[Private] Request for Review: The Limits of the Vice Delegate's Security Evaluation

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
A request for review has been submitted by LD.

Given that I have authored a bill that is currently in the final stages preceding a vote that modifies the Vice Delegate's security check power, I suppose that some may conclude I have a conflict of interest in the outcome of this R4R. I happen to disagree with that hypothetical claim, as my bill adds a condition for failing the check and has no bearing on the original language, which is what the R4R is concerned with. As such, I would not be inclined to recuse myself. Before I speak at length on my thoughts on how this should be approached, I would like the two of you to weigh in on your thoughts regarding my potential recusal. Consequently, I would also ask that one of you respond to LD to confirm that we are considering it, but that no one agrees to accept it just yet, until we work out the recusal question.
 
Honestly I am not a fan of these attempt to create a one-size fits all rulings. Im honestly tilting in the opinion to deny it on the grounds that it's not really asking a question it is asking a thousand questions and wants one answer, instead of asking the court if something that has been done is legal it is asking the theoretical limits of the power that was used.

Im also not 100% sold on the compelling interest because I don't really see the ambiguity it's very clear in the law Vice Delegate has power to do X and once that power has been used they have to justify their action directly Regional Assembly and it is the Regional Assembly who decides if the use of the power was justified or not.
 
I see no reason why you would need to recuse on this {r4r} . There is also a question fo standing which i think LRW has made a poor attempt at. There is no cause of action or controversy here. Just a, oh this might be ambiguous. Basiclly asking us to legislate from the bench.
 
Okay. So real quick, my thoughts on this. LD does not have standing. The controversy argument is weak. I believe the proper way to do this R4R is for someone rejected by the Vice Delegate to submit it, or for the Speaker to do so. Someone involved in the process. Cretox having a "policy" might be something that can be reviewed, but other than some public statements, I don't believe his opinion on checks is the same as an actual formal policy. So honestly, it should just be rejected on standing and controversy grounds.

Let's let Lore weigh in here quickly but aim for a response tomorrow evening.
 
Im a bit rusty in my legal writting so I want to take a shot at this. Here's what I have. We have kinda glossed over the regional interest question. Is that something we want to address?



This Request for Review is Denied. While the court is charged with trying all civil and criminal cases, resolving conflicts and ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party (TNP Con. Art.1.) This request fails to establish standing as an affected party. In [R4R] On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party , the Court established that "The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation." The petitioner did not establish how they are harmed or any rights that may be violated by the law in question.
 
The Court has accepted R4Rs on compelling regional interest grounds in the past when the petitioner’s standing was in question or non-existent. I feel it should be addressed, however an even stronger secondary reason is that there is no actual law, action, or policy in question. Only after that would I touch on the compelling interest factor. And it isn’t compelling. It harms the region’s ability to discuss what the VD can do when elected? Some VDs disagree on how restrictive a security check is? It’s just not enough, on every level.

As for your language, I note this: “...affected party (TNP Con. Art.1.) This request...” I believe you should combine these sentences with a comma, otherwise the first is a fragment. Maybe that’s how legal responses are typically written, I admit I don’t read a lot of them, but strictly speaking I believe that’s the case grammatically.
 
Last edited:
Here is my pass at the denial.

This Request for Review is Denied on two counts.

On Standing, in the Request for Review 'On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party', the Court established that "The effected Party must detail in their review request the rights they perceived have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation." The petition did not establish how they have been personally harmed or any rights that they hold have been violated by the law/policy/action in question.

On Compelling Interest, the petitioner has failed to firmly establish an ambiguity. Under
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
it is clearly established that the Regional Assembly is already empowered as a check and balance on the Vice Delegate's power to reject citizenship applications. It would be improper for the Court to preempt the Regional Assembly's clearly defined power to decide the validity of rejections of citizenship by the Vice Delegate.
 
Last edited:
Lore, are you not concerned that your position on compelling interest would, in fact, be addressing the question being posed? Essentially, you would be denying this request but also answering it. I don’t think we should be saying more than is needed - the question is improper and we needn’t dive into the law to address it as a result.
 
It addresses that no ambiguity actually exists not the actual question being posed. It also cuts off repeat attempts to establish standing to get the question asked. The R4R process is only for ambiguities and conflicts, neither of which exist here the law is only cited to show that the question is improper because the law is clear and concise on the question.
 
This R4R is seeking clarification on what the limits of the security check are. You’re saying that the RA decides the validity of a Vice Delegate’s rejection - essentially, that the RA decides the limits. This strikes me as...an answer to the question being posed. If you’re trying to say that the Court shouldn’t decide the validity of a failed check, I agree, but that is not what we are being asked to do or what we would be doing by answering this question. Assuming it were properly asked with appropriate standing, I actually see no other answer to the question than the one you’ve already given. We would be trying to explain the parameters of this check.

If there were a specific rejected person who filed this petition, it’s possible our answer to the question could also determine whether that rejection was appropriate, if we did not responsibly limit ourselves in how we answered it. This is why it seems prudent to me that we should deny this on standing and the lack of a clear application of the R4R. There is no law, action, or policy that is at issue, only an interpretation of how an official might act and has acted previously - and only someone with proper standing could challenge that given the lack of compelling regional interest. We could shut the door to frivolous and subsequent doomed to fail R4Rs on this matter in how we explain these points.
 
Pallaith:
The Court has accepted R4Rs on compelling regional interest grounds in the past when the petitioner’s standing was in question or non-existent. I feel it should be addressed, however an even stronger secondary reason is that there is no actual law, action, or policy in question. Only after that would I touch on the compelling interest factor. And it isn’t compelling. It harms the region’s ability to discuss what the VD can do when elected? Some VDs disagree on how restrictive a security check is? It’s just not enough, on every level.

As for your language, I note this: “...affected party (TNP Con. Art.1.) This request...” I believe you should combine these sentences with a comma, otherwise the first is a fragment. Maybe that’s how legal responses are typically written, I admit I don’t read a lot of them, but strictly speaking I believe that’s the case grammatically.
Click to expand...

You are correct on that.

As for the Regional Interest, I read Lore's response as answering the R4R Question. There is really nothing i can think of in this short frame to word it without answering the question. I guess we could say something like :

While the court may accept an R4R if there is a compelling regional interest in answering the question, regardless of standing, we do not see a cause of action here that requires court intervention. The proposed ambiguity lacks evidence of an occurrence in which the court can view the question. Without a violation of rights, clear conflicts of law, or how such an ambiguity cause a violation or conflict there is not a question for the court to review.
 
Here's my stab at the denial:

The request is denied. The petitioner lacks standing, does not identify a law, policy, or action that must be reviewed, and does not advance a compelling regional interest.

This request fails to establish standing as an affected party. In [R4R] On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party, the Court established that "The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation." The petitioner did not establish how they are harmed or any rights that may be violated by the law in question.

The Court is granted the power to "review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions" (Constitution, Article 4). The petitioner asks that the Court review "the extent of the Vice Delegate‘s power vis-a-vis the security evaluation they are required to preform for every application for citizenship." In other words, the Court is asked to define the limits of the Vice Delegate's power. It is easily apparent that this request is not concerned with any of the things the Court is empowered to review.

The petitioner asserts there is a compelling regional interest, which is "the legitimate ambiguity that presently exists about the limits of the VD’s security evaluation" and notes that different Vice Delegates have interpreted the security check power in various ways, concluding that the alleged ambiguity "harms the ability of the region to appropriately discuss the role of the Vice Delegate in the citizenship check." The Court does not find this sufficiently compelling to ignore the issue of standing.

While the Court may accept an R4R if there is a compelling regional interest in answering the question, regardless of standing, we do not see a cause of action here that requires court intervention. The proposed ambiguity lacks evidence of an occurrence in which the Court can view the question. Without a violation of rights, clear conflicts of law, or how such an ambiguity causes a violation or conflict there is not a question for the Court to review. I would also note that the Court has rejected a previous R4R on the same grounds, in a scenario very similar in nature to this one, albeit with different hypotheticals in mind. I find much of its reasoning applies in this situation.
Click to expand...
 
It is posted.

July 17, 2021
[12:53 AM] Pallaith, King of the North: By the way @Court we have a R4R, I would like Lore to have a chance to weigh in but I’m not sure on his availability. In any case we’re not all on now so let’s touch base tomorrow at some point.

I would like to review some previous R4Rs that were answered as well as those that were not - I feel the unanswered ones may be relevant here as it relates to standing in particular. Should we decide to proceed with answering it, regrettably we must discuss the prospect of my recusal because I have a feeling people will conclude that as an author of a bill to change this particular area of the law, I would have a conflict of interest. The ruling of course would only touch on the law as currently written, and my bill is additive without changing the existing wording or affecting the clause that this review is concerned with. But you know, appearances.

Those are basically the areas of consideration most immediately in front of us I would like to discuss tomorrow
[7:22 AM] Llamas: i expect another one when your bill passes
[12:30 PM] Just a Wah: I get home at midnight i will takr a look then
July 18, 2021
[3:37 AM] Pallaith, King of the North: Finally, I have made the thread for the current R4R: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194889/
[3:37 AM] Pallaith, King of the North: please review that thread as it contains some timely matters and the R4R was filed on Friday @Court
[5:13 AM] Just a Wah: My thoughts are known.
[5:19 AM] Just a Wah: My thoughts boil down to I think we should deny it because there is no ambiguity because the Vice Delegate's power to deny on security reasons is not a power in isolation. It is synergistic with RA's power to sustain or rebuke that denial. It would be improper for the Court to preempt the RA which has the power to deny the VD's criteria for security threat.
[12:00 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Just a Wah do you also have thoughts on my potential recusal?
[12:02 PM] Llamas: i was just replying to that thread
July 19, 2021
[11:27 AM] Just a Wah: @Court I have taken a shot at writing the denial. I rather add the denial based on lack of ambiguity as well to cut off an attempt at bringing up the same thing when there is a lack of ambiguity on it's face.
[11:35 AM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Just a Wah I have replied
[12:09 PM] Llamas: im going to catch up once im off work
July 20, 2021
[2:05 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Just a Wah take another look at our ongoing discussion for the R4R. I would like to get a final response out tonight, and I would like to work on what Dreadton has come up with.

It has been said that we’re being a bit more collaborative about this than is typical for how these are normally handled. I can see where they’re coming from but I think this wasn’t such a bad approach
[2:16 PM] Llamas: Easier to catch mistakes if we all work on something
[8:58 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Court I put a draft together, take a gander
[10:56 PM] Just a Wah: @Pallaith, King of the North I like your current version and I think it is sufficient if there is no other thoughts or etc on the matter.
[10:59 PM] Just a Wah: And personally due to the nature question and the sensitive nature of the Vice Delegate and public discourse around their position and powers in regards to citizenship checks I think the full court working on this is appropriate.
[10:59 PM] Just a Wah: nature of the question*
[11:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: I used Dreadton's material pretty much verbatim in addition to my language, so I will go ahead and post it

Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ. Llamas is Dreaton, J. Just a Wah is Lord Lore, J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top