[Chambers] [R4R] Regarding "On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code"

If we could reach something of a mid-point in length between LD's and AS's rulings, that might be nice. As it is, I don't have too much of a problem with either ruling being what we go with, though the longer ruling has formatting issues that I feel should be addressed - uneven capitalisation and oddly sized headings being my main concerns on that point.

I think we're generally agreed on the points of law here.

I'm aware that the approximately 3000 words in my draft are a bit much -- my tendency towards long-windedness is a character flaw of mine -- and I am willing to slim it down. Feel free to point at any superfluous parts. Section 4 is perhaps the easiest to remove wholesale, as it is purely explanatory and has no legal ramifications. To just defend the length slightly, around 800 words are direct citations from prior rulings. If we are getting into pure length considerations, those can be excised in favour of just linking to the rulings, as the most pertinent is quoted in Section 2, and is the only quote I feel I can't do without. The prior ruling citation and Section 4 would be roughly a third of the current length, bringing my draft down to around 2000 words.
I'm not the best at reviewing my own work in terms of length, as I don't really see repeat lines or unnecessary fluff in my own work (Even if I know it is going to be there), so if you have the time to go through my draft with an eye for that, I would appreciate it.


The only material point of law where LD's and my draft differ is whether crimes against the region, allegedly perpetrated by a non-resident at the time of the crime, can be indicted and tried. I have been clear on my view that such a crime can be tried under TNP jurisdiction, while LD left it out, to possibly be taken up in a future ruling. I can see the merit in that argument, as a blank question to review a prior ruling, getting fairly few briefs, and yet expanding the ruling like I propose can be perceived as illegitimate or going rogue. However, I would argue that a short ruling without taking the necessary effort to think all the implications through is exactly why we are here, being asked to review it, and so I would prefer an expansive ruling that has thought most (Ideally all) implications through. I would see it as a success if the RA uses our ruling as the basis for legislating on jurisdiction.

@Lord Dominator and @St George

As a note, we should be aware that the judicial election is approaching, and we really should have a ruling out before the 28th. I don't think we're far from a ruling that we can all sign on to.

I took a pair of scissors to my ruling in an effort to cut down the size. I've gone from roughly 3000 (~18000 characters) words to 1900 (~11000 characters). This was mostly by removing the superfluous citations and Section 4 wholesale, and cleaning up a few other places. I'm still willing to cut more if there are other superfluous areas, but as I said, those are hard for me to find. Lastly, I killed two of my darlings, the (Currently entirely hypothetical) claims of jurisdiction over embassies and extradition.
I still believe the analysis of what is wrong with the ruling is essential to the reason for changing anything. Without some flaw to correct the review is pointless and we should just uphold the ruling. Then there is the material difference between LD's draft and mine, which is the ability to indict and try non-residents. I'd still champion the arguments I made earlier on that part.

St George in your last post you remarked on formatting. I have tried to clean it up to be consistent. If I missed anywhere then please point those out to me.


The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Vivanco.
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 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
(...)
5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:

Chapter 5: Precedent and Appeals

Section 1: Precedent

1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of prior rulings:

On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code

Click to expand...

On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers.

Click to expand...

On the Validity of a Previous Ruling.

Click to expand...

On Court Review of RA Proposals.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:
This ruling is in reply to the Request for Review by Vivanco. It will proceed in 6 sections. In Section 1 the petitioner’s standing and regional interest will be noted. In Section 2 the ability of the Court to review prior rulings will be outlined. In Section 3 the Court will analyse the prior ruling and highlight two points of contention. In Section 4 the Court will resolve the ambiguity found in the analysis. In Section 5 the Court will revise the prior ruling. Sections 2 and 3 are to be considered statements of facts. Sections 4 and 5 are the Court’s Holding in the case.

Section 1: Standing and regional interest

Standing
Petitioner Vivanco is duly appointed Court Examiner in accordance with Section 3.6 of the Legal Code. They have universal standing in all cases of Judicial Review. As such the petitioner has standing.

Regional interest
The question before the Court is one of jurisdiction; the applicability of the collection of laws, rights, and duties that The North Pacific has duly ratified and imposed. There can be no doubt that the topic has regional interest. As a prior ruling establishes a precedent, the Court finds itself under a heightened standard of review. Therefore the Court recognises that regional interest is not enough, but it has to establish its own jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn the prior ruling, and the Court has to explain itself fully if it desires to revise or overturn precedent.
The Court finds that it does so in Sections 2 and 3.

Section 2: The Court’s ability to review prior rulings
The Request for Review targets a prior ruling by the Court, asking the Court to review whether the ruling stands as precedent or shall be overturned. In past cases the Court has placed emphasis on precedent, and with good reason. Those rulings have the same prescriptive force as a law, and instructs Government officials in their behaviour. To cite precedent on the matter, the Court turns to its prior ruling On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers:

(...) 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 law must be allowed to evolve to match society, and conclusively binding decisions carry with them the potential to greatly restrict the ability of the law, and the Court, to adjust with the times.
The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (...) furthermore [we] 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.
In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

The Court does not need to find a prior ruling unconstitutional or unlawful to overturn it. The Court, through deliberate review as requested by a person with standing, can find that a prior ruling is in conflict with fundamental principles of justice or the societal norms of The North Pacific as it has evolved since that ruling.
The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn, the challenged ruling with the caveats cited above.

Section 3: Analysis of the prior ruling
The Court finds two points of contention with On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. Firstly, while one reading is clearly intended, there is enough possible ambiguity to force through a reading giving the opposite result, and secondly, the ruling does not sufficiently delineate the jurisdiction of The North Pacific to offer justice and protection to the lawful residents of The North Pacific.
The intended meaning of the ruling is quite clear. The first sentence is that “any nation may be prosecuted for crimes other than treason”, which in context is meant to say that former residents can be prosecuted in absentia for crimes committed while residents. This is reinforced by the later line “they may be tired [sic] even if their nation no longer resides in The North Pacific”. However, if one chooses so, they may read an almost limitless claim to jurisdiction into the ruling by focusing on “any nation may be prosecuted” and in the later line the “expected of committing a crime in The North Pacific”. This sort of ambiguity is explicitly what the Court is mandated to resolve by the Constitution.
While resolving ambiguity is worthwhile on its own, the intended meaning is not without flaws. The prior ruling is explicit in dealing with current residents or former residents who are on trial for alleged crimes committed while residents, but that is not in keeping with the social fabric as it has developed. The North Pacific res publica is not limited to the region proper, but also extends to the Forum and the Discord. A person could join The North Pacific’s Forum or Discord without having a nation reside in the region with the explicit intention of committing crimes, or make sure to leave the region prior to committing a crime. Under the ruling as it stands, the Court would not have jurisdiction to try that person.
The Court finds that the points of contention are causes for concern, and sufficient to justify revisiting the precedent set in the ruling. The Court also finds that either point of contention would be enough to live up to the heightened standard of review set by On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers.

Section 4: Resolving ambiguity
The challenged ruling is disambiguated here by the Court holding that the former reading, presented in the analysis, is the correct one. There shall be no doubt that the jurisdiction demarcated by the ruling, prior to this review, was limited to residents of The North Pacific and those nations whose alleged crimes were committed while residents of The North Pacific. The Court did not make extensive claims to jurisdiction in all imaginable future cases where a breach of Legal Code could be expected.

Section 6: Revising jurisdictional claims
The Court furthermore revises its prior ruling to develop a more substantive and workable set of jurisdictional claims. Those claims will be developed here with the necessary clarification. The Court notes that some of these revisions are currently hypothetical. The Court intends to make the ruling comprehensive even in the case of future drastic changes to civil society in The North Pacific or the inter-regional political stage.
If a former resident or non-resident is alleged to have committed a criminal act and is indicted for it, but does not accept the indictment and trial, they can be tried in absentia in accordance with the ordinary regulations for a trial.

Residents of The North Pacific
Adopted from the challenged ruling, and as stipulated by both the Constitution and the Legal Code, residents of The North Pacific fall under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific.

Former residents
Adopted from the challenged ruling, former residents can be tried for crimes they are alleged to have committed while residents of The North Pacific.

Crimes committed on North Pacific soil
Regardless of residency, The North Pacific claims jurisdiction over crimes committed against residents or the region, as stipulated by the Criminal Code, in cases where that crime happened on North Pacific soil. Soil is here understood to be the equivalent to the physical territory of the region, which is at minimum the Region – including World Factbook Entry, regional Dispatches, and the Regional Message Board – the Forum, and the regional communication platform(s) – currently the collection of The North Pacific’s Discord servers.
Acts that can be considered crimes but which are handled by e.g. the Administration do fall under the aegis of The North Pacific, but the Court does not invite the Government or citizens to press charges in cases of spam or obscene material when those cases are better handled administratively.

Jurisdiction over specific crimes committed against the region
The North Pacific as a community must be protected from outside opposing actors, and one avenue is the possibility of bringing those foreign actors to trial, banning them from the region’s soil and rejecting future attempts to gain citizenship. In cases of alleged crimes clearly committed against The North Pacific, and attempts to destabilise the region, the Court would accept an indictment and trial of people who have allegedly committed the crimes of Treason (Legal Code section 1.1); Espionage (LC 1.2); Crashing (LC 1.6); Phishing (LC 1.7); and Conspiracy (LC 1.11) where the alleged conspiracy includes non-resident actors.

I find this version to be a good ruling and would join it.

As a quick note, I can see that I made a copying error at some point, so a few old lines that were supposed to be deleted remain in the version I posted above. The correct version is on the Drive. If we go with my version I will of course post it here for final assent before posting it publicly.
The errors were a couple of fixes to grammar (Mostly pluralisation here and there), correcting numbers now that there are 5 sections rather than 6, removing an errant line about the excised hypothetical claims in the first paragraph of section 5, and removing the references to the specific parts of the legal code in the very last line.

Looks pretty good I think - I think an equivalent note in what is properly section 5 that the VD check & related security tools may be the appropriate path for crimes there as such (although I’m not completely sold on the idea that we should extend jurisdiction as such). Also, I feel as if obscene materials as such aren’t really our jurisdiction. Perhaps it’d be an idea to more or less combine parts of those things & note the respective alternatives that would ideally be pursued as appropriate before trials of non-residents.

More generally, I’m leery of extending criminal jurisdiction to non-residents outside of cases where their acts are committed on TNP property - having a (unused) forum account does not a resident make, much less no forum account at all.

Lord Dominator:

Also, I feel as if obscene materials as such aren’t really our jurisdiction. Perhaps it’d be an idea to more or less combine parts of those things & note the respective alternatives that would ideally be pursued as appropriate before trials of non-residents.

Click to expand...

This is what I intended to say with the paragraph about it being better handled administratively. If it's not clear then I'd take another stab at it, or if you can, please suggest changes to improve it. I want to make the division of labour clear, and to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. TNP claiming jurisdiction, and the Court being the correct avenue, are not necessarily the same, after all. Ditto for the VD security check.

Lord Dominator:

More generally, I’m leery of extending criminal jurisdiction to non-residents outside of cases where their acts are committed on TNP property - having a (unused) forum account does not a resident make, much less no forum account at all.

Click to expand...

This is fair. My reasoning goes that if someone is provably a part of a crime committed under TNP jurisdiction, and we intend to try the person who was a resident, then the non-residents can also be tried, even if they never set foot on TNP spil (never joined the Discord, never accessed the forum, etc.). That way, if a group tries to spy on us, and we can get enough information to prove it, we as the Court can convict both the persons who committed the espionage, and the persons who organised it or received the information. If that's not how you read it then the paragraph needs to be cleared up. If it's still a wider claim than you think is reasonable, would you want it deleted to sign on?

Attempted Socialism:

This is what I intended to say with the paragraph about it being better handled administratively. If it's not clear then I'd take another stab at it, or if you can, please suggest changes to improve it. I want to make the division of labour clear, and to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. TNP claiming jurisdiction, and the Court being the correct avenue, are not necessarily the same, after all. Ditto for the VD security check.

This is fair. My reasoning goes that if someone is provably a part of a crime committed under TNP jurisdiction, and we intend to try the person who was a resident, then the non-residents can also be tried, even if they never set foot on TNP spil (never joined the Discord, never accessed the forum, etc.). That way, if a group tries to spy on us, and we can get enough information to prove it, we as the Court can convict both the persons who committed the espionage, and the persons who organised it or received the information. If that's not how you read it then the paragraph needs to be cleared up. If it's still a wider claim than you think is reasonable, would you want it deleted to sign on?

Click to expand...

The first bit is purely wording naturally - I think a more generic wording on the admin part + adding VD/etc note would do it.

On the second, I would prefer that at least at present crimes by non-residents not on TNP property remain not crimes in the sense that the VD/security apparatus exist to handle them. To use an example - if someone commits treason by our definition against Europeia, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say we have any jurisdiction as a Court system over it, rather by intent of the law I think it’s clear that the VD would just make a note to deny them if they did try and come here (varying on circumstances and such).

Edit: That is to say, while I see your point on conspiracies with external members, I do rather think that that is what we have the VD/etc for, rather than criminal trials per-se. (Also more generally, I don’t think there’s any actual argument to be made for them being a resident at that point).

Lord Dominator:

The first bit is purely wording naturally - I think a more generic wording on the admin part + adding VD/etc note would do it.

Click to expand...

I'll see what I can do, though probably not before the weekend. If you or St George have time, please suggest ways to rephrase it -- here or as comments on my drive, whichever suits you.

Lord Dominator:

On the second, I would prefer that at least at present crimes by non-residents not on TNP property remain not crimes in the sense that the VD/security apparatus exist to handle them. To use an example - if someone commits treason by our definition against Europeia, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say we have any jurisdiction as a Court system over it, rather by intent of the law I think it’s clear that the VD would just make a note to deny them if they did try and come here (varying on circumstances and such).

Edit: That is to say, while I see your point on conspiracies with external members, I do rather think that that is what we have the VD/etc for, rather than criminal trials per-se. (Also more generally, I don’t think there’s any actual argument to be made for them being a resident at that point).

Click to expand...

Maybe we're talking past each other, because I don't see how the Europeia example is applicable. If someone who's not a resident of TNP commits treason against Europeia, there's no reason for TNP to get involved, and I don't think the current wording should indicate a claim to jurisdiction over such a case. If that's in doubt, then I have made an error in how I phrased it.
What I do think we should be able to claim jurisdiction over (That doesn't necessarily mean the Court, instead it means where the region TNP asserts a right to enforce TNP laws, doesn't matter if it's an admin, the delegate, the speaker, or the court) are cases where people engage in acts against TNP that are clearly attacks on TNP. Such as the recipient in my espionage example, or if someone assisted another trying to DDoS our forum/Discord, etc. I'm not sure the Court is the best avenue in each of these instances either (Drawing a distinction between IC and OOC acts), but if someone is banned administratively, denied by the VD for security reasons, or indeed indicted in a court case, over something like that, I don't want them to be able to point to our ruling and say that, technically, they didn't commit a crime since, when the attack happened, they didn't have a nation in the region, didn't access the forum, etc.

If I'm mistaken and we're not talking past each other then I am willing to delete it for a unanimous ruling, I just want to be clear on where the disagreement is before I delete anymore.

Attempted Socialism:

I'll see what I can do, though probably not before the weekend. If you or St George have time, please suggest ways to rephrase it -- here or as comments on my drive, whichever suits you.


Maybe we're talking past each other, because I don't see how the Europeia example is applicable. If someone who's not a resident of TNP commits treason against Europeia, there's no reason for TNP to get involved, and I don't think the current wording should indicate a claim to jurisdiction over such a case. If that's in doubt, then I have made an error in how I phrased it.
What I do think we should be able to claim jurisdiction over (That doesn't necessarily mean the Court, instead it means where the region TNP asserts a right to enforce TNP laws, doesn't matter if it's an admin, the delegate, the speaker, or the court) are cases where people engage in acts against TNP that are clearly attacks on TNP. Such as the recipient in my espionage example, or if someone assisted another trying to DDoS our forum/Discord, etc. I'm not sure the Court is the best avenue in each of these instances either (Drawing a distinction between IC and OOC acts), but if someone is banned administratively, denied by the VD for security reasons, or indeed indicted in a court case, over something like that, I don't want them to be able to point to our ruling and say that, technically, they didn't commit a crime since, when the attack happened, they didn't have a nation in the region, didn't access the forum, etc.

If I'm mistaken and we're not talking past each other then I am willing to delete it for a unanimous ruling, I just want to be clear on where the disagreement is before I delete anymore.

Click to expand...

For clarity, I meant the Europeia example as an instance where our laws (on Treason, which can apply to attacks on other regions with treaties) would work out as I followed your proposal. I do see your point about "well actuallys" on whether they committed a crime without any presence, I just don't think it is something we need to worry about (nor given the language on resident in the Criminal Code opening on the LC can we I think). That it, I think my example may have been poorly chosen, but I don't think we should assert any jurisdiction/what have you when it doesn't involve our residents/citizens or happen on our stuff.

In terms of editing, I would suggest the removal of the "specific crimes" bit for unanimous.
As a suggestion for the prior bit on wording:

"Acts that can be considered crimes but which are better handled by forum administration or the Vice Delegate & security apparatus do fall under the aegis of The North Pacific, but the Court suggests the Government or citizens not press charges in cases where those acts would be better dealt with by those bodies."

That is - a short way to remind everyone that we have extant procedures in law for dealing with RMB spam, or obscene material or what have you, and while they may be crimes it is probably better for them to be dealt with that way.

As a note, the LC bit I refer to is "
"1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code."

So I would also suggest the removal of the "regardless of residency" bit, since we have rather clear lines on that (and really we're arguing that participation on the forum/discord counts as residency for criminal purposes)

I'm not sober enough to implement your suggestions right now, but I will do so when I am.

I implemented LD's suggestions as promised. Please do a last check and confirm that it is as we agreed and whether you sign on.




The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Vivanco.


The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Vivanco.

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 4. The Court


1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.

2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.

(...)

5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:

Chapter 5: Precedent and Appeals


Section 1: Precedent

1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of prior rulings:

On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code

Click to expand...

On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers.

Click to expand...

On the Validity of a Previous Ruling.

Click to expand...

On Court Review of RA Proposals.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

This ruling is in reply to the Request for Review by Vivanco. It will proceed in 5 sections. In Section 1 the petitioner’s standing and regional interest will be noted. In Section 2 the ability of the Court to review prior rulings will be outlined. In Section 3 the Court will analyse the prior ruling and highlight two points of contention. In Section 4 the Court will resolve the ambiguity found in the analysis. In Section 5 the Court will revise the prior ruling. Sections 2 and 3 are to be considered statements of fact. Sections 4 and 5 are the Court’s Holding in the case.


Section 1: Standing and regional interest


Standing

Petitioner Vivanco is duly appointed Court Examiner in accordance with Section 3.6 of the Legal Code. They have universal standing in all cases of Judicial Review. As such the petitioner has standing.


Regional interest

The question before the Court is one of jurisdiction; the applicability of the collection of laws, rights, and duties that The North Pacific has duly ratified and imposed. There can be no doubt that the topic has regional interest. As a prior ruling establishes a precedent, the Court finds itself under a heightened standard of review. Therefore the Court recognises that regional interest is not enough, but it has to establish its own jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn the prior ruling, and the Court has to explain itself fully if it desires to revise or overturn precedent.

The Court finds that it does so in Sections 2 and 3.


Section 2: The Court’s ability to review prior rulings

The Request for Review targets a prior ruling by the Court, asking the Court to review whether the ruling stands as precedent or shall be overturned. In past cases the Court has placed emphasis on precedent, and with good reason. Those rulings have the same prescriptive force as a law, and instructs Government officials in their behaviour. To cite precedent on the matter, the Court turns to its prior ruling On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers:

(...) 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 law must be allowed to evolve to match society, and conclusively binding decisions carry with them the potential to greatly restrict the ability of the law, and the Court, to adjust with the times.

The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (...) furthermore [we] 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.

In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

The Court does not need to find a prior ruling unconstitutional or unlawful to overturn it. The Court, through deliberate review as requested by a person with standing, can find that a prior ruling is in conflict with fundamental principles of justice or the societal norms of The North Pacific as they have evolved since that ruling.

The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn, the challenged ruling with the caveats cited above.


Section 3: Analysis of the prior ruling

The Court finds two points of contention with On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. Firstly, while one reading is clearly intended, there is enough possible ambiguity to force through a reading giving the opposite result, and secondly, the ruling does not sufficiently delineate the jurisdiction of The North Pacific to offer justice and protection to the lawful residents of The North Pacific.

The intended meaning of the ruling is quite clear. The first sentence is that “any nation may be prosecuted for crimes other than treason”, which in context is meant to say that former residents can be prosecuted in absentia for crimes committed while residents. This is reinforced by the later line “they may be tired [sic] even if their nation no longer resides in The North Pacific”. However, if one chooses so, they may read an almost limitless claim to jurisdiction into the ruling by focusing on “any nation may be prosecuted” and in the later line the “expected of committing a crime in The North Pacific”. This sort of ambiguity is explicitly what the Court is mandated to resolve by the Constitution.

While resolving ambiguity is worthwhile on its own, the intended meaning is not without flaws. The prior ruling is explicit in dealing with current residents or former residents who are on trial for alleged crimes committed while residents, but that is not in keeping with the social fabric as it has developed. The North Pacific res publica is not limited to the region proper, but also extends to the Forum and the Discord. A person could join The North Pacific’s Forum or Discord without having a nation reside in the region with the explicit intention of committing crimes, or make sure to leave the region prior to committing a crime. Under the ruling as it stands, the Court would not have jurisdiction to try that person.

The Court finds that the points of contention are causes for concern, and sufficient to justify revisiting the precedent set in the ruling. The Court also finds that either point of contention would be enough to live up to the heightened standard of review set by On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers.


Section 4: Resolving ambiguity

The challenged ruling is disambiguated here by the Court holding that the former reading, presented in the analysis, is the correct one. There shall be no doubt that the jurisdiction demarcated by the ruling, prior to this review, was limited to residents of The North Pacific and those nations whose alleged crimes were committed while residents of The North Pacific. The Court did not make extensive claims to jurisdiction in all imaginable future cases where a breach of Legal Code could be expected.


Section 5: Revising jurisdictional claims

The Court furthermore revises its prior ruling to develop a more substantive and workable set of jurisdictional claims. Those claims will be developed here with the necessary clarification. If a former resident or non-resident is alleged to have committed a criminal act and is indicted for it, but does not accept the indictment and trial, they can be tried in absentia in accordance with the ordinary regulations for a trial.


Residents of The North Pacific

Adopted from the challenged ruling, and as stipulated by both the Constitution and the Legal Code, residents of The North Pacific fall under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific.


Former residents

Adopted from the challenged ruling, former residents can be tried for crimes they are alleged to have committed while residents of The North Pacific.


Crimes committed on North Pacific soil

The North Pacific claims jurisdiction over crimes committed against residents or the region, as stipulated by the Criminal Code, in cases where that crime happened on North Pacific soil. Soil is here understood to be the equivalent to the physical territory of the region, which is at minimum the Region – including World Factbook Entry, regional Dispatches, and the Regional Message Board – the Forum, and the regional communication platform(s) – currently the collection of The North Pacific’s Discord servers.

Acts that can be considered crimes but which are better handled by forum administration or Vice Delegate and security apparatus do fall under the aegis of The North Pacific, but the Court suggests the Government or citizens not press charges in cases where those acts would be better dealt with by those bodies.

All good from my end. Signing on.

@Lord Dominator ?

All good, I would just suggest the prior ruling about Discord logs, since that’s a bit of the basis for Discord/etc being included ultimately, be added to the intro bit eith the others

I'm contemplating this concurrence with the ruling. If you want to sign on please say so, otherwise I will post it as soon as possible, since I don't want it to interfere with the coming election.

Concurrence with the Court ruling

It is unusual to draft a ruling and subsequently concur with your own opinion, and it is ideal for the Court to speak with one voice when able. However, the process of drafting the ruling has convinced me that there is a ruling that is correct – the one the Court issued – and a ruling that I think had been better, but impossible, as it is outside of the Court’s power. This concurrence is therefore intended as a clarion call to the Regional Assembly on the need for further legislation.

In Section 3 the Court notes that, prior to this ruling, someone without a nation in the region could have committed an act on the Forum or Discord that a resident could be tried for, but being a non-resident, the bad actor could not. This has been rectified by the Court.
However, the Court was limited by the Constitution and Legal Code in asserting The North Pacific’s jurisdiction over North Pacific soil. Acts committed outside of North Pacific soil, by non-residents or people who were not residents at the time, are outside the jurisdiction of The North Pacific. What does that mean?

We have several crimes that are effectively or necessarily committed against the region, but do not need residency to commit and do not always happen on North Pacific soil. As an example, take the crime of Espionage. If someone commits espionage, they are sharing privileged information with people without legitimate sanction by the Government. However, merely retaining information is not a crime. An industrious would-be spy could seek high office, access privileged information, retain it, leave the region, and only then share it. The crime, sharing information, happens outside the region, and is done by a person who is not a resident and was not a resident when the crime was committed. Can such a person be prosecuted? No, since such a prosecution would require claimed jurisdiction over crimes committed against the region, not just on crimes committed on North Pacific soil.
Several other crimes are likewise possible to commit for non-residents, or in a conspiracy between residents and non-residents. So why did the Court not extend The North Pacific’s jurisdiction to also include crimes committed against the region? For the simple reason that such a claim had no firm foundation in our laws. The Court cannot rewrite the Legal Code, but the Regional Assembly can.
It is also worth noting that while the Court finds that it has the power to overturn, revise, or uphold the ruling it made, that does not mean a ruling by the Court is entirely without its own problems. Topics as weighty and challenging as jurisdiction are ideally settled by law, drafted, voted on, and ratified, rather than legislating from the bench. It is thus my opinion that it would be proper for interested citizens to draft legislation on jurisdiction to be submitted to the Regional Assembly, though I humbly suggest taking the Court’s opinion, analysis, and revision to The North Pacific’s jurisdiction as a basis for new legislation.

As the Court notes, some acts may be crimes, but are better handled elsewhere. This can also be argued for the issues highlighted here: A spy can be denied citizenship by the Vice Delegate for security reasons, for instance. Yes, that is true, and some may believe that is enough. This concurrence only seeks to point out the potential problem to the Regional Assembly – what to do next is up to the citizens.

Click to expand...

I would caution against issuing any kind of concurrence with a ruling you, as you say, drafted. It comes across as using court rulings as a glorified blog.

If you must say it, then say it in your election thread as you seek re-election or literally anywhere else. The Agora perhaps.

I will not joining this concurrence.

^

Fair point, I don't want to risk it coming across as a misuse of Court rulings.