- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
April 15, 2017
[3:24 PM] COE: Anyway, I had a couple ideas I wanted to leave here and get your feedback on before I move forward with them.
[3:25 PM] COE: Currently, the rulings page is a hodge-podge of rulings that still have some effect, and rulings that are outmoded by changes in the law or further rulings that happened afterwards.
[3:27 PM] COE: I suggest splitting the rulings page into two lists: those that we have determined, as a three member panel, are not of much use to those researching legal precedent, and those that are.
[3:27 PM] COE: We would not be overturning those rulings, or otherwise removing the force of law from hem, per se, just recognizing that the precedents they set may no longer apply for one reason or another. This would be for the sole purpose of making rulings easier to browse.
[3:29 PM] COE: Naturally, we would need to consult Elu to implement this change, but if you guys are on board with this, I would like to recruit a few private citizens to help us work through the rulings page and prepare reports on each one including what areas of the law it affects, a summary of how those laws have changed since the ruling, what (if any) subsequent rulings contradict the ruling, and whether or not it appears to be outdated.
[3:36 PM] COE: This would be a lengthy and involved project. I would say that every ruling older than a year should be examined - that's 44 rulings. Then, each one will need to be discussed and voted upon. Then, we will need to publish the list of archaic rulings and implement a technical solution. I do not imagine that this will be done by the end of the term, but I hope to either win another term and finish it by the end of the year, or lobby my successor to do the same.
[3:38 PM] COE: I have noticed a couple of citizens who have said they want to "learn more about TNP law" - this seems like an ideal opportunity for them. It does not require an official appointment. They would just be preparing reports on their own time and sending them to us. I would make a separate thread to organize the project, and allow people to post in the thread claiming rulings they would like to research. I would then privately encourage the citizens who I think would get a lot out of it to volunteer
[3:39 PM] COE: Thoughts?(edited)
[3:41 PM] COE: (Specifically, I think Scorch and Kasch would love this)
[3:56 PM] COE: Tagging ya'll just in case @Zyvet @abbeym395
[5:01 PM] abbeym395: I definitely think that at the least going through the rulings and preparing reports on them is a really good idea and has needed doing for a while. I agree it's a good way of getting citizens involved but it will be a significant amount of work for us to "babysit" them and help them understand the law and the implications of the rulings. It's also an ongoing project as more rulings are produced and time passes newer rulings will need indexing in this way. But I think we should give it a go.
[8:58 PM] COE: Well, I think we should write one or two ourselves as examples before we solicit public submissions, so they can see what we're looking for.
[8:59 PM] COE: And rather than let just anyone claim whatever, we could consider just having people volunteer, and we'll assign rulings to them
[8:59 PM] COE: Could also keep it private, and just recruit people we know are competent
[9:10 PM] abbeym395: No, I think we should allow anyone to apply - but with no guarantee we'll accept. It's good for getting legal experience, but some will be required to do this well
[9:13 PM] COE: Alright. I think if we can get enough qualified people thus won't take forever. Between the three of us, scorch, Kasch, and maybe SillyString and/or r3n, that's not too many each
[9:14 PM] COE: I'm sure there are others who are qualified as well
[9:14 PM] COE: Unless Zyvet has objections, I'll probably take a stab at the first one and post a thread tomorrow
[10:05 PM] Zyvet: To my mind, there are issues with having two separate lists, one which is of rulings (deemed to be) of precedential use and one of those which are not (deemed to be) of such use. Particularly, it seems that there is a problem that is seems that we would be taking actions which have been dealt with by request for review previously (this one http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8198002&t=7276072 ), in that it is essentially a formatting change to recognise that the law has moved on from the decision made at the time; to my mind the that review wasn't really something the court should have went along with, anyway, but it is what was done.
Additionally, there would seem to me to be a risk that the result would be that the list deemed less useful would, in essence, not be looked at, when it is possible that they may still have use in terms of being analogous to new cases even where the law they actually related to has moved on or that the law which has moved on may move back; and that it will be very difficult for us (or future courts) to decide which are likely to be useful as being analogous or due to the law moving back to be closer to that at the time of the ruling than that at present.
I think it would be useful to have case summaries and histories (ie, what rulings or law it builds on/is layered atop and which rulings or law build on/alter it), however, I'd say that they ought to stop short of labeling a ruling as "outdated" in that or similar terms (though it may well be possible to infer from the history whether a ruling is outmoded in a given respect), again on account of the risk of encouraging people from ignoring "outdated" rulings which, as aforesaid, could remain useful.
[10:05 PM] Zyvet: On the subject of the mechanics of the thing, I think it would be helpful to have it be open to the public to apply to be involved and for it to be a matter of having more than one person be assigned a given opinion (though for them not to collaborate) in order to ensure a diversity of perspectives.
[10:07 PM] abbeym395: I think Zyvet has a point on the point about hte different lists. Having more than one person work on a ruling and then us consolidate? seems like a good idea, a good way of getting more people involved too.
April 16, 2017
[11:20 PM] COE: On having two lists:
[11:22 PM] COE: I don't think that the court's ruling linked above constitutes a binding precedent that any formatting change to the laws page has to be done through request for review
[11:22 PM] COE: Also, that ruling goes far above and beyond what we'd be doing here, in that it actually revokes the force of law from ruling 1.
[11:24 PM] COE: If we were declaring a long list of rulings null and void, I think we would need a request for review to do that, but splitting the rulings into two lists for ease of browsing seems on the order of other recent changes, such as removing the seals to make the page load faster, and changing the titles to make them more relevant to the content.
[11:26 PM] COE: In regards to Zyvet's second paragraph:
[11:28 PM] COE: I am much less concerned with making attorney's jobs easy, and much more concerned with making the rulings page useful to government officials and private citizens. Right now, unless you have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of TNP law to begin with, the rulings page is next to useless for people who are just looking for legal precedent that applies to their situation
[11:29 PM] COE: The new and improved titles are a step in the right direction, but too many of the rulings are based on laws that no longer exist, and/or have been directly overruled by the RA
[11:30 PM] COE: In regards to the difficulty of upkeep - I see this as an opportunity to give the court a job to do when there are no trials or reviews pending
[11:31 PM] COE: They will need to keep abreast of current legislation, and when rulings become outdated, move them to the appropriate list
[11:33 PM] COE: I don't think rulings will return from the archaic list back to the current list very often, if at all, because 1) typically, the changes in the law are a response to the ruling itself, and we tend to learn our lessons, and 2) there's a strong argument to be made that even if the law reverts to something similar to what it was at the time of the ruling, the precedent is still pretty much void
April 17, 2017
[8:17 PM] abbeym395: I agree that giving the court an ongoing job is good
[11:08 PM] COE: If we move forward with this, my preference is against having more than one person assigned to the same case. I see the desire for multiple perspectives, but ultimately, our perspectives are the ones that matter, since we are the ones who were elected to do a job. I would want a recommendation to be part of the report, but I consider it the least important part. Mostly, I just want to someone to do the legwork of figuring out which laws the review touches and how they've changed since the ruling.
April 18, 2017
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: It seems to me that this would be closer to the strike through decision than it is to removing seals or altering titles; neither of those involve the Court giving any signal of the precedential value of the opinions, whereas the strike through decision is saying that the opinion struck through is no longer of such use and splitting "outdated" opinions would be making a similar statement. (something which has occurred to me, is that the Court's "signalling" that opinions may be "outdated" might be seen to be somewhat close to amounting to a suggestion that the AG (or someone else) bring the matter up for an opinion like the strike through opinion, which may be seen as overly proactive (more thoughts along these lines near to the end))
The issue with splitting the rulings page is not that it would make things more difficult for "attorneys" (I don't think it would be any more than marginally more difficult). The issue is that, if the Court signals that certain opinions are "outdated" the response from people generally, I think, will probably be to not bother looking at them, despite the possibility that those opinions will, in fact, be useful to them.
Take the opinion on government officials: the law on which it was based has been drastically altered, the Court in its recent opinion relating to the election did not refer to that opinion (despite it having been referred to by two of the amici briefs (including the AG's)) presumably because of the alteration of the law; it seems, then, that this opinion is one which would be likely to be labeled as "outdated" and listed separately (if not by this Court, then by another), yet it still retains some arguable use in terms of defining a government official, for the current definition of government official relies on the term "official" which is undefined, and this opinion could be said to give a non-exhaustive, indicative list of what positions are "officials" though not addressing that matter in those terms.
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: Alternatively, suppose an opinion existed dealing with the powers that the Speaker can delegate to the Deputy Speaker, and the manner in which that delegation may be made, and, in response, the law dealing with the delegation was amended substantially. It would seem, at first glance, that that opinion becomes outdated, yet it can retain use in a different circumstance because the Constitutional provision dealing with the Deputy Attorneys General is in the same terms as that dealing with Deputy Speaker, so the opinion may well transfer over.
This type of reasoning, it seems to me, could apply to almost all opinions of the Court and, due to that, it seems to me that either: useful rulings will be ignored, the Court having signaled its view that they are "outdated"; or that no (or very few, highly particular) rulings can be deemed "outdated".
Another thing which has occurred to me, is that there may be a risk that certain opinions may be contrary to current practice; that is, that opinions remain in place and the law (constitutional or ordinary) has not changed in a way which would lead to the conclusion that some or all of the opinion is "outdated" in the area they relate to, yet, for one reason or another, practices have been adopted which are contrary to those opinions. While it is positive, I think, that increased scrutiny may lead to practice changing to comply with the law (as non-compliance whether ignorant or wilful is, to my mind, not a good thing), it is possible that any summary report and history may be seen to amount to a statement that a current practice is unlawful and, perhaps, out to be challenged by way of r4r (perhaps leading to a number of r4rs where recusal is necessary (as a consequence of apparent prejudging)).
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: I think, what may be best, is for this (that is writing reports etc) to be a matter for the AG; they are in a position to take decisions themselves on whether or not a current practice is contrary to an opinion and their view, while weighty, ought not be as likely to discourage reliance on an opinion if they think, for one reason or another, that it is of less use now than it once was. I think that we could still have such summary reports and histories as part of the rulings page, as cooperation with the AG (though with a disclaimer as to such views of the AG not being binding on the part of the Court), and I don't think there is any problem with us classifying opinions by the matters which they relate to (which I think may actually be one of the most helpful propositions, as most rulings are not overly difficult to read, it is mostly just sheer weight of them which presents difficulty in parsing), but the more I consider it, the more it seems like it could be overly proactive (or seen as overly proactive) if done by the Court.
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: (that's all of it)
[12:13 AM] Zyvet: (I hate the 2000 character limit so much)
[12:14 AM] COE: "The issue is that, if the Court signals that certain opinions are "outdated" the response from people generally, I think, will probably be to not bother looking at them" <<< this is the entire point of this project
[12:14 AM] COE: And if those opinions would actually be useful, then the court erred in putting them on the second list
[12:15 AM] COE: I want to make the rulings page useable, and right now, there's no way to tell what rulings are useful and which aren't except to read them all (Edit: AND THEN TO READ ALL THE LAWS THEY MENTION)(edited)
[12:16 AM] COE: I would want the second list to be presented in such a way that it is clear that the rulings still have force of law, but that they may be less relevant to the current text of the law
[12:16 AM] COE: Yes, in the context of a request for review or a criminal trial, they may still have some precedential value, but to a private citizen going about their business, or a government official trying to do their job, they're clutter
[12:17 AM] COE: The net result of all this clutter is that important and relevant rulings are rarely read
[12:17 AM] COE: If the solution is not to split into two lists, I would like to hear a viable alternative that solves this problem
[12:21 AM] COE: One has actually occurred to me, but it would probably involve a lot more upkeep on the part of the court, and would result in a lot more mess if the court were to be inactive
[12:21 AM] COE: I'll talk about that if there's interest
[2:16 PM] Zyvet: I don't think that it is plausible to have two separate lists which are both viewed as being equally effective in law. The "outdated" list, I think, would be likely to be ignored by all people, not just citizens and officials, because the Court has signaled that it considers them to be "outdated".
What would avoid that and, to my mind, be more useful would be to have several lists according to the sort of area that the opinions address (or a single list, but clearly grouped and organised into subject area). If one is an Election Commissioner, say, one could then just look at the "election law" (or whatever grouping) opinions rather than all non-"outdated" opinions; if one is Speaker then "Assembly law" opinions. Doubtless there will be some opinions which may be difficult to group, but it seems that subject grouped lists would be better than a non-"outdated" and an "outdated" list, in terms of being easier to parse. It also seems to avoid my concern about rulings being ignored as a consequence of being labeled "outdated".
On the matter of institutional competence (the Court v the AG), I think there is another reason for the task of summarising/compiling histories may be more appropriate for the AG. In addition to the concern with respect to current practices being incompatible with opinions (for one reason or another), there could be a risk of the summaries being taken viewed as having an amount of legal weight which they ought not have (not being opinions of the Court made in accordance with the Constitutional and other requirements) or that there could give rise to claims of prejudging and demands for recusals. Having such summaries/histories be the work of the AG limits (though it may not remove) the extent to which they are seen as views that are, essentially, going to be held to by the Court in any future litigation.
[10:33 PM] abbeym395: I'm still not sure on the matter of whose 'problem' this should be, but I think perhaps subject lists will be more useful. Listed by date order, the shorter lists will allow someone to largely discount the oldest rulings without ignoring, say, the only ruling on a particular area.
[10:41 PM] abbeym395: So far as whose problem it is, frankly, thinking about it, it falls far more under the AGs purview. Not to say we can't be involved, but we have far less leeway to say, notify a government official that their practice is in error if we discover incogruities in the rulings and practice. The AGs job is to advise and this strikes me as advising.
[11:15 PM] COE: The way I see it, the court is responsible for publishing our rulings, and keeping the rulings page organized and current. We don't ask the AG to add rulings to the page - why would we expect them to move things around and relabel them?
[11:16 PM] abbeym395: We're not asking them to do that, we're asking them to produce reports on them
[11:16 PM] COE: I thought we were talking about subject-lists
[11:17 PM] COE: And to be clear, I am not suggesting having public reports. In my scheme, the reports would be kept private, and used solely as a starting point for our deliberations on reorganizing the rulings page, be it by currency, subject, or whatever else
[11:17 PM] abbeym395: I'd argue they're the same thing. My biggest concern is us stumbling across problems and not being in a position, like the AG, to do anything about it
[11:17 PM] COE: hm?
[11:18 PM] COE: You think producing reports is the same thing as re-organizing the rulings page?
[11:18 PM] abbeym395: I'd argue you need the reports to do the subject listing
[11:19 PM] COE: Yes, that is true. But there is a big difference between the AG's office handing us reports and letting us do what we want with them, and the AG producing reports, and then using those to change the appearance of the rulings page
[11:19 PM] abbeym395: I think we can find a compromise between the two
[11:20 PM] abbeym395: If the AGs office produces the reports (and acts on any incongruiites found), I don't think it's out of bounds for us to use that to reorganise the rulings page
[11:20 PM] COE: Yes, not out of bounds for us to do that
[11:20 PM] COE: As we see fit
[11:21 PM] Zyvet: Wait... I thought the idea of the summaries/histories would be that they'd appear with the opinions?
[11:21 PM] COE: That is not my vision
[11:22 PM] Zyvet: Oh... that might change what I think on that subject a bit then
[11:23 PM] COE: In my plan, the only reason we'd even have these things is to cut down on the legwork of going through every ruling and deciding whether or not to put it on the list of rulings about laws that no longer exist(edited)
[11:23 PM] COE: Cause 44 is a lot of rulings to research(edited)
[11:24 PM] COE: If we go with subject lists or whatever other ideas, I would still want to only use those reports internally
[11:24 PM] COE: Frankly, I don't think they'd be much use to the general public anyway - not any more than the text of the actual rulings, that is(edited)
[11:25 PM] abbeym395: Only perhaps for the most obtuse rulings. But we're agreed that we don't want the reports public.
[11:26 PM] Zyvet: (I don't know that I'm agreed about non-public reports :stuck_out_tongue: )
[11:27 PM] abbeym395: Oh okay. Whoops.
[11:29 PM] Zyvet: (in that I can see that there may be use to having public advice, say if an opinion relates to one area but there is analogous other law (like with the AG/Speaker delegation provisions), or to say whether law has/hasn't changed and how changes may affect things.)
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: (but, anyway, my concern was largely predicated on the plan being to have public reports)
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: (though I do think such reports could be useful to the public)
[11:33 PM] Zyvet: If the reports are non-public, then I think that my only concern about them is that there is a risk that we would uncover non-compliance with rulings and have to not disclose them or to disclose them and have a bunch of r4rs which we can't be involved with. That risk, to me, could still merit the involvement, in the first place, of the AG, but I'm not wholly sure at the moment
[11:33 PM] COE: wat?
[11:34 PM] Zyvet: Suppose there is a ruling which some official or organ had forgotten about when making some decision and, as a result, a practice or rule had developed which is contrary to the ruling
[11:34 PM] COE: You think the problem with us sorting through the rulings is that we could discover that the law is being broken?
[11:35 PM] COE: And that somehow, discovering that presents a conflict of interest if that matter comes before the court?
[11:37 PM] Zyvet: It presents an appearance of prejudging, is my concern. It seems, to me, that it is the function of the AG to detect breaches in the law, and that the Court were it to discover some breach and say to the AG (or the official or organ) that it may exist, would risk the AG (or the official or organ) concluding that the Court has already determined a breach exists(edited)
[11:39 PM] Zyvet: I don't think sorting itself would lead to that
[11:39 PM] Zyvet: I think that a report looking at the development of the law since the ruling could
[11:40 PM] Zyvet: ("law" here having a very broad meaning to include rules, practices and the like)
[11:43 PM] COE: Prejudging is only a concern in my mind when criminal charges are on the table
[11:43 PM] COE: If it's a matter of interpretation of the law, then it's not a COI to have an opinion going in
[11:43 PM] Zyvet: Criminal charges are inherently on the table in relation to officials negligently breaking the law tho :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:43 PM] COE: After all, just because a practice goes against a ruling doesn't mean it's actual illegal. The court could find that the previous court erred in judgment with the previous ruling
[11:44 PM] COE: And I'm saying that if I came out and said "Look, X person has been breaking the law and here's the report to prove it," then I would naturally recuse myself from any criminal proceedings that ensued. But if I said "Hey, X practice goes against ruling Y" then I would absolutely refuse to recuse myself from any request for review that ensued
[11:56 PM] Zyvet: The issue is that the Court would precipitate a request. It would be going around the requirement for the Court to be a reactive organ for the Court to investigate a practice, decide it is (or may be) contrary to the law (in the form of an opinion), refer it to AG (or the official or organ responsible). The Constitution is clear that a review of Constitutionality of law or legality of a policy must follow from request; it ought not be undertaken by the Court on its own initiative, with a later reference for a r4r in order to make binding the view it reached on its own initiative.
[11:57 PM] COE: Determining that a current practice is, on its face, contrary to a prior ruling is not the same thing as deciding that the practice is contrary to the law
[11:58 PM] COE: Such determinations are also NOT the official ruling of the court, and aren't binding on anyone
[11:59 PM] Zyvet: The issue is not whether or not the final decision is, in fact, the same as the initial determination (though, I would suggest that similarity between the two, if it occurred, would lead to the conclusion that the matter was, in essence, determined before the request was brought (whether or not that was in fact the case)); the issue is that the Court would be going around its reactive nature.
April 19, 2017
[12:01 AM] COE: I think that's crap. The court is not allowed to issue official opinions without a request. That is not the same thing as being unable to do anything without a request
[12:01 AM] COE: Also, I have exactly zero problem with the outcome of a request for review being pre-determined
[12:02 AM] COE: Having an opinion is not a COI
[12:02 AM] COE: And neither is every justice having the same opinion(edited)
[12:06 AM] COE: Looking at the law and forming an opinion on it is like, our one job. It doesn't matter if you've already done it by the time a request is brought. The timing doesn't change the outcome.
[12:10 AM] COE: Trials are a completely different story, and I agree with you completely that a justice should recuse themselves if they've already decided that the defendant is guilty or not guilty before evidence and argumentation
[12:10 AM] COE: But in a request for review, we are not required to limit our perspective to what is presented in court
[12:17 AM] COE: But if this would make the entire project a non-starter for you, I'd agree not to say anything about any rulings we ran across that don't jive with current practice
[12:41 AM] Zyvet: The project, presuming listing were by subject area, would not seem to require reports (in that it is fairly obvious what subject area an opinion would fall in it (usually)) and the issue would be avoided without them. It is only reports, and the in depth looking at practices that they would likely require, which causes me concern.
I am not saying that the Court, in saying that a practice appears to be unlawful would be making an official opinion, nor am I saying that the Court is incapable of taking any action without a request. My point is that if the Court finds an illegality and brings the matter to the AG (or official or organ), that that could precipitate a request for review, and, to my mind, it is inappropriate for the Court to take on the task of bringing about requests for review, because that would defeat the purpose of the Court's functions being reactive. The issue of apparent prejudging is, to my mind, also a concern, because of the need for parties to an action (a petitioner and a reviewed official or officials) to feel that the Court is being fair; now, whether or not a view is formed before or after a request is formed is not a problem with this, per se, the issue is in the party knowing that a view is formed before and in a resultant sense of unfairness.
Now, I don't think that it would be good for us to come across illegality and then not say anything, because, ultimately, I think that compliance with the law is for the best. So the solution, to my mind, is to involve the AG in the first instance in preparing the reports, because then it is they that discover any illegality and they can then deal with it in an appropriate manner, without the need for us to not mention any illegality or for us to go around the reactive nature of the Court.
[12:52 AM] COE: Requests for review absolutely do not need to be fair to the petitioner or anyone else. They just have to be right
[12:53 AM] COE: But I agree this isn't going to come up if we go by sorting by subject matter, which is still not my first choice
[12:54 AM] COE: Sorting by subject matter is also much more complicated than it sounds, because all rulings affect multiple subjects
[12:56 AM] COE: Why did that turn red?
[12:56 AM] COE: Is it red on everyone else's screen?
[12:56 AM] COE: oh, cause it didn't send
[12:56 AM] COE: Sorting by subject matter is also much more complicated than it sounds, because all rulings affect multiple subjects
[12:56 AM] COE: There we go
[8:11 PM] abbeym395: Requests for review absolutely do not need to be fair to the petitioner or anyone else. They just have to be right <-- I couldn't disagree more. Everything TNP governmental organs do has to be fair. It's in the BoR.
[10:58 PM] COE: The law has to be fair, and therefore they need to be interpreted to be fair
[10:59 PM] COE: However, my point is that unlike a trial, the petitioner is not presumed correct until proven otherwise, nor is there any standard of evidence or argumentation. The court is not limited to considering only what it is presented, and there are no grounds to throw out the opinion because someone wasn't heard, or whatnot
[11:01 PM] COE: For instance, let's say someone comes with a request for review that claims that, because the constitution does not specify when the delegate leaves office, all delegates that have ever been elected are still delegate.
[11:01 PM] COE: This is a ridiculous claim, and would probably get rejected for being ridiculous, but let's say that someone accepts it
[11:01 PM] COE: No briefs are then filed
[11:02 PM] COE: If this were akin to a trial, we would be bound to hold in favor of the petitioner, because there were no arguments presented against them, and no evidence presented to the contrary(edited)
[11:02 PM] COE: That's "fair"
[11:02 PM] COE: But requests for review don't have to be fair
[11:03 PM] COE: We are free to look at the law, decide what it means, and tell the petitioner to GTFO because they're wrong
[11:04 PM] abbeym395: But that's still fair...as long as the court considered it without bias..I'm not saying it has to be the same as a trial
[11:05 PM] COE: Then I think we may be on the same page
[11:05 PM] COE: Having an opinion is not the same as having a bias
[11:05 PM] COE: nor is either one the same as a conflict of interest
[11:06 PM] abbeym395: Indeed
[11:06 PM] COE: Even if it is well known that I have a certain interpretation of a given policy, I am still fit to be on a panel that is deciding how to interpret that policy
[11:06 PM] COE: The only reason I would recuse myself is if I stand to gain from ruling one way over another
[11:06 PM] abbeym395: nods
[11:07 PM] COE: Even if the entire court is well known to think that, say, Election Commissioners have to take oaths of office, it is still fine for no one to recuse themselves when the request comes before the court
[11:07 PM] COE: Unless it could impact them personally in some way
[11:41 PM] COE: To be clear, all of this was in response to Zyvet's concerns about "apparent pre-judging"
April 20, 2017
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: My issue is not with the Court having opinions, my issue is with the Court (or members of the Court) bringing about a request for review. It seems to me to go around the measures in place to ensure that the Court be a reactive organ. Members of the Court informing the AG of some illegality, in order that the AG may bring a request for review, does not seem significantly different from members of the Court bringing a request for review personally; I do not think there is any controversy in saying that it would be inappropriate for members not to sit if they brought the review personally (whether or not their view of the law was "right") and I do not think that it would be appropriate for the members to sit if they had brought the review about through informing some interested person (such as the AG) of the supposed illegality.
There is, I think, a secondary issue of maintaining a sense of fairness, because, if the Court brought about a request for review by saying to the AG that some matter is illegal and then ruled, in relation to that request, that that matter is illegal, that would risk the perception, for the reviewed official, that the Court has already concluded that it is going to rule against them and is engaging in the review only as a matter of formality. While the Court may not be bound to treat a reviewed official fairly in strict terms, it could cause damage to trust in the Court, which is not a desirable outcome.
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: (I should say, broadly, I disagree with the proposition that there are no procedural requirements of fairness in relation to requests for review. The procedural requirements may be different than trials, but they are extant: the requirement to step aside when one has a conflict of interest, for instance, is such a requirement; I would suggest that if, say, the Court only permitted those it agreed with to submit briefs, that would probably not meet the requirements of fairness. The lack of a burden of proof does not mean there are no requirements of fairness.)
[11:34 PM] abbeym395: I have to say I broadly agree with Zyvet here. We got distracted from the point in our discussion, and fairness is somewhat besides the point. The court is reactive and our going looking for faults is getting around our reactive nature and bringing about a request for review. If we work with the AGs office to produce the reports, they can nudge officials and bring requests to our attention before we work to categorise and present the rulings as a result.
[11:35 PM] abbeym395: And by work with, I mean we get them to make the reports, and we then use them.
April 21, 2017
[1:20 AM] COE: All of this is actually besides the point, because recusals are bridges we can cross when we get to them(edited)
[1:21 AM] COE: Also, we're the freaking court: we ought to be at least passingly familiar with the precedents that we are bound by. Fear of creating situations where you might have to recuse yourself is not an excuse to avoid examining the rulings outside of the context of a request for review or trial
[1:22 AM] COE: It certainly didn't stop sillystring from going through and renaming them all
[1:22 AM] COE: Furthermore, because I am rather familiar with the content of the rulings, I am highly confident that there are no high profile government policies or procedures that contravene any of the rulings
[1:23 AM] COE: So I think all this reticence to examine them in depth is misplaced
[1:23 AM] COE: I would like to drop it, and focus on what the problems are with the rulings page, and how to fix them
May 7, 2017
[5:39 AM] Zyvet: <.<
[5:39 AM] Zyvet: >.>
[5:43 AM] Zyvet: If there is any interest, I have put together a draft set of groupings for rulings and can post them on the forum for perusal (so that they don't get lost and are slightly easier to parse)?
[3:19 PM] COE: OK, sure
[3:19 PM] abbeym395: Yeah, definitely
[9:09 PM] Zyvet: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9055668/1/
[10:24 PM] COE: I think we've got a good start here. I would probably like significantly more groupings, that could ultimately turn into a system of tags
[10:25 PM] COE: Perhaps we could add comma-separated terms in a [hide] tag at the end of each ruling, which Elu could code into a list of clickable tags at the top of the rulings page. When a tag is clicked, it removes any rulings from view that don't contain that tag
[10:25 PM] abbeym395: That would be ace
[10:25 PM] COE: So, for instance, we could have a tag for every government official
[10:26 PM] COE: An election tag, security tag, etc, all the groups we currently have, and more
[10:26 PM] abbeym395: nods
[10:27 PM] abbeym395: But it's a good start, we need general groupings before we can work on more detailed ones
[10:28 PM] COE: Let me reach out to Elu and/or r3n, find out what is a realistic technical expectation, and come back with more information
[10:29 PM] COE: If a tag system is workable, I think we should take the names of the groups that we have, add tags until we're satisfied with this list, and then divide the rulings up among us to tag. Once we're done, rotate the groups of rulings and check each other's work.
[10:30 PM] COE: Then have loud arguments about whether X ruling really ought to have the delegate tag or not, etc
[10:30 PM] COE: Then we can add the [hide] tag to the template, along with all current tags, and we'll just delete the ones that don't apply each time a new ruling is posted
[10:31 PM] COE: Does this sound good as a game plan, provided our technical expectations are reasonable?
[10:31 PM] COE: And also, does this sound like it's accomplish-able by July?
[10:32 PM] abbeym395: We can at least made a decent way through it
[10:32 PM] Zyvet: nods
[10:33 PM] abbeym395: It might need finalising, or the code doing, but we can at least get it mostly done
[10:37 PM] COE: Well, the way I see it, even if we're waiting on the code for a while, we can still tag everything, and have all the information in place until a technical solution is found
[10:38 PM] abbeym395: Indeed
[10:39 PM] abbeym395: And we can always have the low-tech solution of putting the tags at the end and allowing people to ctrl-F for them (and have a "tag cloud" at the top so people know what to search for") That would be minimal tech-wise. Frankly I'd be able to implement that.
[11:17 PM] COE: Gotcha
July 21, 2017
[8:46 PM] Zyvet: To note, I'm going to copy this chat and post such parts of it are relevant to the thread on the rulings page, subject to any redactions which may be necessary for reasons of privacy
[3:24 PM] COE: Anyway, I had a couple ideas I wanted to leave here and get your feedback on before I move forward with them.
[3:25 PM] COE: Currently, the rulings page is a hodge-podge of rulings that still have some effect, and rulings that are outmoded by changes in the law or further rulings that happened afterwards.
[3:27 PM] COE: I suggest splitting the rulings page into two lists: those that we have determined, as a three member panel, are not of much use to those researching legal precedent, and those that are.
[3:27 PM] COE: We would not be overturning those rulings, or otherwise removing the force of law from hem, per se, just recognizing that the precedents they set may no longer apply for one reason or another. This would be for the sole purpose of making rulings easier to browse.
[3:29 PM] COE: Naturally, we would need to consult Elu to implement this change, but if you guys are on board with this, I would like to recruit a few private citizens to help us work through the rulings page and prepare reports on each one including what areas of the law it affects, a summary of how those laws have changed since the ruling, what (if any) subsequent rulings contradict the ruling, and whether or not it appears to be outdated.
[3:36 PM] COE: This would be a lengthy and involved project. I would say that every ruling older than a year should be examined - that's 44 rulings. Then, each one will need to be discussed and voted upon. Then, we will need to publish the list of archaic rulings and implement a technical solution. I do not imagine that this will be done by the end of the term, but I hope to either win another term and finish it by the end of the year, or lobby my successor to do the same.
[3:38 PM] COE: I have noticed a couple of citizens who have said they want to "learn more about TNP law" - this seems like an ideal opportunity for them. It does not require an official appointment. They would just be preparing reports on their own time and sending them to us. I would make a separate thread to organize the project, and allow people to post in the thread claiming rulings they would like to research. I would then privately encourage the citizens who I think would get a lot out of it to volunteer
[3:39 PM] COE: Thoughts?(edited)
[3:41 PM] COE: (Specifically, I think Scorch and Kasch would love this)
[3:56 PM] COE: Tagging ya'll just in case @Zyvet @abbeym395
[5:01 PM] abbeym395: I definitely think that at the least going through the rulings and preparing reports on them is a really good idea and has needed doing for a while. I agree it's a good way of getting citizens involved but it will be a significant amount of work for us to "babysit" them and help them understand the law and the implications of the rulings. It's also an ongoing project as more rulings are produced and time passes newer rulings will need indexing in this way. But I think we should give it a go.
[8:58 PM] COE: Well, I think we should write one or two ourselves as examples before we solicit public submissions, so they can see what we're looking for.
[8:59 PM] COE: And rather than let just anyone claim whatever, we could consider just having people volunteer, and we'll assign rulings to them
[8:59 PM] COE: Could also keep it private, and just recruit people we know are competent
[9:10 PM] abbeym395: No, I think we should allow anyone to apply - but with no guarantee we'll accept. It's good for getting legal experience, but some will be required to do this well
[9:13 PM] COE: Alright. I think if we can get enough qualified people thus won't take forever. Between the three of us, scorch, Kasch, and maybe SillyString and/or r3n, that's not too many each
[9:14 PM] COE: I'm sure there are others who are qualified as well
[9:14 PM] COE: Unless Zyvet has objections, I'll probably take a stab at the first one and post a thread tomorrow
[10:05 PM] Zyvet: To my mind, there are issues with having two separate lists, one which is of rulings (deemed to be) of precedential use and one of those which are not (deemed to be) of such use. Particularly, it seems that there is a problem that is seems that we would be taking actions which have been dealt with by request for review previously (this one http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8198002&t=7276072 ), in that it is essentially a formatting change to recognise that the law has moved on from the decision made at the time; to my mind the that review wasn't really something the court should have went along with, anyway, but it is what was done.
Additionally, there would seem to me to be a risk that the result would be that the list deemed less useful would, in essence, not be looked at, when it is possible that they may still have use in terms of being analogous to new cases even where the law they actually related to has moved on or that the law which has moved on may move back; and that it will be very difficult for us (or future courts) to decide which are likely to be useful as being analogous or due to the law moving back to be closer to that at the time of the ruling than that at present.
I think it would be useful to have case summaries and histories (ie, what rulings or law it builds on/is layered atop and which rulings or law build on/alter it), however, I'd say that they ought to stop short of labeling a ruling as "outdated" in that or similar terms (though it may well be possible to infer from the history whether a ruling is outmoded in a given respect), again on account of the risk of encouraging people from ignoring "outdated" rulings which, as aforesaid, could remain useful.
[10:05 PM] Zyvet: On the subject of the mechanics of the thing, I think it would be helpful to have it be open to the public to apply to be involved and for it to be a matter of having more than one person be assigned a given opinion (though for them not to collaborate) in order to ensure a diversity of perspectives.
[10:07 PM] abbeym395: I think Zyvet has a point on the point about hte different lists. Having more than one person work on a ruling and then us consolidate? seems like a good idea, a good way of getting more people involved too.
April 16, 2017
[11:20 PM] COE: On having two lists:
[11:22 PM] COE: I don't think that the court's ruling linked above constitutes a binding precedent that any formatting change to the laws page has to be done through request for review
[11:22 PM] COE: Also, that ruling goes far above and beyond what we'd be doing here, in that it actually revokes the force of law from ruling 1.
[11:24 PM] COE: If we were declaring a long list of rulings null and void, I think we would need a request for review to do that, but splitting the rulings into two lists for ease of browsing seems on the order of other recent changes, such as removing the seals to make the page load faster, and changing the titles to make them more relevant to the content.
[11:26 PM] COE: In regards to Zyvet's second paragraph:
[11:28 PM] COE: I am much less concerned with making attorney's jobs easy, and much more concerned with making the rulings page useful to government officials and private citizens. Right now, unless you have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of TNP law to begin with, the rulings page is next to useless for people who are just looking for legal precedent that applies to their situation
[11:29 PM] COE: The new and improved titles are a step in the right direction, but too many of the rulings are based on laws that no longer exist, and/or have been directly overruled by the RA
[11:30 PM] COE: In regards to the difficulty of upkeep - I see this as an opportunity to give the court a job to do when there are no trials or reviews pending
[11:31 PM] COE: They will need to keep abreast of current legislation, and when rulings become outdated, move them to the appropriate list
[11:33 PM] COE: I don't think rulings will return from the archaic list back to the current list very often, if at all, because 1) typically, the changes in the law are a response to the ruling itself, and we tend to learn our lessons, and 2) there's a strong argument to be made that even if the law reverts to something similar to what it was at the time of the ruling, the precedent is still pretty much void
April 17, 2017
[8:17 PM] abbeym395: I agree that giving the court an ongoing job is good
[11:08 PM] COE: If we move forward with this, my preference is against having more than one person assigned to the same case. I see the desire for multiple perspectives, but ultimately, our perspectives are the ones that matter, since we are the ones who were elected to do a job. I would want a recommendation to be part of the report, but I consider it the least important part. Mostly, I just want to someone to do the legwork of figuring out which laws the review touches and how they've changed since the ruling.
April 18, 2017
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: It seems to me that this would be closer to the strike through decision than it is to removing seals or altering titles; neither of those involve the Court giving any signal of the precedential value of the opinions, whereas the strike through decision is saying that the opinion struck through is no longer of such use and splitting "outdated" opinions would be making a similar statement. (something which has occurred to me, is that the Court's "signalling" that opinions may be "outdated" might be seen to be somewhat close to amounting to a suggestion that the AG (or someone else) bring the matter up for an opinion like the strike through opinion, which may be seen as overly proactive (more thoughts along these lines near to the end))
The issue with splitting the rulings page is not that it would make things more difficult for "attorneys" (I don't think it would be any more than marginally more difficult). The issue is that, if the Court signals that certain opinions are "outdated" the response from people generally, I think, will probably be to not bother looking at them, despite the possibility that those opinions will, in fact, be useful to them.
Take the opinion on government officials: the law on which it was based has been drastically altered, the Court in its recent opinion relating to the election did not refer to that opinion (despite it having been referred to by two of the amici briefs (including the AG's)) presumably because of the alteration of the law; it seems, then, that this opinion is one which would be likely to be labeled as "outdated" and listed separately (if not by this Court, then by another), yet it still retains some arguable use in terms of defining a government official, for the current definition of government official relies on the term "official" which is undefined, and this opinion could be said to give a non-exhaustive, indicative list of what positions are "officials" though not addressing that matter in those terms.
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: Alternatively, suppose an opinion existed dealing with the powers that the Speaker can delegate to the Deputy Speaker, and the manner in which that delegation may be made, and, in response, the law dealing with the delegation was amended substantially. It would seem, at first glance, that that opinion becomes outdated, yet it can retain use in a different circumstance because the Constitutional provision dealing with the Deputy Attorneys General is in the same terms as that dealing with Deputy Speaker, so the opinion may well transfer over.
This type of reasoning, it seems to me, could apply to almost all opinions of the Court and, due to that, it seems to me that either: useful rulings will be ignored, the Court having signaled its view that they are "outdated"; or that no (or very few, highly particular) rulings can be deemed "outdated".
Another thing which has occurred to me, is that there may be a risk that certain opinions may be contrary to current practice; that is, that opinions remain in place and the law (constitutional or ordinary) has not changed in a way which would lead to the conclusion that some or all of the opinion is "outdated" in the area they relate to, yet, for one reason or another, practices have been adopted which are contrary to those opinions. While it is positive, I think, that increased scrutiny may lead to practice changing to comply with the law (as non-compliance whether ignorant or wilful is, to my mind, not a good thing), it is possible that any summary report and history may be seen to amount to a statement that a current practice is unlawful and, perhaps, out to be challenged by way of r4r (perhaps leading to a number of r4rs where recusal is necessary (as a consequence of apparent prejudging)).
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: I think, what may be best, is for this (that is writing reports etc) to be a matter for the AG; they are in a position to take decisions themselves on whether or not a current practice is contrary to an opinion and their view, while weighty, ought not be as likely to discourage reliance on an opinion if they think, for one reason or another, that it is of less use now than it once was. I think that we could still have such summary reports and histories as part of the rulings page, as cooperation with the AG (though with a disclaimer as to such views of the AG not being binding on the part of the Court), and I don't think there is any problem with us classifying opinions by the matters which they relate to (which I think may actually be one of the most helpful propositions, as most rulings are not overly difficult to read, it is mostly just sheer weight of them which presents difficulty in parsing), but the more I consider it, the more it seems like it could be overly proactive (or seen as overly proactive) if done by the Court.
[12:12 AM] Zyvet: (that's all of it)
[12:13 AM] Zyvet: (I hate the 2000 character limit so much)
[12:14 AM] COE: "The issue is that, if the Court signals that certain opinions are "outdated" the response from people generally, I think, will probably be to not bother looking at them" <<< this is the entire point of this project
[12:14 AM] COE: And if those opinions would actually be useful, then the court erred in putting them on the second list
[12:15 AM] COE: I want to make the rulings page useable, and right now, there's no way to tell what rulings are useful and which aren't except to read them all (Edit: AND THEN TO READ ALL THE LAWS THEY MENTION)(edited)
[12:16 AM] COE: I would want the second list to be presented in such a way that it is clear that the rulings still have force of law, but that they may be less relevant to the current text of the law
[12:16 AM] COE: Yes, in the context of a request for review or a criminal trial, they may still have some precedential value, but to a private citizen going about their business, or a government official trying to do their job, they're clutter
[12:17 AM] COE: The net result of all this clutter is that important and relevant rulings are rarely read
[12:17 AM] COE: If the solution is not to split into two lists, I would like to hear a viable alternative that solves this problem
[12:21 AM] COE: One has actually occurred to me, but it would probably involve a lot more upkeep on the part of the court, and would result in a lot more mess if the court were to be inactive
[12:21 AM] COE: I'll talk about that if there's interest
[2:16 PM] Zyvet: I don't think that it is plausible to have two separate lists which are both viewed as being equally effective in law. The "outdated" list, I think, would be likely to be ignored by all people, not just citizens and officials, because the Court has signaled that it considers them to be "outdated".
What would avoid that and, to my mind, be more useful would be to have several lists according to the sort of area that the opinions address (or a single list, but clearly grouped and organised into subject area). If one is an Election Commissioner, say, one could then just look at the "election law" (or whatever grouping) opinions rather than all non-"outdated" opinions; if one is Speaker then "Assembly law" opinions. Doubtless there will be some opinions which may be difficult to group, but it seems that subject grouped lists would be better than a non-"outdated" and an "outdated" list, in terms of being easier to parse. It also seems to avoid my concern about rulings being ignored as a consequence of being labeled "outdated".
On the matter of institutional competence (the Court v the AG), I think there is another reason for the task of summarising/compiling histories may be more appropriate for the AG. In addition to the concern with respect to current practices being incompatible with opinions (for one reason or another), there could be a risk of the summaries being taken viewed as having an amount of legal weight which they ought not have (not being opinions of the Court made in accordance with the Constitutional and other requirements) or that there could give rise to claims of prejudging and demands for recusals. Having such summaries/histories be the work of the AG limits (though it may not remove) the extent to which they are seen as views that are, essentially, going to be held to by the Court in any future litigation.
[10:33 PM] abbeym395: I'm still not sure on the matter of whose 'problem' this should be, but I think perhaps subject lists will be more useful. Listed by date order, the shorter lists will allow someone to largely discount the oldest rulings without ignoring, say, the only ruling on a particular area.
[10:41 PM] abbeym395: So far as whose problem it is, frankly, thinking about it, it falls far more under the AGs purview. Not to say we can't be involved, but we have far less leeway to say, notify a government official that their practice is in error if we discover incogruities in the rulings and practice. The AGs job is to advise and this strikes me as advising.
[11:15 PM] COE: The way I see it, the court is responsible for publishing our rulings, and keeping the rulings page organized and current. We don't ask the AG to add rulings to the page - why would we expect them to move things around and relabel them?
[11:16 PM] abbeym395: We're not asking them to do that, we're asking them to produce reports on them
[11:16 PM] COE: I thought we were talking about subject-lists
[11:17 PM] COE: And to be clear, I am not suggesting having public reports. In my scheme, the reports would be kept private, and used solely as a starting point for our deliberations on reorganizing the rulings page, be it by currency, subject, or whatever else
[11:17 PM] abbeym395: I'd argue they're the same thing. My biggest concern is us stumbling across problems and not being in a position, like the AG, to do anything about it
[11:17 PM] COE: hm?
[11:18 PM] COE: You think producing reports is the same thing as re-organizing the rulings page?
[11:18 PM] abbeym395: I'd argue you need the reports to do the subject listing
[11:19 PM] COE: Yes, that is true. But there is a big difference between the AG's office handing us reports and letting us do what we want with them, and the AG producing reports, and then using those to change the appearance of the rulings page
[11:19 PM] abbeym395: I think we can find a compromise between the two
[11:20 PM] abbeym395: If the AGs office produces the reports (and acts on any incongruiites found), I don't think it's out of bounds for us to use that to reorganise the rulings page
[11:20 PM] COE: Yes, not out of bounds for us to do that
[11:20 PM] COE: As we see fit
[11:21 PM] Zyvet: Wait... I thought the idea of the summaries/histories would be that they'd appear with the opinions?
[11:21 PM] COE: That is not my vision
[11:22 PM] Zyvet: Oh... that might change what I think on that subject a bit then
[11:23 PM] COE: In my plan, the only reason we'd even have these things is to cut down on the legwork of going through every ruling and deciding whether or not to put it on the list of rulings about laws that no longer exist(edited)
[11:23 PM] COE: Cause 44 is a lot of rulings to research(edited)
[11:24 PM] COE: If we go with subject lists or whatever other ideas, I would still want to only use those reports internally
[11:24 PM] COE: Frankly, I don't think they'd be much use to the general public anyway - not any more than the text of the actual rulings, that is(edited)
[11:25 PM] abbeym395: Only perhaps for the most obtuse rulings. But we're agreed that we don't want the reports public.
[11:26 PM] Zyvet: (I don't know that I'm agreed about non-public reports :stuck_out_tongue: )
[11:27 PM] abbeym395: Oh okay. Whoops.
[11:29 PM] Zyvet: (in that I can see that there may be use to having public advice, say if an opinion relates to one area but there is analogous other law (like with the AG/Speaker delegation provisions), or to say whether law has/hasn't changed and how changes may affect things.)
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: (but, anyway, my concern was largely predicated on the plan being to have public reports)
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: (though I do think such reports could be useful to the public)
[11:33 PM] Zyvet: If the reports are non-public, then I think that my only concern about them is that there is a risk that we would uncover non-compliance with rulings and have to not disclose them or to disclose them and have a bunch of r4rs which we can't be involved with. That risk, to me, could still merit the involvement, in the first place, of the AG, but I'm not wholly sure at the moment
[11:33 PM] COE: wat?
[11:34 PM] Zyvet: Suppose there is a ruling which some official or organ had forgotten about when making some decision and, as a result, a practice or rule had developed which is contrary to the ruling
[11:34 PM] COE: You think the problem with us sorting through the rulings is that we could discover that the law is being broken?
[11:35 PM] COE: And that somehow, discovering that presents a conflict of interest if that matter comes before the court?
[11:37 PM] Zyvet: It presents an appearance of prejudging, is my concern. It seems, to me, that it is the function of the AG to detect breaches in the law, and that the Court were it to discover some breach and say to the AG (or the official or organ) that it may exist, would risk the AG (or the official or organ) concluding that the Court has already determined a breach exists(edited)
[11:39 PM] Zyvet: I don't think sorting itself would lead to that
[11:39 PM] Zyvet: I think that a report looking at the development of the law since the ruling could
[11:40 PM] Zyvet: ("law" here having a very broad meaning to include rules, practices and the like)
[11:43 PM] COE: Prejudging is only a concern in my mind when criminal charges are on the table
[11:43 PM] COE: If it's a matter of interpretation of the law, then it's not a COI to have an opinion going in
[11:43 PM] Zyvet: Criminal charges are inherently on the table in relation to officials negligently breaking the law tho :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:43 PM] COE: After all, just because a practice goes against a ruling doesn't mean it's actual illegal. The court could find that the previous court erred in judgment with the previous ruling
[11:44 PM] COE: And I'm saying that if I came out and said "Look, X person has been breaking the law and here's the report to prove it," then I would naturally recuse myself from any criminal proceedings that ensued. But if I said "Hey, X practice goes against ruling Y" then I would absolutely refuse to recuse myself from any request for review that ensued
[11:56 PM] Zyvet: The issue is that the Court would precipitate a request. It would be going around the requirement for the Court to be a reactive organ for the Court to investigate a practice, decide it is (or may be) contrary to the law (in the form of an opinion), refer it to AG (or the official or organ responsible). The Constitution is clear that a review of Constitutionality of law or legality of a policy must follow from request; it ought not be undertaken by the Court on its own initiative, with a later reference for a r4r in order to make binding the view it reached on its own initiative.
[11:57 PM] COE: Determining that a current practice is, on its face, contrary to a prior ruling is not the same thing as deciding that the practice is contrary to the law
[11:58 PM] COE: Such determinations are also NOT the official ruling of the court, and aren't binding on anyone
[11:59 PM] Zyvet: The issue is not whether or not the final decision is, in fact, the same as the initial determination (though, I would suggest that similarity between the two, if it occurred, would lead to the conclusion that the matter was, in essence, determined before the request was brought (whether or not that was in fact the case)); the issue is that the Court would be going around its reactive nature.
April 19, 2017
[12:01 AM] COE: I think that's crap. The court is not allowed to issue official opinions without a request. That is not the same thing as being unable to do anything without a request
[12:01 AM] COE: Also, I have exactly zero problem with the outcome of a request for review being pre-determined
[12:02 AM] COE: Having an opinion is not a COI
[12:02 AM] COE: And neither is every justice having the same opinion(edited)
[12:06 AM] COE: Looking at the law and forming an opinion on it is like, our one job. It doesn't matter if you've already done it by the time a request is brought. The timing doesn't change the outcome.
[12:10 AM] COE: Trials are a completely different story, and I agree with you completely that a justice should recuse themselves if they've already decided that the defendant is guilty or not guilty before evidence and argumentation
[12:10 AM] COE: But in a request for review, we are not required to limit our perspective to what is presented in court
[12:17 AM] COE: But if this would make the entire project a non-starter for you, I'd agree not to say anything about any rulings we ran across that don't jive with current practice
[12:41 AM] Zyvet: The project, presuming listing were by subject area, would not seem to require reports (in that it is fairly obvious what subject area an opinion would fall in it (usually)) and the issue would be avoided without them. It is only reports, and the in depth looking at practices that they would likely require, which causes me concern.
I am not saying that the Court, in saying that a practice appears to be unlawful would be making an official opinion, nor am I saying that the Court is incapable of taking any action without a request. My point is that if the Court finds an illegality and brings the matter to the AG (or official or organ), that that could precipitate a request for review, and, to my mind, it is inappropriate for the Court to take on the task of bringing about requests for review, because that would defeat the purpose of the Court's functions being reactive. The issue of apparent prejudging is, to my mind, also a concern, because of the need for parties to an action (a petitioner and a reviewed official or officials) to feel that the Court is being fair; now, whether or not a view is formed before or after a request is formed is not a problem with this, per se, the issue is in the party knowing that a view is formed before and in a resultant sense of unfairness.
Now, I don't think that it would be good for us to come across illegality and then not say anything, because, ultimately, I think that compliance with the law is for the best. So the solution, to my mind, is to involve the AG in the first instance in preparing the reports, because then it is they that discover any illegality and they can then deal with it in an appropriate manner, without the need for us to not mention any illegality or for us to go around the reactive nature of the Court.
[12:52 AM] COE: Requests for review absolutely do not need to be fair to the petitioner or anyone else. They just have to be right
[12:53 AM] COE: But I agree this isn't going to come up if we go by sorting by subject matter, which is still not my first choice
[12:54 AM] COE: Sorting by subject matter is also much more complicated than it sounds, because all rulings affect multiple subjects
[12:56 AM] COE: Why did that turn red?
[12:56 AM] COE: Is it red on everyone else's screen?
[12:56 AM] COE: oh, cause it didn't send
[12:56 AM] COE: Sorting by subject matter is also much more complicated than it sounds, because all rulings affect multiple subjects
[12:56 AM] COE: There we go
[8:11 PM] abbeym395: Requests for review absolutely do not need to be fair to the petitioner or anyone else. They just have to be right <-- I couldn't disagree more. Everything TNP governmental organs do has to be fair. It's in the BoR.
[10:58 PM] COE: The law has to be fair, and therefore they need to be interpreted to be fair
[10:59 PM] COE: However, my point is that unlike a trial, the petitioner is not presumed correct until proven otherwise, nor is there any standard of evidence or argumentation. The court is not limited to considering only what it is presented, and there are no grounds to throw out the opinion because someone wasn't heard, or whatnot
[11:01 PM] COE: For instance, let's say someone comes with a request for review that claims that, because the constitution does not specify when the delegate leaves office, all delegates that have ever been elected are still delegate.
[11:01 PM] COE: This is a ridiculous claim, and would probably get rejected for being ridiculous, but let's say that someone accepts it
[11:01 PM] COE: No briefs are then filed
[11:02 PM] COE: If this were akin to a trial, we would be bound to hold in favor of the petitioner, because there were no arguments presented against them, and no evidence presented to the contrary(edited)
[11:02 PM] COE: That's "fair"
[11:02 PM] COE: But requests for review don't have to be fair
[11:03 PM] COE: We are free to look at the law, decide what it means, and tell the petitioner to GTFO because they're wrong
[11:04 PM] abbeym395: But that's still fair...as long as the court considered it without bias..I'm not saying it has to be the same as a trial
[11:05 PM] COE: Then I think we may be on the same page
[11:05 PM] COE: Having an opinion is not the same as having a bias
[11:05 PM] COE: nor is either one the same as a conflict of interest
[11:06 PM] abbeym395: Indeed
[11:06 PM] COE: Even if it is well known that I have a certain interpretation of a given policy, I am still fit to be on a panel that is deciding how to interpret that policy
[11:06 PM] COE: The only reason I would recuse myself is if I stand to gain from ruling one way over another
[11:06 PM] abbeym395: nods
[11:07 PM] COE: Even if the entire court is well known to think that, say, Election Commissioners have to take oaths of office, it is still fine for no one to recuse themselves when the request comes before the court
[11:07 PM] COE: Unless it could impact them personally in some way
[11:41 PM] COE: To be clear, all of this was in response to Zyvet's concerns about "apparent pre-judging"
April 20, 2017
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: My issue is not with the Court having opinions, my issue is with the Court (or members of the Court) bringing about a request for review. It seems to me to go around the measures in place to ensure that the Court be a reactive organ. Members of the Court informing the AG of some illegality, in order that the AG may bring a request for review, does not seem significantly different from members of the Court bringing a request for review personally; I do not think there is any controversy in saying that it would be inappropriate for members not to sit if they brought the review personally (whether or not their view of the law was "right") and I do not think that it would be appropriate for the members to sit if they had brought the review about through informing some interested person (such as the AG) of the supposed illegality.
There is, I think, a secondary issue of maintaining a sense of fairness, because, if the Court brought about a request for review by saying to the AG that some matter is illegal and then ruled, in relation to that request, that that matter is illegal, that would risk the perception, for the reviewed official, that the Court has already concluded that it is going to rule against them and is engaging in the review only as a matter of formality. While the Court may not be bound to treat a reviewed official fairly in strict terms, it could cause damage to trust in the Court, which is not a desirable outcome.
[11:30 PM] Zyvet: (I should say, broadly, I disagree with the proposition that there are no procedural requirements of fairness in relation to requests for review. The procedural requirements may be different than trials, but they are extant: the requirement to step aside when one has a conflict of interest, for instance, is such a requirement; I would suggest that if, say, the Court only permitted those it agreed with to submit briefs, that would probably not meet the requirements of fairness. The lack of a burden of proof does not mean there are no requirements of fairness.)
[11:34 PM] abbeym395: I have to say I broadly agree with Zyvet here. We got distracted from the point in our discussion, and fairness is somewhat besides the point. The court is reactive and our going looking for faults is getting around our reactive nature and bringing about a request for review. If we work with the AGs office to produce the reports, they can nudge officials and bring requests to our attention before we work to categorise and present the rulings as a result.
[11:35 PM] abbeym395: And by work with, I mean we get them to make the reports, and we then use them.
April 21, 2017
[1:20 AM] COE: All of this is actually besides the point, because recusals are bridges we can cross when we get to them(edited)
[1:21 AM] COE: Also, we're the freaking court: we ought to be at least passingly familiar with the precedents that we are bound by. Fear of creating situations where you might have to recuse yourself is not an excuse to avoid examining the rulings outside of the context of a request for review or trial
[1:22 AM] COE: It certainly didn't stop sillystring from going through and renaming them all
[1:22 AM] COE: Furthermore, because I am rather familiar with the content of the rulings, I am highly confident that there are no high profile government policies or procedures that contravene any of the rulings
[1:23 AM] COE: So I think all this reticence to examine them in depth is misplaced
[1:23 AM] COE: I would like to drop it, and focus on what the problems are with the rulings page, and how to fix them
May 7, 2017
[5:39 AM] Zyvet: <.<
[5:39 AM] Zyvet: >.>
[5:43 AM] Zyvet: If there is any interest, I have put together a draft set of groupings for rulings and can post them on the forum for perusal (so that they don't get lost and are slightly easier to parse)?
[3:19 PM] COE: OK, sure
[3:19 PM] abbeym395: Yeah, definitely
[9:09 PM] Zyvet: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9055668/1/
[10:24 PM] COE: I think we've got a good start here. I would probably like significantly more groupings, that could ultimately turn into a system of tags
[10:25 PM] COE: Perhaps we could add comma-separated terms in a [hide] tag at the end of each ruling, which Elu could code into a list of clickable tags at the top of the rulings page. When a tag is clicked, it removes any rulings from view that don't contain that tag
[10:25 PM] abbeym395: That would be ace
[10:25 PM] COE: So, for instance, we could have a tag for every government official
[10:26 PM] COE: An election tag, security tag, etc, all the groups we currently have, and more
[10:26 PM] abbeym395: nods
[10:27 PM] abbeym395: But it's a good start, we need general groupings before we can work on more detailed ones
[10:28 PM] COE: Let me reach out to Elu and/or r3n, find out what is a realistic technical expectation, and come back with more information
[10:29 PM] COE: If a tag system is workable, I think we should take the names of the groups that we have, add tags until we're satisfied with this list, and then divide the rulings up among us to tag. Once we're done, rotate the groups of rulings and check each other's work.
[10:30 PM] COE: Then have loud arguments about whether X ruling really ought to have the delegate tag or not, etc
[10:30 PM] COE: Then we can add the [hide] tag to the template, along with all current tags, and we'll just delete the ones that don't apply each time a new ruling is posted
[10:31 PM] COE: Does this sound good as a game plan, provided our technical expectations are reasonable?
[10:31 PM] COE: And also, does this sound like it's accomplish-able by July?
[10:32 PM] abbeym395: We can at least made a decent way through it
[10:32 PM] Zyvet: nods
[10:33 PM] abbeym395: It might need finalising, or the code doing, but we can at least get it mostly done
[10:37 PM] COE: Well, the way I see it, even if we're waiting on the code for a while, we can still tag everything, and have all the information in place until a technical solution is found
[10:38 PM] abbeym395: Indeed
[10:39 PM] abbeym395: And we can always have the low-tech solution of putting the tags at the end and allowing people to ctrl-F for them (and have a "tag cloud" at the top so people know what to search for") That would be minimal tech-wise. Frankly I'd be able to implement that.
[11:17 PM] COE: Gotcha
July 21, 2017
[8:46 PM] Zyvet: To note, I'm going to copy this chat and post such parts of it are relevant to the thread on the rulings page, subject to any redactions which may be necessary for reasons of privacy
Most rulings are in more than one grouping, some rulings have additional observations next to them. The groupings are not currently ordered in a particular way (they are, pretty much, in the order in which they first came up while I was going through the rulings). The ruling titles are not exact, however, the numbers are correct.
Criminal Law: Procedure
1. Re: AG Refusing to bring Criminal Compaints to Trial (Historic, ordered struck and preserved; delist?)
5. Re: Jurisdiction
11. Re: Duty to Disclose Evidence
14. Re: Right against Self-Incrimination
17. AO: Role of the AG (Not sure this should be listed? It was not (as far as I can tell, as I can't seem to find discussion of it in the declassified forum or elsewhere?) issued by the Court as part of an r4r, but, rather, on its own motion (the law, at the time, did require requests of an affected party))
20. Re: Trial Time Limits
32. Re: Nonparticipation of Defendants
41. Re: Physical Representation of Rulings
46. Re: Power to Compel Disclosure of Evidence
47. Re: Process for Compulsory Disclosure
World Assembly Law
2. Re: Limitations Set by the Co5 on WA Voting
3. Re: Clause 9 of the BoR
13. Re: WA Nation Disclosure
Constitutional Law: Government Authority (not sure as to this title (or whether it should be a single grouping), it is a grouping of the cases addressing what is and is not an exercise of government authority (and on the nature of that authority) and what are and are not government officials etc)
2. Re: Limitations Set by the Co5 on WA Voting
3. Re: Clause 9 of the BoR
26. Re: Justices as Government Officials
29. Re: Government Officials
37. Re: Content Ownership and use of FOIA against the SC
38. Re: Meaning of Private Citizen
47. Re: Process for Compulsory Disclosure
49. Re: ECs failing to take Oaths
Constitutional Law: Equal Treatment
3. Re: Clause 9 of the BoR
13. Re: WA Nation Disclosure
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
Constitutional Law: Security Council
4. Re: VD's Voting Rights in the SC
10. Re: Applications to the SC
37. Re: Content Ownership and use of FOIA against the SC
45. Re: Endorsement Count Requirements
Regional Assembly Law: Procedure
6. Re: Speaker's Powers to Restrict the Format of Votes
10. Re: Applications to the SC
16. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate
22. Re: Minor Error Clause (not too sure on this one)
39. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate (No.2)
Constitutional Law: Discretionary Power
6. Re: Speaker's Powers to Restrict the Format of Votes
16. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate
27. Re: Powers of Election Commissioners
39. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate (No.2)
Election Law
7. Re: Leaving a Candidate's Name off the Ballot
9. Re: Delegate Term Limits
23. Re: Delegate Term Limits in Special Elections
27. Re: Powers of Election Commissioners
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
30. Re: RA Membership Requirement for Candidacy
33. Re: Candidate Eligibilty after Reopening Nominations
42. Re: Restarting Voting Periods (No.2)
49. Re: ECs failing to take Oaths
Constitutional Law: Freedom of Speech
8. Re: Arms, Flag, and Seal
18. Re: Constitutionality of the Prohibition on Sedition
44. Re: Suppression of the RMB (sigh)
Cultural Laws
8. Re: Arms, Flag, and Seal
15. Re: TNP Flag as a National Flag
Constitutional Law: Term Limits
9. Re: Delegate Term Limits
23. Re: Delegate Term Limits in Special Elections
Criminal Law: Sedition
18. Re: Constitutionality of the Prohibition on Sedition
Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction of the Court
5. Re: Jurisdiction
19. Re: Precedent and Scope of Court Powers
25. Re: Standing and meaning of "Affected Party"
Constitutional Law: Precedent
19. Re: Precedent and Scope of Court Powers
41. Re: Physical Representation of Rulings (not sure if this is a good grouping for this one)
Constitutional Law: Succession
21. Re: VD Succession to the Delegacy
Freedom of Information Law
24. Re: Constitutionality of the Intelligence Exception to the FOIA
35. Re: Use of FOIA against the Court
37. Re: Content Ownership and use of FOIA against the SC
38. Re: Meaning of Private Citizen
Constitutional Law: Due Process
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
30. Re: RA Membership Requirement for Candidacy
Constitutional Law: Right to Vote
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
Criminal Law: Fraud
34. Re: Standard of Proof and Intention
Regional Assembly Law: Administration
31. Re: Time at which Oaths become Binding
36. Re: Permanence of RA Application Rejections
40. Re: Promptness and Time at which RA Membership Begins and Ends
48. Re: RO Banning during NS Events
Armed Forces Law (the default name that the law provides is used here, rather than the name used for the time being)
43. Re: RA Oversight of the NPAF
Criminal Law: Gross Misconduct
12. Re: Oath Violations by Former Members of the RA (this ruling predates the crime of Gross misconduct, but I'm not sure as to whether an alternate grouping could be used and/or what that alternate would be)
31. Re: Time at which Oaths become Binding
45. Re: Endorsement Count Requirements
Security Law
36. Re: Permanence of RA Application Rejections (not sure whether including this confuses this grouping, as it is not a part of the Security Law; it does, however, relate to SC/VD things)
45. Re: Endorsement Count Requirements
Emergency Law
48. Re: RO Banning during NS Events
1. Re: AG Refusing to bring Criminal Compaints to Trial (Historic, ordered struck and preserved; delist?)
5. Re: Jurisdiction
11. Re: Duty to Disclose Evidence
14. Re: Right against Self-Incrimination
17. AO: Role of the AG (Not sure this should be listed? It was not (as far as I can tell, as I can't seem to find discussion of it in the declassified forum or elsewhere?) issued by the Court as part of an r4r, but, rather, on its own motion (the law, at the time, did require requests of an affected party))
20. Re: Trial Time Limits
32. Re: Nonparticipation of Defendants
41. Re: Physical Representation of Rulings
46. Re: Power to Compel Disclosure of Evidence
47. Re: Process for Compulsory Disclosure
World Assembly Law
2. Re: Limitations Set by the Co5 on WA Voting
3. Re: Clause 9 of the BoR
13. Re: WA Nation Disclosure
Constitutional Law: Government Authority (not sure as to this title (or whether it should be a single grouping), it is a grouping of the cases addressing what is and is not an exercise of government authority (and on the nature of that authority) and what are and are not government officials etc)
2. Re: Limitations Set by the Co5 on WA Voting
3. Re: Clause 9 of the BoR
26. Re: Justices as Government Officials
29. Re: Government Officials
37. Re: Content Ownership and use of FOIA against the SC
38. Re: Meaning of Private Citizen
47. Re: Process for Compulsory Disclosure
49. Re: ECs failing to take Oaths
Constitutional Law: Equal Treatment
3. Re: Clause 9 of the BoR
13. Re: WA Nation Disclosure
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
Constitutional Law: Security Council
4. Re: VD's Voting Rights in the SC
10. Re: Applications to the SC
37. Re: Content Ownership and use of FOIA against the SC
45. Re: Endorsement Count Requirements
Regional Assembly Law: Procedure
6. Re: Speaker's Powers to Restrict the Format of Votes
10. Re: Applications to the SC
16. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate
22. Re: Minor Error Clause (not too sure on this one)
39. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate (No.2)
Constitutional Law: Discretionary Power
6. Re: Speaker's Powers to Restrict the Format of Votes
16. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate
27. Re: Powers of Election Commissioners
39. Re: Speaker's Power to End Debate (No.2)
Election Law
7. Re: Leaving a Candidate's Name off the Ballot
9. Re: Delegate Term Limits
23. Re: Delegate Term Limits in Special Elections
27. Re: Powers of Election Commissioners
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
30. Re: RA Membership Requirement for Candidacy
33. Re: Candidate Eligibilty after Reopening Nominations
42. Re: Restarting Voting Periods (No.2)
49. Re: ECs failing to take Oaths
Constitutional Law: Freedom of Speech
8. Re: Arms, Flag, and Seal
18. Re: Constitutionality of the Prohibition on Sedition
44. Re: Suppression of the RMB (sigh)
Cultural Laws
8. Re: Arms, Flag, and Seal
15. Re: TNP Flag as a National Flag
Constitutional Law: Term Limits
9. Re: Delegate Term Limits
23. Re: Delegate Term Limits in Special Elections
Criminal Law: Sedition
18. Re: Constitutionality of the Prohibition on Sedition
Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction of the Court
5. Re: Jurisdiction
19. Re: Precedent and Scope of Court Powers
25. Re: Standing and meaning of "Affected Party"
Constitutional Law: Precedent
19. Re: Precedent and Scope of Court Powers
41. Re: Physical Representation of Rulings (not sure if this is a good grouping for this one)
Constitutional Law: Succession
21. Re: VD Succession to the Delegacy
Freedom of Information Law
24. Re: Constitutionality of the Intelligence Exception to the FOIA
35. Re: Use of FOIA against the Court
37. Re: Content Ownership and use of FOIA against the SC
38. Re: Meaning of Private Citizen
Constitutional Law: Due Process
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
30. Re: RA Membership Requirement for Candidacy
Constitutional Law: Right to Vote
28. Re: Restarting Voting Periods
Criminal Law: Fraud
34. Re: Standard of Proof and Intention
Regional Assembly Law: Administration
31. Re: Time at which Oaths become Binding
36. Re: Permanence of RA Application Rejections
40. Re: Promptness and Time at which RA Membership Begins and Ends
48. Re: RO Banning during NS Events
Armed Forces Law (the default name that the law provides is used here, rather than the name used for the time being)
43. Re: RA Oversight of the NPAF
Criminal Law: Gross Misconduct
12. Re: Oath Violations by Former Members of the RA (this ruling predates the crime of Gross misconduct, but I'm not sure as to whether an alternate grouping could be used and/or what that alternate would be)
31. Re: Time at which Oaths become Binding
45. Re: Endorsement Count Requirements
Security Law
36. Re: Permanence of RA Application Rejections (not sure whether including this confuses this grouping, as it is not a part of the Security Law; it does, however, relate to SC/VD things)
45. Re: Endorsement Count Requirements
Emergency Law
48. Re: RO Banning during NS Events
