I have made this thread for the THOs who are assigned to deal with Barbarossistan's request for review which is located: here. I would request that, should Discord be used, that the logs of the discussion be posted in this thread (that they may later be disclosed).
EDIT: Below are the logs of the discussion of the Court relating to this matter prior to the appointment of THOs.
December 24, 2017
[9:19 PM] Zyvet: There appears to be another request for review. This one is filed by Barbarossistan.
On the face of it I'm not sure I am of the view that there is standing, in that it seems Barbarossistan's claim would be open to any resident and is not particular to them. The AG appears to be considering whether to involve themselves here, so I would suspect that if this is rejected on the basis of standing that it will be reintroduced (though that does not mean, to my mind, that we ought to accept this request on the basis that we would do so if the AG brought it).
It may also be worth considering whether we need to recuse ourselves, given that the request asks us to invalidate the request which was determining the validity of our own decision to accept a request.
<.<
[9:32 PM] Zyvet: Also also we will need to consider the ruling on the nature of precedent in relation to this (proper request; heightened standard; etc). As well as whether we need to abide by the ruling we are being asked to review and, if so, whether that might function to bar the review.
[9:50 PM] Zyvet: I'm not sure I see the particular relevance of the ruling on justices as government officials, though
[10:06 PM] Zyvet: Given the time of year, I'm not really able to give sufficient consideration to this at the moment and I may not tomorrow.
That being the case, unless either/both of you think it appropriate to reject or accept the request, I think one of us should note that we're considering it but that any decision may be a little delayed. If one of you hasn't accepted/rejected/made such note by the time I check tomorrow, I will make such note
[10:07 PM] Bootsie: I will.
[10:07 PM] Bootsie: Make note of the delay.
[10:08 PM] Bootsie: @Scorch You fine with me saying that? I’ll be with family today and tomorrow.
[10:08 PM] Scorch: Yeah. That sounds good.
[10:09 PM] Scorch: No objections from me.
[10:47 PM] Zyvet: Hello again, this should be my last TNP involvement til the end of Christmas Day, but I did want to say that it amuses me a little that Barbarossistan is simultaneously r4ring the other r4r because they decided jurisdiction before going to the actual question and submitting a brief essentially arguing that is what we ought to do in the original r4r
[11:05 PM] Scorch: It is slightly amusing.
December 26, 2017
[7:34 PM] Zyvet: The matter of recusal has, indeed, arisen. Given that this review is essentially asking us to redecide the r4r that we recused ourselves from, I would say that we ought recuse ourselves here also
[7:35 PM] Zyvet: Much as it disappoints me to be missing out on so many r4rs
[7:36 PM] Scorch: I agree.
[7:38 PM] Zyvet: I'll post noting my recusal now and will make a thread for this in the Special Chambers. I'll also inform the Delegate and the Speaker of the potential need to find yet further THOs (presuming Bootsie also recuses)
[7:40 PM] Zyvet: Also the original r4r will require yet further suspension, I think
[7:41 PM] Scorch: Yep.
[7:53 PM] Zyvet: I hope this doesn't go on much longer I suspect "[Chambers] Request for Review: Court Review of Court Review of RA Declared Emergencies" is nearing the thread title character limit
[8:00 PM] Zyvet: You'll ( @Scorch) need to note your recusal and also further suspension
[8:00 PM] Scorch: Ok.
[8:06 PM] Scorch: I will wait to suspend the other r4r until this one is actually accepted.
Welcome to the beginning of the THO for Request for Review group.
Owenstacey added Sasten to the group.12/29/2017
Owenstacey - 12/29/2017
Hey everyone, I’ve created this as a way to easily communicate for the r4r, I take it we are accepting the r4r, so I can post a date for briefs(edited)
Cogoria - 12/29/2017
I'm for accepting it
Owenstacey - 12/29/2017
Cool, once Sasten confirms, I’ll post in the thread(edited)
@Sasten?
Hey Corgoria, since we have a majority anyway, are you okay with me going ahead and posting now?
Cogoria - 12/29/2017
I'm cool with thay
*that
Owenstacey changed the channel name: Sasten, Cogoria12/29/2017
Owenstacey changed the channel name: THO for Request for Review12/29/2017
Sasten - 12/29/2017
For the record, I have no objections to accepting this R4R.
...20 minutes late, but no problem there since 2/3rds majority.
Anyway, here's a few links for quick reference:
The R4R thread - http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100005/1/#new
The court ruling being reviewed - http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10106888&t=9093434
The private thread in the Special Court Chambers - http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100032/1/#new(edited)
Sasten pinned a message to this channel. See all the pins.12/29/2017
December 30, 2017
Cogoria - 12/30/2017
Still no briefs......
Owenstacey - 12/30/2017
Just a reminder, everything in this chat will at some point be declassified to the public
Cogoria - 12/30/2017
Just eager to get started. Reading the briefs from the r4r this is based on, and eager to see what additional points will be brought up
January 2, 2018
Owenstacey - 01/02/2018
Just seen, Falap asking for a clean slate of tho’s as this is a non decision, could someone reply to it
Cogoria - 01/02/2018
Responded
Owenstacey - 01/02/2018
I didn’t mean to respond like that, has everyone seen SillyStrings reply?
Because we need to agree on what Falap asked and how we will deal with it
@Sasten I don’t know how to reply to Silly, what do you think
Sasten - 01/02/2018
If it was anyone but Falap...I haven't seen him do anything but antagonize the judiciary as of late. That said, I do have to throw aside personal biases for this. I'll have to think on it more. :/
Owenstacey - 01/02/2018
So is Falap asking us to order a new response to Abbeys decision
Because if you agree then I think I know my answer
Sasten - 01/02/2018
My gut says yes, but that's 100% based on it coming from Falap and nothing more. I'll need to look closer though; I'm not ready to make a decision on this.
Owenstacey - 01/02/2018
Okay then I want to get an answer out as soon as possible, so once everyone is clear then I will put a statement out.
My opinion was that we read it wrong and there was a miscommunication and that the whole of Falaps brief is being accepted.
Sasten - 01/02/2018
I know. It's just that I'm genuinely really confused here and need some time to un-confuse myself, rather than take the easy way out and use Falap as a scapegoat.
Cogoria - 01/02/2018
I was convinced he meant our r4r was to be dismissed as he wants new THOs and a new request
Owenstacey - 01/02/2018
I see it as Sillystring sees it, he wants Abbeys to be redone
Cogoria - 01/02/2018
Than why ask us? Why not a new R4R for that in its own thread? That seems a bit outside our remit
Cogoria - 01/02/2018
If hed posted the brief without that request at the end, yeah makes more sense to me in that context. The request at the end is what confused me
Sasten - 01/02/2018
Alright, now that I've read it more, I think that SillyString is correct in that falap actually /isn't/ asking for this R4R to be set aside.
What I'm still unsure of is how to proceed from here. Would we not have to issue a ruling declaring the previous one to be null and void first?
Owenstacey - 01/02/2018
Alright, so in a minute I’m going to apologise and clear this up, I will say that there was some miscommunication and misinterpretation(edited)
Our final ruling looks to be heading towards that
So is everyone happy for me to respond to SillyString appropriately
Sasten - 01/02/2018
I am.
Sasten - 01/02/2018
Any movement on this? Cog?
January 3, 2018
Cogoria - 01/03/2018
I am
Owenstacey - 01/03/2018
Hey something IRL has come up so I won’t be around to close the Brief submission, will someone be able to do it for me please(edited)
@Sasten ?
Sasten - 01/03/2018
I should be able to do that. You'll be with us for deliberations I hope?
Owenstacey - 01/03/2018
Yeah, I just won’t be around tonight but we can start deliberations tomorrow
Sasten - 01/03/2018
Don't worry about it.
January 5, 2018
Owenstacey - 01/05/2018
So we need to start looking at this.
Sasten - 01/05/2018
Yes, we do.
Basically, in short, my opinion at this moment is that we should invalidate the ruling being reviewed based on both illegality and failure to answer the review (due to the illegality), and that we should order a new inquest with new THO's. We haven't been asked to review the initial complaint of that review, and thus cannot rule on that within this R4R.
Cogoria - 01/05/2018
The wording would need to be carefully considered on that though to avoid prejudicial interpretation of the resulting r4r
Owenstacey - 01/05/2018
Tomorrow I’m going to go through all evidence provided and re read everything that has been mentioned before reaching my overall decision(edited)
January 10, 2018
Sasten - 01/10/2018
@Cogoria @Owenstacey It's already past 7 days now, do we have any movement on this? Anything to start writing?
January 11, 2018
Owenstacey - 01/11/2018
Well we need to start drafting, so if u want to write first draft, I’ll read and add to it
January 12, 2018
Cogoria - 01/12/2018
I'm game for that. But do we not need to vote in an official manner on our stance on the ruling?
Owenstacey - 01/12/2018
@Cogoria, if someone writes something, then we can vote on what they write and decide if that if not then we can vote on changes to it
Cogoria - 01/12/2018
Very well. I'm at work so will put one together when I'm done in 6 hours
Owenstacey - 01/12/2018
Okay, I’ll look at it in the morning and propose changes
January 18, 2018
Owenstacey - 01/18/2018
I'm having internet problems so im going to be online sporaically for the next couple of days, can someone write a ruling so we can look and make changes and vote on it
Cogoria - 01/18/2018
I apologise. Work exploded the last few days. I'm into rest days now so I can begin work on it
January 22, 2018
Cogoria - 01/22/2018
Didn't get rest days and unlikely to get them. RL work and court is very busy right now. I'm trying to write a ruling in line with what Sasten suggested but it'll take a while
February 11, 2018
Cogoria added Sil Dorsett to the group.02/11/2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/11/2018
Is there a draft of a potential decision that I can look over?
Sasten - 02/11/2018
There is one that exists, but it's on Cog's computer right now. Which probably means waiting until tomorrow.
I was going to suggest as well that we make another group DM, since Owenstacy is no longer a THO but can't be removed because he made this one.
February 13, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/13/2018
@Cogoria Do you have the draft decision and can you upload it somewhere sometime today?
Cogoria - 02/13/2018
Yearp. At work till late, but I'll post when I'm home
February 15, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
any luck with posting, cog?
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
No. Work went mad. Haven't slept other than a few winks last might. Got given a serious enough case(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
ok. Sasten, should we start a new draft?
Sasten - 02/15/2018
Might be reasonable. I don't know how much I'll be able to help write it since I'll be travelling for the next week, but I can definitely have a look when I get the time.
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
or do we just give the gallery a new time line and hope conditions improve enough? what was the core argument in the decision?
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
New timeline might work. If the case I'm on stays active much longer the case will be upped in seriousness and shunted up to a detective(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
Oh, another issue. Who's the Moderating Justice now? It was Owenstacey before.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
One wasn't appointed
So no one unless we pick one
Or request one be picked
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
So looking at the chat history, looks like you and Sasten decided the ruling was illegal, I assume for it being sua sponte?
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
Essentially. Though I'd like for the jurisdiction of the matter to be resolved also. As in a court cannot be reviewed until it has made a ruling
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
How was the Zyvet brief interpreted, especially the part about whether the ruling was sua sponte? He seems to think it's not because it was following a different precedent in the same Ruling on Precedent.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
I found it slightly off topic, that case was not a direct reaction to a live ongoing case
I believe it's the fact that it was a live case that lends the ruling a classification as sua sponte rather than the ruling they came out with in the end
Seeing as there could be no affected parties technically without a ruling
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
So, to respond to Barb, I'm going to say that I'll be wrapped up with my review of the briefs Saturday morning. How much more time after that should we ask for?
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
One week. Looks like the case will be taken off me thankfully and if i can get through the next 48ish hours without anything major going down they've promised I'll finally get my 4 rest days
Though if you want more or less I'm fine with that too
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
7 days is fine.
actually, can I say 5? make it the 20th?
I technically have been on the case for 4 days.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
That should be fine.
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
Here's a question. Are we allowed to rule that the decision by the Abbey Court was incorrect even if it was not sua sponte?
The reason I ask is because I think that ultimately the Abbey Court would have needed to decide whether the action of the Zyvet Court was reviewable before moving on to whether the action was legal or not.(edited)
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
Yes. We are to review the ruling. We are not constrained to the applicants wordings. Otherwise anyone who wanted to do suggest a review would need to be a legal expert and habe done all the leg work already
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
I have a feeling then that we may be at a 2 (+1 concurring) to 0 situation.(edited)
Which may complicate the final decision that is posted.
I don't think that the ruling was done sua sponte, because they would have had to address the underlying issue first before moving on to the question that was asked. That being said, I think the decision regarding the underlying issue was wrong.
Because I think the action of the Zyvet court to accept the request for review was reviewable.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
The action would be reviewable after a ruling had been is issued in my opinion only
Without a ruling there can be no affected or interested parties as legally speaking the situation would be in flux
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
But, remember the Gaspo ruling that's been widely used in this set of reviews:
The Court rejects COE's assertion, and maintains that, subject to the request of an affected party, it may review and offer its legal opinion on any action, policy, law, rule, or decision made by any government official.
specifically "It may review an offer its legal opinion on any action, policy, law, rule, or decision made by any government official"
And Justices (as well as THOs) are government officials.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
Correct. But there has been in effect no action. The acceptance of the review is not in itself an action I feel, but part of an action that is complete once the review is complete. As until the review is complete there are no further affected parties
The ruling as the completion of the action causes effect creating the affected
As a court without a ruling is essentially a discussion which effects no one
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
The tough part is for me to try and word my decision in a way that doesn't kill the Lord Ravenclaw R4R, because that's not really what we're supposed to rule on.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
Our ruling would be that the review we are examining should not have taken place as there could not be an affected applicant. Overturn it. Invite the ruling they closed down proceed again. We're meant to rule whether the ring is legal or not. And in my opinion it's not for the reason I've outlined. Anything else is simply extraneous complications which are not covered under any laws but had there been a legal application their ruling could be legal as an example of case law
Sil Dorsett - 02/15/2018
>_< get that decision uploaded somewhere as soon as you can so we can deliver it.
Cogoria - 02/15/2018
Will do
February 18, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/18/2018
Any luck uploading that decision somewhere, Cog?
I hate to say it, but I can't help resolve this impasse by writing an alternative decision.
Tuesday is the next check-in.
February 19, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/19/2018
@Cogoria Were you able to get that time off?
February 20, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
It's Tuesday. People are expecting an update from me today. What should I tell them?
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
I'm just home. Gotta eat dinner with the family then I'll put up the draft here.
Got called to court over the weekend for special sitting for something I thought i wouldnt be needed for. But the defences lawyer wanted everyone involved to give evidence - _-
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
gotcha
did you get your time off?
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
Ive got the rest of tonight off
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
It's not letting me post the thing (Draft)
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
ok, give me a moment to go through all that
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
I'm working on cleaning up what you've posted. What is this statement for? "Each court being it’s own jurisdiction until it has issued a ruling."
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
As in interfering with an on going review is not the jurisdiction of any court. It becomes public realm after a ruling though
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
I notice that your draft does not even mention whether the challenged ruling was made sua sponte. Was that an oversight or does that not matter?
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
Sua Sponte would require the court to have made an action without prompt. It could be argued that there was a prompt through the application. So I left it out rather than get tangled in legal specific that could be argued multiple ways and in the end have no full bearing on the case. I my opinion people threw it around in their briefs and applications to seem more legally minded. I only have my knowledge of Irish law to go on, but here it's something specific
Such as a court reviewing a murder case rules on some aspect of the constitution
So something completely unrelated
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
ok. Before I repost the whole thing back to you, review the opinion section to make sure I preserved the core of the argument and didn't mess anything up: (Draft #2)
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
Looks good to me. Should we wait for Sasten input so we can say how many out of the three agree or abstain etc
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
Yeah, we need Sasten to approve. The thing is, I actually don't agree with this decision. I did delve into the question of sua sponte and decided it wasn't, but then without that there was no factual evolution and nothing further to clear the "heightened standards" for a review to proceed.
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
I agree there should be heightend standards. But that's not up to the court to create
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
With that, the header for the review will look like this: (Draft Component)
To me, the heightened standard was that the review wasn't simply a request to retry and/or look again. Without the sua sponte argument, I felt the review fell into that category.
@Sasten As soon as possible, let us know if you are joining this ruling. The tl:dr is that the Abbey-drafted ruling is overturned and the Lord Ravenclaw R4R ordered to resume, based on the acceptance of the Lord Ravenclaw R4R not being reviewable because acceptance itself creates no effect.
wait a sec...
Cog, that doesn't overturn the Abbey ruling. That upholds it!
let me go back and make sure I didn't screw it up.
"With this in mind the court recommends the review filed by LordRavenclaw in November 2017 be reconvened. Upon it’s conclusion should SillyString or any other affected person feel the court has overstepped their jurisdiction then they may file a request for a review. " The first part, recommending Raven's R4R reconvene... that's what the Abbey ruling did. It said the action of accepting wasn't reviewable.
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
The acceptance of RA stuff
And that court decisions weren't reviewable
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
I don't understand.
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
The abbey ruling is that r4rs aren't reviewable
It is the opinion of the Court that the Court's actions in this case are not reviewable. This is because the Court believes that only in exceptional circumstances, in the case of a particularly severe breach, can the Court's actions be reviewed. This is in order to protect the Court, which is necessary due to the fact that TNP has only a single court and no sophisticated appeals system. As happened here, reviews of Court actions hold up other requests - and it is conceivable that a particularly litigious AG, or group of citizens that can contrive standing in all the matters brought up, could lead you to have a deep "stack" of Court reviews, with the first only being reviewed after many weeks of supplementary reviews being resolved. This would be a bad thing, and is the reason why this Court will not rule that all Court actions are reviewable. The Court's time cannot afford to be held up with overly litigious requests for reviews of its own actions, necessitating the recruitment of THOs and eventually, the pool of people willing and able to serve as a THO will dry up.
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
Unless what you're saying is that Abbey's court needed to review whether the action was legal, which they did not, and so we did review it and found it to be legal for the reason that we presented.
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
The Abbey abbey ruling isn't on accepting rulings being an action. It's that r4rs aren't reviewable unless it's extreme circumstances
Either way they make a proactive ruling rather tban reactive
"Given the above determination, this request for review would not have been accepted had it been made after this ruling. Therefore the Court has not continued to consider the matter of the ability of the Court to rule on RA matters."(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
Let me make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1. Raven submits a Request for Review about an (edit: unfinished) RA matter. (edit: unfinished because the speaker hasn't counted the vote, therefore it is not in effect)
2. Original Court accepts Request for Review from Raven.
3. SillyString submits an R4R challenging the ability of the Court to accept an R4R that it shouldn't have, allegedly.
4. Abbey's Court rules that the matter of the Original Court accepting the Raven R4R isn't even reviewable and declines to rule on SS's R4R.
5. Barbarossistan submits a R4R challenging the Abbey Court's decision not to review the matter.
6. We are saying that the Abbey Court shouldn't have made the Raven R4R acceptance unreviewable and that they should have reviewed it properly, but we'll do it for them?(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
Here's another thing to consider: If we're saying that there needs to be an affected party, then technically the Raven R4R shouldn't proceed because there is currently no affected party until the Speaker counts the vote of that emergency motion.
Cogoria - 02/20/2018
Im going to have to cone back to this. It's 0200 and I have work in 5 hours and am thoroughly confused
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
If we went back and said the Raven R4R shouldn't have happened, I could get behind the ruling then.
Alright. I'll make a post in the thread indicating that I've seen the draft and we're in debate.
Sasten - 02/20/2018
I'll have a look at the whole thing once I get back to my PC, which should be some time tomorrow. For the moment I think I'm actually with Sil on this point, though I may end up with an entirely different opinion.(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
Well, at the moment even I am quite confused, so I'm hoping you can clear up what is going on.
Sasten - 02/20/2018
Yes, we do seem to be at an impasse of confusion...
Is there any precedent on accepting R4Rs before they've concluded? I'd do the research myself, but again, I'm extremely limited in terms of time and access to my PC at the moment.
Sil Dorsett - 02/20/2018
Accepting R4Rs for incomplete events, you mean? I'll look.
I'm at my PC with some time to spare, so I'll delve into it for a bit.
Sasten - 02/20/2018
Pretty much, yes. That'd sort out a lot of confusion...if it exists.
I don't think you'll find much ruling on whether or not it's acceptable, rather you'd be looking for r4rs against other ongoing cases that were ruled on and not challenged.
If that makes any sense.
February 21, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/21/2018
admittedly my glancing through rulings didn't find anything that established precedent in that sort of manner. If you don't find anything, then I think we're in uncharted territory.
February 22, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
any new thoughts on this? I'll be home in about 4 hours and would like to work on this.
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
@Sasten @Cogoria Anyone around?
Sasten - 02/22/2018
Hi.
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
I just got home. Got time to continue looking at this case?
Sasten - 02/22/2018
I have some, though it might be intermittent at times.
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
ok. So, what questions do we need to answer as part of this ruling? Assume it's as if we're doing a 2nd draft.
Sasten - 02/22/2018
A list for you, may be incomplete but it's what I can think of at the moment:
1) Whether or not the Abbey et al ruling was sua sponte or not
2) Whether the conclusion of said ruling was legal
2a) What exactly the ruling concluded - I'm assuming this doesn't have to be answered, and that it really means that R4Rs are not reviewable.
3) Whether the court can rule on an ongoing issue or has to wait until that issue has come into force to "create an effect to review"
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
What are your thoughts? I actually spent about a half hour writing up a new draft that actually might answer a bunch of that. The question I have is whether I took it a little bit too far.
Sasten - 02/22/2018
Another point to think about: an RA proposal is implemented in the exact text that was voted-upon. It may not be in force until the vote is counted and the bill is signed/vetoed by the delegate, but there cannot be ambiguity as to what it will do. A court ruling however is not defined until the ruling is posted... I'm not quite sure how to put it into words exactly, except that they might require different standards of reviewability when they are ongoing...
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
I think we're in agreement there. Here's what I put. (Draft Component #2)
Sasten - 02/22/2018
A fourth point as well: If point 3 is answered such that Abbey et al couldn't review Raven's r4r until it was done, are we permitted to rule on their ruling - i.e. points 1 and 2.(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
Yes, because SillyString was an affected party by having her case dismissed (and SillyString joined this case from the AG's office).(edited)
Even though it was still technically incorrect to submit it early, the court struck down the case and thus completed an action. The Court did say that it decided to not review SillyString's case after deciding on whether it was reviewable in the first place. I think that would be enough to satisfy the "affected party" requirement.(edited)
I do think there's another question to consider, and that relates to Barbarossistan's standing. Although the AG's office joined the case, was he really an affected party, or does that not matter since the AG's office joined?
Barbarossistan is saying that he (and I assume the entire RA) is affected by the (Abbey) Court since they appear to have given the Court carte blanche for dismissing reviews against itself.
Thoughts there?
Sasten - 02/22/2018
I agree with him there. A blanket ruling that court decisions were not reviewable affects everyone as nobody is able to challenge court rulings by that decision. The only requirement for standing in this case I would think is that the complainant be a citizen (possibly a resident though I think that's a bit of a stretch), and Barbarossistan met that requirement.
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
The ruling that the court cannot be reviewed except under exceptional circumstances appears to have come from this statement in a ruling by Gaspo: "We furthermore believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors."
The problem with both "exceptional circumstances" and "heightened standards" is that there's no clear definition what is considered to meet such standards or circumstances.
Sasten - 02/22/2018
And if they don't provide a definition for that, then they can't really reject any case for not meeting those standards, otherwise you get the Abbey ruling which states essentially that cases aren't reviewable at all...does that make sense?
With no standards provided, the court can be as arbitrary as it wants in that respect.
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
What do you think of this? (Draft Component #3) I'm starting to wonder if my point on "affected parties" is playing with fire, because no one submitted anything in a brief asking us to look into that. Feels like we might be next to be challenged on ruling sua sponte by doing that. (Edit: Actually, the AG did give us the option to adjudicate the other review, and SillyString's case was based on the definition of Affected Parties.)(edited)
Especially since my thought would cascade all the way to the Lord Ravenclaw R4R.
I'm just gonna drop my other piece here for review later. Might be heading off to bed early tonight. (Draft Component #4)
Sil Dorsett - 02/22/2018
So to summarize my three points. The Abbey et al ruling was not sua sponte, but was wrong nonetheless and the point on exceptional circumstances being required should be stricken as too arbitrary, subjective, and vague. However, to rule on the review itself, there was no affected party as a ruling from the LR case had not been issued. However, because there was also no affected party in the LR case since the Speaker had not counted the votes, that case cannot proceed anyways. (the latter of which we aren't technically ruling on but is the natural result of establishing a precedent in the SillyString case in that the Court must complete its case and issue a ruling before there is a party affected by it)(edited)
The only question that is remaining, which probably should be answered is: Can the court issue a ruling without the opinion of its third sitting member (meaning has not vacated, resigned, or been removed) as long as the remaining two are in agreement?
February 23, 2018
Cogoria - 02/23/2018
Having read through what you've put up I'm in favour. It contains the main point I wanted regarding no reviewing stuff unless it's been ruled on is included. So I'm in favour
February 24, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/24/2018
Sometime today I'm going to piece the whole thing together and do a sanity check on it to make sure we're not breaking precedent without justification and not doing more than we were asked to do. Maybe we can release it today or tomorrow.
February 27, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 02/27/2018
I'd really like for the decision to be released today. review the pieces of it against all the briefs, especially Zyvun's, and make sure it won't be susceptible to another r4r. I want this thing over with.
March 1, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 03/01/2018
@Cogoria @Sasten have you had a chance to check for precedent problems with anything I posted so far?
Cogoria - 03/01/2018
I've seen no problems with precedent. Plus it is legally possible to set new precedent over old
As long as it's not glaringly in conflict or without purpose
Sil Dorsett - 03/01/2018
how far do you think the ruling should have effect? only to SS's review or could it cascade to LR's review?
Cogoria - 03/01/2018
The one you've written should be contained to the case we're on.
Sil Dorsett - 03/01/2018
do we send the SS case back or do it ourselves now?
what I wrote leans towards doing it ourselves
Cogoria - 03/01/2018
Send it back. It's out of our jurisdiction. We were asked to review the ruling before us. In my opinion at least
Sil Dorsett - 03/01/2018
the AGs office did give us that option.
also I don't think I could include the point you wanted without taking the case ourselves.
Cogoria - 03/01/2018
Well we can release this ruling first then if need be work on the SS case. They're impatient for the result of this one. And telling them it's delayed as we work on ss basically tells em our desicion anyway
Sil Dorsett - 03/01/2018
if we sent it back, I think we could only do so by saying the ruling was sua sponte, which I don't think it was.
unless you can think of another reason to send it back. I'm drawing a blank there.
March 2, 2018
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
Question: Does the court require three justices to vote on a ruling for it to be released, or can it be released as long as two agree and there are three sitting, even if that third appears inactive?(edited)
Cogoria - 03/02/2018
I agreed but can't say why right now. I'm drink
Drunk
Sasten - 03/02/2018
As to Sil's question...I have no idea.
Actually, would it be possible to post the latest draft in the private courtroom thread? I'd like to look it over with all the formatting in place, and I'm not sure if we've changed it since it was posted here.
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
I was actually making changes right now, removing the section on actually trying to sort SillyString's question out. Cog feels SillyString's inquiry should be reconsidered, but not necessarily by us. What do you think?
I'll get a draft up in the courtroom thread as soon as possible.
Actually, keep in mind if we post something in there the Justices can see it.
Cogoria - 03/02/2018
So? They got voted, so people must trust em
Id hope so anyway
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
Alright, let me piece this thing together with the template.
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
about the 3 Justices Rule, I found one example of a Justice being AFK during drafting and the court still issuing a ruling. "On the Suppression of Posts on the Regional Message Board"
question though. If the remaining justices knew that there was someone absent, shouldn't they have promptly asked for a(nother) hearing officer?
6. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
Cogoria - 03/02/2018
they should have
It's in the rules
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
At what point can the remaining justices declare one of their own to be absent?
Cogoria - 03/02/2018
I dunno. Case by case basis
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
Maybe that is how we should approach it and save the "exceptional circumstances" part for when SillyString's inquiry is reopened.(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
Eh, maybe not. There's quite a few rulings from 2012 that were issued once Hileville had one joining justice.
I'm going to bring it up in my write-up, but I don't think we can disqualify based on that. I'd be willing to get the RA involved on strengthening or at least clarifying that requirement.(edited)
Sil Dorsett - 03/02/2018
I posted my full draft in the chambers http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100625/1/#new
March 6, 2018
Sil Dorsett - Last Tuesday at 2:26 AM
Any additional commentary on the draft? anything, especially my question about justice absences?
Cogoria - Last Tuesday at 4:07 AM
Justice absences I feel will need to be something legislated on. As absences from any public office are vaguely covered and the whole thing would need an overhaul. Perhaps as a stop gap solution, the two remaining justices could form a consensus that the third is absent, then present that consensus to the delegate who can then ratify or confirm the absence permitting a new appointment
Sil Dorsett - Last Tuesday at 4:35 AM
eh, we can't just make up legislation like that.
Cogoria - Last Tuesday at 5:01 AM
It's not legislation. We just need to get the chief justice to decide it as a rule of the court until something covering all public offices passes through the RA
Sil Dorsett - Last Tuesday at 11:28 PM
It would be a stop gap to consider, but I don't think we can include that in the ruling. We can make a suggestion privately to the justices.
I think the safest way to approach it is to indicate that majority decisions have been done before and since there's no definition for an absence, we can't exclude a decision based on that.
And then hope the RA steps in and defines it better.
@Cogoria @Sasten I've updated the draft.
March 11, 2018
Cogoria - Today at 11:29 AM
I have cast my vote in favour
Sil Dorsett - Today at 11:36 AM
@Sasten I'd like to have a vote registered one way or another.
Sasten - Today at 1:35 PM
@Sil Dorsett I've been thinking about this a while, and I've decided to also vote in favour. If we're even technically voting on this.
Sil Dorsett - Today at 1:37 PM
technically voting on what? If there's a concern, I'd rather it be brought forward.
Also, make sure to post in the private chambers with your vote.
Sasten - Today at 1:38 PM
No concern. I just found the term "voting" on it to be a bit weird in this context.
Sil Dorsett - Today at 1:38 PM
Ah. I dunno what the technical term was. It was either you were joining, abstaining, or dissenting.
Sasten - Today at 1:40 PM
So, joining then.
So I guess we can post it now?
Sil Dorsett - Today at 1:44 PM
Yep
I am updating the chambers thread with the contents of this chat and then I will post the decision.
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by [[Barbarossistan]] on [[the Courts ruling on the ability of the court to be reviewed ]]
Opinion drafted by [[Cogoria]], joined by [[Sil Dorsett and Sasten]], with [[no one]] [abstaining | dissenting]
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by [[Barbarossistan]].
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by [[Falapatorious]]. The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by [[Goyanes]]. The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by [[name]]. The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
[[ 1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.]]
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
[[ 9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.]]
The Court opines the following:
[[The ruling in question that has been brought before us does indeed need to be overturned for a number of reasons. Firstly the requirement for an affected party to begin a review. The court is of the opinion that the acceptance of a request for review is not an action. But the beginning of an action, with the action completed with the announcement of a ruling. We form this opinion as without a ruling no one is affected as there is no effect. The review of an acceptance is permissible once a ruling has been released as there is then an effect. With this in mind the court recommends the review filed by LordRavenclaw in November 2017 be reconvened. Upon it’s conclusion should SillyString or any other affected person feel the court has overstepped their jurisdiction then they may file a request for a review. Each court being it’s own jurisdiction until it has issued a ruling. The second reason is that in this courts opinion the courts actions are indeed reviewable, as laid out in in the constitution, with court rulings being recognised as Case Law by way of setting precedent, and are therefore liable to scrutiny as any law that is enacted by any other means. With these two reasons taken into consideration this court does indeed believe the court is a reactive body, and cannot pre-emptively review and dismiss a court prior to the court concluding. The decision to accept a ruling is not in itself reviewable prior to tbe court concluding as there is no effect from the acceptance taken in and of itself. It is the commencement of a court action that does cause an effect]]
The ruling in question that has been brought before us does indeed need to be overturned for a number of reasons. The first reason is the constitutional requirement for an affected party to exist prior to beginning a review. The Court is of the opinion that the acceptance of a Request for Review is not an action itself, but the beginning of an action, with the action completed with the announcement of a ruling. The Court forms this opinion as, without a ruling, no one is affected. The review of acceptance is permissible once a ruling has been released, as the release of a Court ruling creates an effect. Each court is its own jurisdiction until it has issued a ruling, and interfering with an ongoing review is not the jurisdiction of any other Court.
The second reason is that in this Court's opinion, the Court's actions are indeed reviewable, as laid out in in the constitution, with Court rulings being recognised as Case Law by way of setting precedent, and are therefore liable to scrutiny as any law that is enacted by any other means. With these two reasons taken into consideration, this court does indeed believe the Court, in accordance with its published procedures, is a reactive body and cannot preemptively review and dismiss a court prior to the Court concluding. The decision to accept a Request for Review is not in itself reviewable prior to the court concluding as there is no effect from the acceptance taken in and of itself. It is the issuing of a Court ruling that does cause an effect.
Therefore, the Court sets aside the ruling of the SillyString's judicial inquiry on the ability of the Court to review RA proposals, and additionally orders that the Request for Review filed by Lord Ravenclaw in November 2017 continues. Upon its conclusion, should SillyString or any other affected person feel the Court has overstepped their jurisdiction, they may at that point file a Request for Review.
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Barbarossistan on The Court's Ruling on the Ability of the Court to be Reviewed
Opinion drafted by Cogoria, joined by Sasten, with Sil Dorsett dissenting
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Barbarossistan.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Falapatorious.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Goyanes.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Barbarossistan.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
In addition to reviewing jurisdiction, the Court must also consider the definition of an affected party and whether said party has indeed been affected. In the ruling "On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party," it states that
... an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.
The Court opines that because no ruling had yet come from the Lord Ravenclaw Request for Review, there was no party affected in any way, and therefore SillyString's Request for Review came too early.
There is, however, further consequence to setting this precedent. Because the votes for the Declaration of an Actual Emergency submitted by Mall had not yet been counted, there was also no affected party at that time. While Lord Ravenclaw might have perceived his rights to be violated should the motion pass, he hadn't yet been affected since the Speaker had not delivered the final count.
2. Concerning the question of the Court's actions only being reviewable under exceptional circumstances
The Court disagrees with the previous ruling that only under exceptional circumstances can the Court be reviewed. With no clear definition of "exceptional circumstances," the Court would be free to dismiss a case through the use of whatever criteria it felt was necessary to do so. While this Court agrees that a request to simply "look again" because a petitioner or the Attorney General's office was unhappy with the result should be rejected, whenever there is the possibility that the court was not in compliance with its own procedures or our laws, or if there is new evidence uncovered that may impact the result, a review would be warranted.
1. Concerning the question of whether the challenged ruling was issued sua sponte
The Court believes that in order to answer the question of whether accepting the Lord Ravenclaw Request for Review was legal, it must have considered the question of whether reviewing the matter and issuing a ruling in the first place would have been proper and in-line with precedent, and therefore the ruling was not issued sua sponte[/b]. It may have not answered the petitioner's original question, but it answered an underlying question that the court was required to adjudicate first.
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Barbarossistan on the validity of a previous ruling
Opinion drafted by Sil Dorsett, joined by Cogoria and Sasten
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Barbarossistan, and its follow-up here.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Falapatorius.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Goyanes.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by SillyString, and its follow-up here.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Guy.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 5. The Court
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Article 3. Judicial Law
6. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
8. Any recusal or absence of a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
The Court holds that the Court is obliged to review its own decisions should the need arise (and a proper request be made - arbitrary requests for review every time a new Court is elected are not permissible), as it is responsible for doing with all governmental policies.
The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (unilaterally, at the Court's discretion, without an action being brought), nor do we believe that precedent may be disregarded unless it is conclusively overturned. We furthermore believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors. Should it come to pass that precedent must be overturned, this Court believes that that decision must only be made after all legal alternatives have been examined, and must be done in as transparent and explanatory a fashion as possible.
The Court may overturn its prior rulings, but must do so in response to a new request as a result of some factual evolution (not simply a request to "look again"), and must do so concurrent with the publication of its reasoning in doing so. The Court must avoid disregarding precedent wherever possible, but cannot, in the interests of justice and fairness, be irrefutably bound by precedent regardless of the consequences.
Regarding the ruling being made sua sponte:
The Court believes that in order to answer the question of whether accepting Lord Ravenclaw's Request for Review was legal, it must have considered the question of whether reviewing the matter and issuing a ruling in the first place would have been proper and in-line with precedent, and therefore the ruling was not issued sua sponte. It may not have answered the petitioner's original question, but it answered an underlying question that the court was required to decide first.
Regarding the ruling being made as a majority decision with an absence:
The Court also acknowledges that there was an additional question on the ability of the Court to issue a ruling when one of its justices or hearing officers is not present during drafting or voting. When the ruling "On the Suppression of Posts on the Regional Message Board" was issued, Flemingovia noted that Punk Daddy had been absent during drafting and did not cast a vote, and was counted as abstaining. Therefore, there was an apparent precedent for Abbey and Plembobria to do the same when Yalkan was absent. With Plembobria joining the decision that is being challenged here, the Court issued the ruling.
This is in conflict with the previously cited clauses of the Legal Code that make it clear that an absent Justice or Hearing Officer must be replaced, and that the remaining Justices must promptly appoint a replacement from available citizens. Abbey and Plembobria failed to do so. There will no doubt be questions as to how long someone should be absent before being declared so, but the Court believes that should an absence be declared when there isn't one, the supposedly absent member should be able to reassert their place on the panel should it be demonstrated that there was in fact no legitimate absence.
However, the Court also recalls instances in 2012 where there were cases in which Justice Hileville issued a ruling shortly after another justice joined the decision, marking the remaining justice as abstaining if there was no prompt reply. For example, In "On the Scope of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights", Hileville posted the ruling two days after Blue Wolf II joined the decision and there was no reply from Funkadelia. Funkadelia had not abandoned the office, and there's no indication that Funkadelia had gone absent; there was just no timely reply. The ruling issued by Abbey and Plembobria could have been issued under the same circumstances had Abbey not confessed that Yalkan had gone absent. Since the definition of an absent justice or hearing officer is unclear and since past decisions have been issued with a majority vote, this Court finds no reason to declare that Court officially did not consist of three members at that time and therefore set aside the decision for that reason.
Regarding "exceptional circumstances":
The Court disagrees with the previous ruling that only under exceptional circumstances can the Court be reviewed. With no clear definition of "exceptional circumstances," the Court would be free to raise such standards to dismiss a case through the use of whatever criteria it felt was necessary to do so. It could also lower the same to accept a case that ordinarily wouldn't be under the concept of "exceptional circumstances." Even the oft-cited ruling on the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers failed to adequately define its own concept of "heightened standards," leaving the definition to be decided by Court arbitrarily. While this Court agrees that a request to simply "look again" because a petitioner or the Attorney General's office was unhappy with the result should be rejected, whenever there is the possibility that the court was not in compliance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code, overturned precedent without explanation, or if there is new evidence uncovered that might impact a past ruling, a review would be warranted.
Therefore, the ruling in regards to the judicial inquiry filed by SillyString on the ability of the Court to review RA proposals is set aside, and having previously accepted SillyString's inquiry, the Court is ordered to reconsider the matter.
DRAFT - NOT OFFICIAL
Fellow THOs, please review and point out any errors. Make sure to check all briefs and cited materials. Let's get this right.
I believe in the case of absences, as happened during this review could be held as precedent with OwenStacys absence being noted by his loss of citizenship and my own loss. I was active and therefore able to quickly remedy the matter, owenstacy was absent and removed. Waiting for an individual to lose citizenship to declare an absence might prolong the courts process, but it is an undeniable and definitive indication of absence. But without clear ruling on what constitutes absence and what period, rulings made with potential absentees but with a 2/3 majority would still be legal
Owenstacey was removed for abandoning the office by not logging into the forums for 14 days. That's an absence. You lost citizenship because your NS nation CTEd, which I'd say is an easier condition to fix than a 30-day No Post loss of citizenship. Accidental CTE, automatic loss of office, sure. 30-days no post, definitely an absence, but should absence have been declared sooner?
What about when Bootsie was last Speaker? Minimum posting to keep citizenship, stayed logged into the forums so the 14-day abandonment clock never counted all the way down. If Bootsie had been Justice instead of Speaker, when would the absence have been declared?
Also, what about in cases involving Hileville when a justice didn't vote after two days and the majority decision was issued. Is two days an absence? Not sure of the timing of Yalkan's situation, but Yalkan's case is the same.
Are we at a point where we can cast a vote on this?
Also, given that one of the questions was whether a court could issue a decision with just 2 agreeing votes and a no vote from a possibly absent justice/THO, I would prefer that we all cast a vote so that the decision can't be challenged based on that technicality.
I vote in favour of the above proposal. I can see no alternatives really within this courts power. The real changes on technicality of absent THOs requiring RA legislation or constitutional change. The Sua Sponte point is well covered and explained well and i truly believe your wording of the ruling will prevent a further R4R
