Request for Review: Banning of "Finnish Ougyza"

[Mall]

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

The banning of the nation "Finnish Ougyza" as stated here specifically, as well as Section 7.3.11 of the Legal code as quoted here:

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.

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?
The Constitution clearly states as follows:

Article 1. Bill of Rights

1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Note that this Court has decided that the term "all nations" does indeed mean all nations in TNP. As such, the nation in question is subject to the following protection:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
(...)
8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

It is clear that Finnish Ougyza was a protected nation under the Bill of Rights which was banned for its exercise of free speech under the Bill of Rights. This Court has previously ruled that the Legal Code does not give the government the right to violate a nation's right to free speech, and as such the legal code provision allowing for RMB recruiters to be banned from TNP is unconstitutional.

Note that the 8th clause in the Bill of Rights states:

8. The regional power of ejection and banning may not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation is entitled to prompt judicial review of the matter.

However this should not be taken to mean that a provision in the Legal Code authorizes violations of the Constitutional provision establishing the Bill of Rights. Clause 8 is a limiting clause, designed to constrain the power to eject and ban except when it is explicitly authorized, implicit in that clause is the notion that if the Constitution otherwise would prohibit such a banning then it is not permissible.

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

See the above cited cases. Please note that while the case regarding the "all nations" clause mentions RMB recruitment, it was doing so in dicta and that should not be taken as a part of the Court's holding in that case. The Court did not have the issue of RMB recruitment before it and gave the issue no consideration in deciding the limited case in front of it. The only relevant portion of that ruling regards the broad definition of "all nations."

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. If you are submitting this request in your capacity as the Attorney General or their designee, please note that here instead.

As a citizen and nation in TNP I have posted on the RMB and plan on recruiting for my own region "The Joint Systems Alliance" here in TNP. This banning severely threatens my ability to exercise my own free speech.

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

No, however I am happy to clarify any area should the Court desire a further analysis.

6. Remedy sought?

The Court should strike the relevant portion of the Legal Code as unconstitutional, and order the Executive to unban the nation in question. The Court may also wish to order the unbanning of all nations banned under this provision as a remedial measure for past wrongs not specifically reviewed here. The Court may finally wish to recommend that should the government argue that the ability to ban recruiters is vital to TNP's interests, then it should pass an amendment to either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights rather than attempting to dodge those laws using the Legal Code.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I reject this request for review as the petitioner lacks standing as an affected party.

It is the ejected or banned nation that is entitled to seek judicial review of their ejection or banning, not the petitioner; similarly it is for that nation, not the petitioner, to challenge any consequential violation of their free speech that has resulted. The posited threat to the free speech of the petitioner resulting from an action against another nation is too remote to give rise to the clear connection that is required for there to be standing.

Further, I reject this request as it has not been submitted in accordance with the Court Rules.

The Rules require requests for review to be submitted using an established template, where one exists, and this request deviates from that template by the inclusion of an additional section.

 

[Mall]

I reject this request for review as the petitioner lacks standing as an affected party.

It is the ejected or banned nation that is entitled to seek judicial review of their ejection or banning, not the petitioner; similarly it is for that nation, not the petitioner, to challenge any consequential violation of their free speech that has resulted. The posited threat to the free speech of the petitioner resulting from an action against another nation is too remote to give rise to the clear connection that is required for there to be standing.

Further, I reject this request as it has not been submitted in accordance with the Court Rules.

The Rules require requests for review to be submitted using an established template, where one exists, and this request deviates from that template by the inclusion of an additional section.

Just to be clear, it is the Court's position that:

• One who is threatened with banjection must actually be banjected before they have standing in front of the Court despite the fact that such a person reasonably believes that their rights are being infringed upon, and thus the Court has decided that prior precedent on the standing issue is erroneous,
• The template provided is mandatory insofar as if more information is filed in order to help the Court reach a decision the Court will punish the affected party by refusing to hear their request for review because the Court believes that enforcing a template (which is nowhere listed as the only things one may post in a request for review) is more important than dealing with substantive legal issues.

I need the Court to be clear on this because either way the Court is making a new ruling here today and it will need to be linked for future parties.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

My position is what I have stated. I do not think you have shown clear connection between the alleged breach of another nation's rights and an effect personal to yourself; and I think that the request has not been submitted in accordance with the Court Rules.

It is open to you to appeal my decision to the full Court, if you think it is erroneous.

 

[Mall]

My position is what I have stated. I do not think you have shown clear connection between the alleged breach of another nation's rights and an effect personal to yourself; and I think that the request has not been submitted in accordance with the Court Rules.

It is open to you to appeal my decision to the full Court, if you think it is erroneous.

I would like to file such an appeal, if there is a special form I need to fill out perfectly just for the sake of adding red tape to the Court, let me know and I'll fill it out.

 

[Mall]

I sense bureaucratic skullduggery afoot, so consider this to be my formal appeal to the broader Court.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

My apologies to the petitioner, I had thought that I had posted yesterday to note that this appeal was being considered by the full Court, but evidently I did not.

 

[bootsie]

The remainder of the Court, after reviewing the appeal, have decided to uphold the decision of Chief Justice Zyvetskistaahn to reject the request for review.

 

[Mall]

The remainder of the Court, after reviewing the appeal, have decided to uphold the decision of Chief Justice Zyvetskistaahn to reject the request for review.

So just to be clear: I have to actually get banjected in order to have standing? The fact that the threat of banjection looms over me, thereby preventing me from exercising my right to free speech, isn't enough to give standing?

 

[Mall]

The remainder of the Court, after reviewing the appeal, have decided to uphold the decision of Chief Justice Zyvetskistaahn to reject the request for review.

So just to be clear: I have to actually get banjected in order to have standing? The fact that the threat of banjection looms over me, thereby preventing me from exercising my right to free speech, isn't enough to give standing?

Just noting that I'm still looking for clarification on this so it can be over and done with.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have given my decision and reasons and the Court has upheld them. I will not speculate on what would and would not be sufficient to give rise to standing.