November 11, 2021
6:02 PM] Siwale: Oooh never been here before
[6:30 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: I have some new term business to do, I’ll try to get that going tonight
[6:31 PM] Siwale: You’ll refer to me as chief
[6:35 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: No, I don’t think I will
[6:35 PM] Siwale: Your highness works too
[8:03 PM] Just a Wah: How about, Most Junior Justice.
November 12, 2021
[12:22 AM] Pallaith, King of the North: I have completed the latest round of archiving, started discussion on the term's Chief Justice, and raised the topic of appointing a replacement moderating justice for Dreadton, if you could review the private conference room when you get a chance
November 13, 2021
[2:21 PM] Siwale: Looks like we have a prosecutor now
[2:29 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Just a Wah assuming you are willing to take over the case, how do we do this? Do I need to post in the case thread announcing you, or do you post that yourself and we just agree you’re the new moderating Justice?
[2:29 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Siwale you can take the question as well if you have an idea of how to proceed. Obviously this doesn’t happen that often
[2:51 PM] Siwale: This is the closest thing I could find looking back at previous cases https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192892/post-10347963
[2:51 PM] Siwale: I would be in favor of Pallaith announcing the new appointment in the case thread. (edited)
[3:00 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Okay. That’s what I will do. I would like confirmation from @Just a Wah that he will be able to review the case in the near future and in fact move it along to its next phase before long
[4:05 PM] Just a Wah: I can post in the thread when i get home in 30 mina
[4:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Then I will make the announcement ahead of your post
November 14, 2021
[3:19 PM] Siwale: Lore be frozen in time
November 15, 2021
[4:07 PM] Just a Wah: Groundhog's day thank you very much
November 20, 2021
[8:55 PM] Just a Wah: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195305/post-10470514 @Siwale @Pallaith, King of the North Sorry life got in the way. Case has been moved to the next phase.
November 27, 2021
[1:00 PM] Just a Wah: @Siwale @Pallaith, King of the North Draft of a sentencing order is in the private thread.
[1:03 PM] Just a Wah: I equalled out the Voting Rights and Publishing Prohibition and added additional voting rights suspension conditional to a violation of the prohibition. spotlighted the reason why the prosecution's recommendation was inappropriate and why a slighter harsher version of the defence's was necessary.
[5:31 PM] Siwale: Thanks! Will take a look tomorrow.
November 28, 2021
[12:27 PM] Siwale: Posted. Perhaps I'm overthinking things.
December 5, 2021
[10:38 AM] Just a Wah: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195304/post-10472722 That is one case over.
December 11, 2021
[3:44 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: So guys, you’ve seen me mention a few times now how I’m looking into the r4r process, and our template, to see if perhaps it’s lending itself to too strict a concept of standing for questions that the region may have for the Court to consider. Obviously the recent denials also rely on clear court precedent, so it’s not just the template that matters, but I’m interested in exploring if there’s a simple solution to this question that we can facilitate rather than go back to the drawing board legally, or write in a form of universal standing akin to what the AG had
[4:03 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Well that was fast. I have reviewed the relevant law and this is actually a simple matter. The constitution is clear that the review must be requested by an affected party, or be a compelling regional interest. The r4r template perfectly captures this with its fourth and fifth questions. I don’t see how we could make the template more permissive without effectively ignoring what the freaking constitution says. The legal code doesn’t touch r4rs at all, nor does it address standing. The court procedures already allow anyone to submit a r4r, which has to be how it works, because there are situations where unaffected parties submit them if they cite a compelling regional interest (edited)
[4:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Given this, I assume you would both agree that there’s nothing we can do on our end, short of maybe making this a bit clearer in the template? I don’t even know if that would help really, at the end of the day r4rs like Vivanco’s will live or die on the idea of whether the question they pose is sufficient to be a compelling regional interest. And there’s obviously some interpretation there. Interestingly enough, I do think one could have been generous on the question of standing itself, looking back at some of the court’s previous decisions. But there’s interpretation there too
[4:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Anyway, I’m going to write a bulletin post about my conclusions here so if you guys have any feedback or additional thoughts I would appreciate them @Court
[4:35 PM] Siwale: Yeah, I never had an issue with the r4r template. The major source of the problem seems to stem from the court's interpretation of what defines a compelling regional interest. This has fluctuated quite a bit since the passage of the AGORA Act and more recently has become overly strict imo. I'm not really sure the reasoning for such a strict filter as that was not the intention with the law. Only thing I can think of is the Court trying to get out of extra work or said members trying to make a statement about the bill they disagree with. (edited)
March 11, 2022
[8:25 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: I’d say it was a pleasure working with you guys, but we didn’t really need to do much huh? Anyway good luck to you both and thanks for keeping the seats warm while we did almost nothing @Court
Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ., Just a Wah is Lord Lore, J.
6:02 PM] Siwale: Oooh never been here before
[6:30 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: I have some new term business to do, I’ll try to get that going tonight
[6:31 PM] Siwale: You’ll refer to me as chief
[6:35 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: No, I don’t think I will
[6:35 PM] Siwale: Your highness works too
[8:03 PM] Just a Wah: How about, Most Junior Justice.
November 12, 2021
[12:22 AM] Pallaith, King of the North: I have completed the latest round of archiving, started discussion on the term's Chief Justice, and raised the topic of appointing a replacement moderating justice for Dreadton, if you could review the private conference room when you get a chance
November 13, 2021
[2:21 PM] Siwale: Looks like we have a prosecutor now
[2:29 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Just a Wah assuming you are willing to take over the case, how do we do this? Do I need to post in the case thread announcing you, or do you post that yourself and we just agree you’re the new moderating Justice?
[2:29 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: @Siwale you can take the question as well if you have an idea of how to proceed. Obviously this doesn’t happen that often
[2:51 PM] Siwale: This is the closest thing I could find looking back at previous cases https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192892/post-10347963
[2:51 PM] Siwale: I would be in favor of Pallaith announcing the new appointment in the case thread. (edited)
[3:00 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Okay. That’s what I will do. I would like confirmation from @Just a Wah that he will be able to review the case in the near future and in fact move it along to its next phase before long
[4:05 PM] Just a Wah: I can post in the thread when i get home in 30 mina
[4:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Then I will make the announcement ahead of your post
November 14, 2021
[3:19 PM] Siwale: Lore be frozen in time
November 15, 2021
[4:07 PM] Just a Wah: Groundhog's day thank you very much
November 20, 2021
[8:55 PM] Just a Wah: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195305/post-10470514 @Siwale @Pallaith, King of the North Sorry life got in the way. Case has been moved to the next phase.
November 27, 2021
[1:00 PM] Just a Wah: @Siwale @Pallaith, King of the North Draft of a sentencing order is in the private thread.
[1:03 PM] Just a Wah: I equalled out the Voting Rights and Publishing Prohibition and added additional voting rights suspension conditional to a violation of the prohibition. spotlighted the reason why the prosecution's recommendation was inappropriate and why a slighter harsher version of the defence's was necessary.
[5:31 PM] Siwale: Thanks! Will take a look tomorrow.
November 28, 2021
[12:27 PM] Siwale: Posted. Perhaps I'm overthinking things.
December 5, 2021
[10:38 AM] Just a Wah: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195304/post-10472722 That is one case over.
December 11, 2021
[3:44 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: So guys, you’ve seen me mention a few times now how I’m looking into the r4r process, and our template, to see if perhaps it’s lending itself to too strict a concept of standing for questions that the region may have for the Court to consider. Obviously the recent denials also rely on clear court precedent, so it’s not just the template that matters, but I’m interested in exploring if there’s a simple solution to this question that we can facilitate rather than go back to the drawing board legally, or write in a form of universal standing akin to what the AG had
[4:03 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Well that was fast. I have reviewed the relevant law and this is actually a simple matter. The constitution is clear that the review must be requested by an affected party, or be a compelling regional interest. The r4r template perfectly captures this with its fourth and fifth questions. I don’t see how we could make the template more permissive without effectively ignoring what the freaking constitution says. The legal code doesn’t touch r4rs at all, nor does it address standing. The court procedures already allow anyone to submit a r4r, which has to be how it works, because there are situations where unaffected parties submit them if they cite a compelling regional interest (edited)
[4:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Given this, I assume you would both agree that there’s nothing we can do on our end, short of maybe making this a bit clearer in the template? I don’t even know if that would help really, at the end of the day r4rs like Vivanco’s will live or die on the idea of whether the question they pose is sufficient to be a compelling regional interest. And there’s obviously some interpretation there. Interestingly enough, I do think one could have been generous on the question of standing itself, looking back at some of the court’s previous decisions. But there’s interpretation there too
[4:06 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: Anyway, I’m going to write a bulletin post about my conclusions here so if you guys have any feedback or additional thoughts I would appreciate them @Court
[4:35 PM] Siwale: Yeah, I never had an issue with the r4r template. The major source of the problem seems to stem from the court's interpretation of what defines a compelling regional interest. This has fluctuated quite a bit since the passage of the AGORA Act and more recently has become overly strict imo. I'm not really sure the reasoning for such a strict filter as that was not the intention with the law. Only thing I can think of is the Court trying to get out of extra work or said members trying to make a statement about the bill they disagree with. (edited)
March 11, 2022
[8:25 PM] Pallaith, King of the North: I’d say it was a pleasure working with you guys, but we didn’t really need to do much huh? Anyway good luck to you both and thanks for keeping the seats warm while we did almost nothing @Court
Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ., Just a Wah is Lord Lore, J.