[Private] R4R on admin checks

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
We have received our first R4R of the term.
forum.thenorthpacific.org

[R4R] Citizenship admin checks

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review? The process used by admins to check members requesting citizenship, both generally (hereafter referred to as "i") and in the specific case of my own application (hereafter referred...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
I am minded to accept. Thoughts?
 
I'm somewhat torn on whether reviewing administrator actions is at all within the boundaries of the powers granted to the Court by the Constitution:
Article 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
[. . .] [emphasis mine]
Click to expand...
This concerns in part an administrator policy (i.e., refusing corporate addresses) and an administrator action (i.e., the specific refusal in question). There are clearly enumerated powers, and they do not include a power to review administrator decisions.

I don't think we have any precedent here, but I'll give it a look anyways.
 
Regional law requires administrators to take this action. It gives them a limited amount of time to check for a specific thing, and ostensibly those criteria could be amended in subsequent legislation. The region has already used IC means to regulate OOC actions. It is one thing to say that you cannot take OOC action using IC means, but another to say that we can have no means to direct administration on very basic, formal organization stuff. Obviously we don't want to go crazy with it, but we have to be able to do it. So we shouldn't make some pronouncement that our government cannot touch on OOC in our laws. However, it is true that administration is not government in the sense the law is thinking when it gives us remit to review constitutionality and legality. So the we I referred to is the RA, not the Court. And if we're looking at it that way, the R4R fails at the very start (or at least half of it), because he's challenging an action of an administrator, not a government official. If we take up that aspect of the R4R, we are arguably implicitly stating that administration is government, which is obviously not true. It would also set a precedent whereby the Court can now review the actions of administration.

The other half (what the petitioner refers to as "i") includes a look at the law regarding citizenship. That is something we can review, but I'm not sure what good that would do. The question would boil down to what the definition of "proxies" is and what the RA was trying to do when they came up with that requirement. But that isn't really the question he's asking or the point of that part of the request - he's very clearly calling into question their "process" and how they are interpreting the existing law. No matter what we conclude as to the law's proper interpretation of "proxies," the fact is that the law gives administration 14 days to verify a lack of proxies, but says nothing of their methods or how they draw their conclusions. I can see how if somehow admins were precluded from rejecting applicants on these specific grounds, they could nevertheless reject applicants anyway because they don't have enough information from everything else to draw a conclusion. Imagine that instead of saying someone fails because they have a work connection, they say instead they could not prove that someone has a home connection - the absence of the home connection becomes the issue, not the existence of a non-home connection. It's not that different a scenario, but I think everyone can agree that a home connection lends itself to unique identification, and that not having it means the admins cannot verify what the law wants them to verify.

My instinct here is to deny the R4R on the grounds that even the reviewable aspect of the R4R, the way he's posed the question, requires us to determine if administration is taking illegal action. The only thing I think we can do is review the law and what proxies means, but I feel like that's a bit of a stretch given he's not really asking for that. None of the rest of the argument matters if the foundation is missing. I do wish we could speak up a little more though, and guide them on how to act here. Admittedly, that may be asking for trouble, but I generally don't like to just say "nope, improper" without explaining how it could be proper. In this case, it seems like something requiring an appeal to administration, and possibly the RA revisiting whether they want to be clearer about what admins are looking for, or if they want them to consider a different set of criteria. That's a tricky, difficult thing to tackle, but I think it's clear it's the RA's purview, not the Court's.

@Lady Raven Wing why are you inclined to accept? I would like to hear you thoughts on it.
 
I agree. I would reject question ii per 4(1) of the Constitution. I would reject question i, because while the law specifies the purpose of the administrator check ("verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty"), it does not specify the exact procedure for checking so (and the administrators appear to have introduced an at-home conncetion requirement for this purpose). As such, question i too would require us to review administrator policy, and is outside our jurisdiction. I can write an explanation for our decision later today.
 
saintpeter:
I agree. I would reject question ii per 4(1) of the Constitution. I would reject question i, because while the law specifies the purpose of the administrator check ("verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty"), it does not specify the exact procedure for checking so (and the administrators appear to have introduced an at-home conncetion requirement for this purpose). As such, question i too would require us to review administrator policy, and is outside our jurisdiction. I can write an explanation for our decision later today.
Click to expand...
So that just leaves how the rejection is done. Is it worth briefly pointing out what potential remedies this player may pursue, and acknowledging that at least we on the Court think that administration can be addressed in the RA? I believe that simply saying it can't be touched may mislead people into thinking that this is a simple IC/OOC line, whereas technically we're just acknowledging a limitation in what we specifically can do. In that way the rejection is useful in that it acknowledges there is a way for this stuff to be regulated, which is something that the R4R caused people to consider even if it's not actually even implied as part of the issues in the petitioner's request. Or do you think that's a bit far for us to go? I can see how keeping this as narrow and to the point as possible is desirable, but I think the R4R presents an opportunity for us to acknowledge a policy area that is rarely contemplated, even if all we're doing is pointing out something that could have easily been observed and not coming up with a formal ruling with case law and background. I almost feel like simply saying we can't do it is a bit of a cop out when we could have something slightly more useful to say.
 
Pallaith:
So that just leaves how the rejection is done. Is it worth briefly pointing out what potential remedies this player may pursue, and acknowledging that at least we on the Court think that administration can be addressed in the RA? I believe that simply saying it can't be touched may mislead people into thinking that this is a simple IC/OOC line, whereas technically we're just acknowledging a limitation in what we specifically can do. In that way the rejection is useful in that it acknowledges there is a way for this stuff to be regulated, which is something that the R4R caused people to consider even if it's not actually even implied as part of the issues in the petitioner's request. Or do you think that's a bit far for us to go? I can see how keeping this as narrow and to the point as possible is desirable, but I think the R4R presents an opportunity for us to acknowledge a policy area that is rarely contemplated, even if all we're doing is pointing out something that could have easily been observed and not coming up with a formal ruling with case law and background. I almost feel like simply saying we can't do it is a bit of a cop out when we could have something slightly more useful to say.
Click to expand...
I agree that adding context to the rejection would be good. Something like:
The Court declines to review the matter presented to it. The following is an explanation why (which shall not be considered binding precedent):

The powers of the Court are clearly enumerated in Article 4(1) of the Constitution: “The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions” [emphasis mine]. This request does not fit this description.

In this request, we're requested to review two things:
A. The decision made by an administrator to 'fail' the admininstrators' check of @libvillia.
B. The policy of administrators to 'fail' citizenship applicants that use a corporate network.
(Note that the order is reversed here compared to the request above.)

We cannot review A because it involves an administrator action, which is not considered a government action under the Constitution (see, eg, Article 6(2) of the Constitution). Therefore, it falls outside the scope of the Court's powers.

We also cannot review B, because it concerns administrator policy (not government policy). Under Legal Code Sect. 6.1, clause 5, the administrators are tasked with “verify[ing] that [applicants] are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.” The Legal Code does not specify what policy the administrators should use in verifying that a judicially-imposed penalty is not being evaded, a matter that is consequently set out in administrator policy. Given that the procedure for verifying this information—including the requirement that a home network be used—is administrator policy, we cannot review it.

It's important to note that this decision does not take away, in any sense, the powers of the RA, including the ability to further regulate administrator checks.[1] It does mean, however, that at present such decisions are administrator policy, and as such they cannot be reviewed by the Courts under the present terms of the Constitution.

Lady Raven Wing, J, would have accepted review of question A.

[1] At present, the administrator check is mandated by the Legal Code and the RA has explicitly stated the purpose thereof. Thereby it already regulates the checks, though it leaves a large part of the process up to administrator policy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
@saintpeter I am fine with what is written. If we were to go further with the point about RA regulation, we would probably note that the conclusion is drawn from the fact that the law already directs administration as part of the citizenship process. Maybe it’s a bit unnecessary though and stating the obvious? But I think some people might make a thing about us saying “the RA can tell admins what to do” as if it’s some big revelation. I wonder if we should take some care in how we touch on that aspect, but I am glad you want to touch on it at all.
 
Pallaith:
@saintpeter I am fine with what is written. If we were to go further with the point about RA regulation, we would probably note that the conclusion is drawn from the fact that the law already directs administration as part of the citizenship process. Maybe it’s a bit unnecessary though and stating the obvious? But I think some people might make a thing about us saying “the RA can tell admins what to do” as if it’s some big revelation. I wonder if we should take some care in how we touch on that aspect, but I am glad you want to touch on it at all.
Click to expand...
I added a footnote. What do you think?
 
Posted.

[12-Mar-21 11:13 PM] LD#2860
@Court We have received our first R4R of the term.
forum.thenorthpacific.org

[R4R] Citizenship admin checks

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review? The process used by admins to check members requesting citizenship, both generally (hereafter referred to as "i") and in the specific case of my own application (hereafter referred...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org

{Embed}
forum.thenorthpacific.org

[R4R] Citizenship admin checks

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review? The process used by admins to check members requesting citizenship, both generally (hereafter referred to as "i") and in the specific case of my own application (hereafter referred...
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
[R4R] Citizenship admin checks
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The process used by admins to check members requesting citizenship, both generally (hereafter referred to as "i") and in the specific case of my own application (hereafter referred...


[12-Mar-21 11:13 PM] pete#7777
Oy


[12-Mar-21 11:14 PM] LD#2860
I made the requisite thread in private chambers


[12-Mar-21 11:14 PM] LD#2860
Will link momentarily


[12-Mar-21 11:14 PM] LD#2860


[12-Mar-21 11:15 PM] pete#7777
R4R 45min before I go to bed smh.


[12-Mar-21 11:15 PM] pete#7777
Anyway, will read in a sec.


[13-Mar-21 12:46 AM] pete#7777
@Court I'm currently working on my comment in the thread. Meanwhile, in the absence of a CJ, would you approve me reminding Elu and others to not submit briefs pre-approval of an R4R? Per chapter 2, section 5 of our Procedures:
> During the five days after a request for review has been accepted, anyone may offer information that is relevant to the case and/or advise the Court on how to rule in the form of a brief.


[13-Mar-21 12:46 AM] pete#7777
(For now, that we lack a Chief Justice, I will presume that any Justice can act in such a fashion with the approval of at least one other Justice, a majority. Waiting for both to share their opinions seems to take unnecessary amounts of time.)


[13-Mar-21 12:48 AM] pete#7777
I also just commented in the thread.


[13-Mar-21 01:09 AM] pete#7777
I'm going to bed now.


[13-Mar-21 01:10 AM] pete#7777
Any Justice can do the above if they come online and approve of it.


[13-Mar-21 03:00 AM] Ghost#8872
I wouldn't call what he posted a brief per se, but I agree that it was premature for there to be a response before it's been accepted. I would note that the law doesn't necessarily preclude Elu from making such a post, which he could have also made in the gallery or something else


[13-Mar-21 03:06 AM] Ghost#8872
I was happy to sign off on that action Pete but I was busy driving to a dentist appointment, sorry I missed you


[13-Mar-21 03:06 AM] Ghost#8872
I guess I will post something along those lines


[13-Mar-21 03:06 AM] Ghost#8872
really interested about what you think we should do with this R4R though


[13-Mar-21 04:47 AM] LD#2860
I’m of the opinion at least that it’s within our jurisdiction to determine whether the stated reasons of admin for failing a check are sufficiently allowed under the law


[13-Mar-21 04:48 AM] Ghost#8872
read my post and then tell me if you still agree


[13-Mar-21 04:48 AM] LD#2860
I’m thinking on it


[13-Mar-21 04:55 AM] LD#2860
That’s certainly convincing - I think jurisdiction in the narrow sense remains (that is, the only question I think we’re capable of answering is whether it’s allowed under the law, but not anything else). On reflection with your points + further thought/reread I think that it would be (admin requires checks as such as a requirement to verify there’s not a proxy situation), so I’m possibly leaning towards non-acceptance if we’re willing to swing at least some kind of non-binding opinion.


[13-Mar-21 05:00 AM] LD#2860
In other words, I’m plenty willing to run with a denial (no reason needed, actually) with an unofficial “it’s legal”


[13-Mar-21 05:02 AM] LD#2860
Perhaps with some note of wishing to avoid dealing with admin stuff in general, but that’s it’s good to confirm that admin is legally in the right (because them possibly not being is a whole different can of worms)


[13-Mar-21 05:11 AM] LD#2860
Okay that’s my thoughts for the moment


[...]


[13-Mar-21 12:42 PM] pete#7777
@Court I suggested a rejection with non-binding explanation here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194472/#post-10391427


[...]


[14-Mar-21 11:11 AM] Ghost#8872
Nice job Pete. And you got the Praetor seal of approval too


[14-Mar-21 12:38 PM] pete#7777
Prae-approved ruling.
* Messages unrelated to the R4R removed. pete#7777 is saintpeter, CJ; Ghost#8872 is Pallaith, J; LD#2860 is Lady Raven Wing, J.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top