a trial or review.The official thread for the trial or review. Note that the Court is only obliged to consider requests and appeals from the parties to a trial, or the petitioner in a request for review.
Request the declassification of Court recordsCourt Filings
Request the release of information not received from the executive, pursuant to FOIACourt Filings
Request the review of a law, government policy, or governmental action (including an ejection or ban)New thread, using this template
Seek Court approval to eject or ban a nationCourt Filings (use the appropriate template, found here)
Volunteer to serve as a Temporary Hearing OfficerCall for Temporary Hearing Officers. That thread will be referenced by the Court whenever vacancies, absences, or recusals occur.
[tr][td]

[/td][/tr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
James Urquhart:
Zyvetskistaahn:
The Court has chosen me to serve as Chief Justice for this term.
Click to expand...
Congratulations. A highly qualified individual as well.
Click to expand...
I agree. Zyvet's extensive experience in the Speaker's Office in previous terms as well as experience in this office last term makes them perfectly qualified to serve.
 
Am I correct in understanding that as OwenStacey last logged in 14 days 14 hours ago, they have vacated their office as Temporary Hearing Officer?
 
That would be correct, Elu. I'm not too sure on the next step that happens though.
 
Attention: I am now Chief Justice, owing to the fact that we took too long to decide and it defaults to me by fiat law.

3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of citizenship.
Click to expand...
 
SillyString:
Attention: I am now Chief Justice, owing to the fact that we took too long to decide and it defaults to me by fiat law.

3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of citizenship.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Congratulations SillyString!!
 
King SillyString:
OwenStacey has been selected as THO to hear the two requests for review currently in front of the court.
Click to expand...
I have a question for the Court regarding this. Is the Court able to reveal which judge(s) may have rescued theirselves from the two current requests for review that led to Owen's THO Appointment?
 
Dinoium:
I have a question for the Court regarding this. Is the Court able to reveal which judge(s) may have rescued theirselves from the two current requests for review that led to Owen's THO Appointment?
Click to expand...
There was no recusal. Limerick, one of the Justices, lost Citizenship and thus abandoned his office.
 
It is my pleasure to announce that the Court has unanimously voted for Eluvatar to serve as our Chief Justice this term.
 
Was the Court able to elect a Chief Justice to serve for this term? If not, what prevented a decision from being made within 7 days following the conclusion of the July election cycle?
 
@Eluvatar was elected Chief Justice shortly after all Judges were sworn in and the Government page was updated to reflect that after the vote.
 
Dreadton:
@Eluvatar was elected Chief Justice shortly after all Judges were sworn in and the Government page was updated to reflect that after the vote.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response. As far as I can tell, there were no public posts made on this matter and the Government spreadsheet was not updated, but rather never changed from the previous term. I would like to request that moving forward, the Court continues the previous practice of notifying TNP residents of its internal election results.
 
Siwale:
Thank you for your response. As far as I can tell, there were no public posts made on this matter and the Government spreadsheet was not updated, but rather never changed from the previous term. I would like to request that moving forward, the Court continues the previous practice of notifying TNP residents of its internal election results.
Click to expand...
As far as I understand there wasn't so much a definitive official decision and therefor it was ambiguously more of an Eluvatar as chief via default by law. But I do agree that it should have been announced. And it was updated at least once post-election due to the removal of bootsie and addition of myself.
 
Now I'm confused. I have one Justice telling me there was an election and another telling me there was not. Perhaps Chief Justice @Eluvatar could help set the record straight?

And if there wasn't election, that brings us back to my initial follow-up question: What barriers prevented a decision from being made within 7 days following the conclusion of the July election cycle?
 
Take notice:

Following the enactment of the AGORA Bill, the records of the Attorney General are now owned by the Court (as will be records of Prosecutors). Given that this is a substantial volume of records and that it is arguable that a different regime of declassification should apply to those records than the regime that the Court has determined for its own records, the Court has temporarily adopted the following amendment to Chapter 5, Section 1 of its Rules:

6. Records formerly owned by the Attorney General or by a Prosecutor will not be considered to be private Court records and will not be released.
Click to expand...

I do stress that this amendment is provisional in nature and intended only to ensure that the treatment of those records is not left to the discretion of the Chief Justice but will be for decision by the Court, having undertaken proper consideration (I would also note that it does not, in fact, differ from the treatment of such records until now, given they have never been subject to release).
 
Take notice:

The Court has made amendments to its rules as indicated below:

Chapter 2: Requests for Review
  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.
  3. The Moderating Justice will promptly identify the government officials whose actions or policies are impugned by a request, or, in relation to a government body, the government official ultimately responsible for leading that body. Those identified, in relation to a request, will be respondents to it.
  4. The Moderating Justice will contact the respondents to a request for review, inform them of the review, and invite them to make submissions to the Court in relation to it.
  5. During the five days after a request for review has been accepted, anyone may offer information that is relevant to the case and/or advise the Court on how to rule in the form of a brief.
  6. The period for submitting briefs may be altered at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.
  7. A petitioner in a request for review may withdraw the request for review by a post in the thread for the review at any time before the Court delivers its opinion.
  8. The Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within sevenfourteen days after the end of the period for submitting briefs.
Chapter 3: Freedom of Information Reviews
  1. Where an initial request has been made to the government for the release of information under the Legal Code and the resident making the initial request has not received the requested information, that resident may file a request for the information.
  2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request.
  3. A request for information may be denied only on the basis that it relates to information which is not owned by the government as defined by the Legal Code.
  4. Where it appears to the Court that the request has been filed without giving the government a reasonable opportunity to respond to the initial request, the Court may defer accepting or denying the request until the government has had such an opportunity. A deferral will last for a definite period of time of no more than seven days.
  5. When a request is accepted, the Chief Justice will promptly appoint a Moderating Justice.
  6. The Moderating Justice will promptly open a thread for the review and will notify the government of the review via private message on the forum.
  7. During the five days after a thread has been opened, the government may make arguments and present evidence to the Court demonstrating that one or more of the criteria for classification are met.
  8. Evidence may be presented privately where presenting it publicly would risk the release of classified information.
  9. The resident making the initial request may make arguments concerning whether the requested information meets the criteria for classification.
  10. The Court will endeavour to deliver a decision on the request within seven days of the conclusion of the period during which the government may present evidence.
  11. The decision of the Court must be accompanied with reasons for the decision.
  12. In all cases where the government does not present evidence to the Court, the Court will order the release of the information.
  13. In all other cases, the Court may order the release of all of the information or part of it or may determine that all of it or some of it meets the criteria for classification.
  14. For the purposes of this chapter, the definitions in the Legal Code in relation to requests for information from the Delegate and Executive Officers will apply.
Chapter 34: Decorum

Section 1: Judicial Conduct
  1. Justices are discouraged from posting in the Public Gallery except when making official announcements unrelated to any trial or review.
  2. A Moderating Justice is strictly prohibited from posting in any thread in the Public Gallery relating to the issue they are moderating, barring truly exceptional circumstances.
  3. Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
  4. Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
Section 2: General Conduct
  1. All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists.
  2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
  3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
  4. An individual may, by the unanimous decision of the Court and based on excessive or repeated poor behavior, be declared to be in contempt in a particular issue before the Court.
  5. Motions made by individuals declared to be in contempt may be summarily denied, and the timeline of relevant matters need not be altered in order to accommodate any disciplinary actions handed down by forum administration.
  6. Any finding of contempt will be immediately rescinded should the Regional Assembly object to that finding by majority vote.
Chapter 45: Precedent and Appeals

Section 1: Precedent
  1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
  2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
  3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.
  4. No Justice may act contrary to the opinions and decisions of the Court as a whole.
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.
  3. During the proceedings onf a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressedresolved before the proceedings can continue, unless the contrary is allowed under this section.
  4. The Court determining an appeal or review relating to Court proceedings may, if it determines that the appeal or review is being made frivolously or solely for the purpose of delaying the proceedings to which the appeal or review relates, may, by unanimous vote, allow the proceedings to which the appeal or review relates to continue before the appeal or review is resolved.
  5. A decision to allow proceedings to continue despite an appeal or review not yet being resolved will apply to all appeals or reviews relating to those proceedings unless the Court determining an appeal or review decides to the contrary, in which case the proceedings must not continue until that appeal or review is resolved.
Chapter 56: Declassification and Privacy

Section 1: Declassification of Records

  1. Private Court records, in either the Justices' private forum or the private archive, which reach one year of age will be relocated to the Declassified Justice Archive.
  2. Private Court records which have reached six months of age may be released early in the same manner when requested by a Citizen.
  3. Private Court records which are younger than six months but predate the sitting Court may be requested by a Citizen and released if the Court finds a compelling benefit to their publication.
  4. Private Court records from within the term of the sitting Court will not be released.
  5. Private Court records which pertain to open or ongoing cases will not be released, regardless of their age.
  6. Records formerly owned by the Attorney General or by a Prosecutor will not be considered to be private Court records and will not be released.
Section 2: Privacy of Information

  1. Information protected as private is defined as follows:
    • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
    • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
    • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  2. The Court will not release Private information during its declassification process. This may take the form of withholding a thread in its entirety, or producing a copy of of the original thread with the Private information or posts redacted.
Click to expand...

The Court has established the following templates:

For Requests for Review:

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
Click to expand...

For Indictments:

Indictment​

I bring forward the following charge(s) holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

Name of Complainant:

Name(s) of Accused:

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s):

Crime:

Specifics of Crime(s):

Summary of Events:

Evidence:
Click to expand...

For Indictments with requests for approval of ejections and/or bans:

Indictment and Request for Approval​

I bring forward the following charge(s) and request that the Court approve the <ejection/banning/ejection and banning> of the below nation holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

Name of Complainant:

Name(s) of Accused:

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s):

Crime:

Specifics of Crime(s):

Summary of Events:

Reasons for seeking approval (how does the nation pose a clear security threat and why is their removal is necessary for the protection of the region):

If the nation has already been ejected or banned, when was this action taken:

Evidence:
Click to expand...

And, for requests for approval of ejections and/or bans:

Request for Approval​

I request that the Court approve the <ejection/banning/ejection and banning> of the below nation and holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

Name(s) of Nation:

Reasons for seeking approval (how does the nation pose a clear security threat and why is their removal is necessary for the protection of the region):

If the nation has already been ejected or banned, when was this action taken:

If this request is made prior to criminal charges being brought, what charges are expected to be brought:

Evidence:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top