- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Attempted_Socialism
- Discord
- Kim Philby#9330
March 14, 2022
[00:16]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court the first order of business has been completed, as you may have noticed.
I couldn’t help but notice there was talk of a potential r4r floating around. Would be silly for us not to take note of it. But since it’s coming up, seems like a good opportunity to touch base about how the Court handles r4rs. We had a bit of criticism not too long ago because the Court as a whole decided to discuss whether one should be accepted and denied it as a group instead of as the moderating justice alone. But as you can see, it’s long been common for the Court to discuss the matter as a whole when r4rs actually get accepted, and we’ve even seen split opinions. Hard to imagine that if there’s a hard line about the other two members of the Court not being able to touch the matter at all. Thoughts?
[00:23]Kronos: Let me look for something, I have an opinion of sorts but I need to fact check first.
[00:39]Kronos: Ok for court involvement in r4rs I understand the criticism given but only half of it has merit in my perspective. Looking at the rules and procedures there doesn't seem to be a bar on Justices discussing r4rs as a group, so that half of the argument does not apply. When it comes to accepting or denying r4rs as a group in my perspective doing such doesn't seem to be within the court's rules. Chapter 2 provision 2 uses Justice in the singular when talking about accepting and denying r4rs, so if the Court is to accept or deny one then only one Justice should do it since the one Justice is who becomes Moderating Justice.
Discussing the matter as a whole after the r4r is accepted sounds just fine to me because the custom of the court rulings is that the opinion is drafted by all three Justices.
[01:15]Sil Dorsett: Which R4R are you talking about?
[01:24]Sil Dorsett: Also, I think the rules save us in this situation. It's pretty clear that any of us can deny an R4R, and then it's on the petitioner to appeal that call to the court at-large. I think a lot of the pressure that resulted in past courts deliberating on acceptance comes from cases where someone does accept an R4R and those in the peanut gallery get all up in arms because they think it's something we shouldn't be reviewing.
[01:26]Sil Dorsett: There is no procedure for discarding an already accepted R4R. Once it's accepted, it's up to others to file briefs to explain why the court shouldn't have taken it, but it still generates the end result of a precedent-setting ruling.
[01:29]Sil Dorsett: So basically, it's a safer option to deny the R4R if you aren't sure the criteria for standing has been met and let the petitioner appeal that. If you're going to accept it, you need to be sure you're right in accepting it, and I think it's that pressure that leads to preemptive discussion.
[01:38]Sil Dorsett: Also, if they're about to test a law because they see an ambiguity and they want to know how we would rule on said ambiguity, why wouldn't they just fix the law in question so that there is no ambiguity?
[02:03]Kronos: They may do that to get the court's interpretation so they can gain insight on how best to fix it. Since r4rs review government policy or law they could believe that the court has a duty to clear ambiguities.
It would come down to the standing of the petitioner in which I agree that it's safer to deny if you aren't sure the criteria are met especially since once that precedent is set we're bound to it.
[02:37]Pallaith, King of the North: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194883/ is what I was thinking of, however I may have misremembered, it may have been this one: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194471/
[R4R] The Limits of the VD’s Security Evaluation
[R4R] Citizenship admin checks
[02:38]Pallaith, King of the North: Pete even says in there that one of the justices would have accepted it. That seems highly irregular
[02:38]Pallaith, King of the North: He basically treated the denial like an official opinion with an indication of votes and what not
March 16, 2022.
[06:44]Pallaith, King of the North: My fellow justices, I’ve been kicking around that idea of doing stuff with clerks. I do want there to be a way for people to gain experience and exposure to the court without having to be justices. I have worried that they may end up in the same boat as the Speaker’s staff, with little to do most of the time. But obviously even worse since we often have nothing to do. Is there a feasible way for us to come up with something like this?
[06:46]Pallaith, King of the North: On another note, over the last year, the Court has looked at ways to update and improve our record or court rulings. I think we ought to look at this again. We used to have an index that linked directly to each decision in the opening post. We don’t have that anymore with this forum. I’m not married to having this on the forum at all - I’m open to having a link to an external source like our citizenship roster. But if we can make the forum work, I think that’s obviously got to be a consideration
[18:41]Sil Dorsett: I wonder if admin could implement anchor links and we could rebuild the TOC. Something like this:
xenforo.com
XF 2.0 - How do I make an anchor link bbcode?
[18:57]Kronos: When I think of a generic clerk I think of someone who helps with administrative tasks so clerks could help with any administrative things to gain experience inside the court at the very least without going too above and beyond the role. Other than that I'm not coming up with much because as it has been said the court does not do much usually so there would not be much to do.
An archive/index with anchors sounds cool!
March 29, 2022
[00:50]Pallaith, King of the North: Dreadton was working on something previously, should be linked somewhere in this channel, could be worth taking a look at it first
[00:51]Pallaith, King of the North: I’d like us to try to pick at that project a bit, get some headway with it
March 30, 2022.
[06:23]Pallaith, King of the North: So I guess there’s this thing being planned to feature the legal officials from various regions. I thought it was related to Europeia’s upcoming state visit but apparently it is a separate thing
[06:24]Pallaith, King of the North: It would be cool if we participated. Not sure on any specifics at the moment
[06:26]Kronos: That sounds fun!
April 12, 2022
[06:18]Pallaith, King of the North: how do we feel about simply making a single post for every ruling? that way you can have an OP that links to the specific rulings, because each has its own post ID?
[06:36]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court
[07:14]Kronos: Yeah! That sounds easier since we already have the tools to do it.
April 17, 2022
[07:44]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court look what we got here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195757/
R4R
[07:48]Kronos: You know I was hoping with the passage of time they’d chill and let it go
[07:49]Kronos: But it looks like fun!
[07:50]Pallaith, King of the North: first thing we do is determine if the submitted form is correct
[07:50]Pallaith, King of the North: looks at first blush to me like it is
[07:51]Pallaith, King of the North: then we determine if the applicant has standing - looks like he does; then we determine if the thing he is challenging fits the definition of what he can challenge - looks like it does
[07:51]Pallaith, King of the North: if all of that is met, it can be accepted
[07:51]Pallaith, King of the North: whoever accepts it becomes the moderating justice for it
[08:07]Kronos: Do we have to take number 5 into account about regional interest?
[08:11]Pallaith, King of the North: that's if they don't have standing
[08:12]Kronos: Ah ok!
[17:41]Sil Dorsett: When we contact respondents, do we do that by telegram and forum PM?
[19:05]Pallaith, King of the North: I don’t think it specifies
[19:08]Pallaith, King of the North: It seemed like @Kronos had expressed an interest in accepting this r4r but was having doubts about accepting?
[19:09]Pallaith, King of the North: Certainly if another justice did have an interest in moving forward I would be willing to let him accept it. At the very least a post should be made indicating a decision is forthcoming
[19:11]Kronos: I’m mostly having doubts from the way forum timing works everything else I’m fine with.
[19:11]Pallaith, King of the North: Like how to code a post?
[19:12]Kronos: Like the briefing period is 5 days long but which time zone would I go off of to count that?
[19:14]Pallaith, King of the North: Don’t overthink it. Just say five days
[19:14]Pallaith, King of the North: Follow the example of the other r4r threads
[19:14]Pallaith, King of the North: We don’t have to be super exact
[19:15]Kronos: I read the other case threads most of em had exact times and that’s when I went uh oh
[19:15]Kronos: But just saying five days works just as well haha
[19:15]Pallaith, King of the North: Did they?
[19:15]Pallaith, King of the North: We didn’t always have the code stuff
[19:16]Pallaith, King of the North: @Sil Dorsett can you advise on the timing code thing
[19:16]Pallaith, King of the North: I hate for that to hold things up
[19:18]Kronos: I was just looking to follow how it’s been done the procedures don’t say how detailed we have to be just that the normal brief time is 5 days but the moderating justice has the discretion to change the period of time.
[19:18]Pallaith, King of the North: Mhmm
[19:18]Pallaith, King of the North: I appreciate you trying to be consistent with past posts
[19:19]Kronos: Yeah I tried lol
[19:26]Kronos: Since we don’t have to be super exact with laying out the time I think we can proceed
[19:29]Sil Dorsett: I was planning on accepting it myself, but if you do want to accept it and become moderating justice, the way the time code works is (time=1650649500), where that number is a unix timestamp. You can find those here: https://www.epochconverter.com/
Epoch Converter
[19:32]Sil Dorsett: @Kronos were you going to go for it, then?
[19:34]Kronos: I was thinking of accepting it yeah
[19:36]Sil Dorsett: Go for it then. Say something like
This request for review is accepted. The period for submitting briefs is now open and shall remain open for five days, closing on (time=1650650400).
[19:37]Sil Dorsett: and that timestamp is Friday at 6:00 PM GMT (2:00 PM eastern time)
[19:41]Kronos: okie I'll go do that now. I also have to list the respondents is there a precedent for doing that or does the court usually send them something through discord?
[19:41]Sil Dorsett: That's what I was asking about before. You could probably send Madjack and Kastonvia telegrams and forum PMs to cover that.
[19:45]Sil Dorsett: I did change the stamp to give another 15 minutes. Or you could just say 5 days. It's not a big deal. It's not like election voting periods where they have to be exactly 120 hours long.
[19:45]Kronos: I'll use 5 days for now while I learn how to use the stamps I've never seen this be used anywhere before lol
[19:46]Sil Dorsett: It's a custom feature of our forum.
[19:47]Sil Dorsett: There's javascript that runs when the page loads and converts (time=...) into actual times according to the user preferences.
[19:47]Kronos: That is so cool!
[19:49]Pallaith, King of the North: Sorry Sil, I hadn’t heard anything from you didn’t mean to step on your toes
[19:49]Pallaith, King of the North: The fact is any of the three of us would have accepted this
[19:49]Sil Dorsett: Oh, no, it's fine.
[19:50]Sil Dorsett: I figured "I'm not doing anything about this until I get back from church."
[19:51]Sil Dorsett: We all have lives. I was up late doing work, then sleep, then church.
[19:52]Pallaith, King of the North: Past justices have included a line in their post about whether the petitioner wants to request the recusal of any justices. I told Kronos when he asked me about this that it’s essentially a courtesy on the part of the Court reminding the petitioner of that option, but it’s not required when responding to the r4r
[19:56]Kronos: Acceptance has been posted, I'll notify the respondents now.
[19:57]Pallaith, King of the North: Thanks Kronos
[19:57]Kronos: sure thing!
[20:03]Sil Dorsett: I am not surprised Zyvet was ready to go with a brief.
[20:06]Kronos: Did they have it saved beforehand? That was wicked fast!
[20:08]Sil Dorsett: Zyvet lives for this stuff.
[20:08]Kronos: I saw they were a justice before their opinions are very detailed I liked it
[20:15]Pallaith, King of the North: He was a Chief Justice and got to write several opinions, lucky guy
[20:20]Pallaith, King of the North: The problem with citing the sedition ruling is that it’s explicitly about political speech related to TNP, which the law very clearly is strict about. The petitioner in this case is not speaking in such terms. I have always had a problem with clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. Am I supposed to understand that an IC government is extending protections for OOC matters, things that have absolutely no relation to the game we’re playing?
[20:20]Pallaith, King of the North: It seems almost off topic compared to the rest of the document
[20:21]Pallaith, King of the North: I can understand all three of those things in an IC context
[20:22]Pallaith, King of the North: Anyway those are some initial thoughts I have on it
[20:22]Sil Dorsett: @Kronos Just a side note, you don't want to actually edit posts made in a court thread. If something has changed, make a new post.
[20:23]Pallaith, King of the North: It’s also relevant how much of a burden suppression is, but it seems like a cute point more than anything because it obviously sends a message and it’s in the name: suppression
[20:23]Pallaith, King of the North: What was edited?
[20:23]Sil Dorsett: Just a note that respondents were notified.
[20:23]Sil Dorsett: It was harmless, but you know there will be people crying foul.
[20:24]Pallaith, King of the North: Ah yes. We got to be extra careful with Court business
[20:25]Kronos: Separate posts alrighty got it thanks!
April 19, 2022
[18:51]Sil Dorsett: I assume that our deliberations would take place in a thread on this subforum?
[18:55]Sil Dorsett: We should give this a proper title, like... "On Free Speech and Moderation Abilities of Regional Officers", or "On Free Speech and Post Suppression on the Regional Message Board", or something like that...
[18:56]Pallaith, King of the North: Does the moderating justice typically start the thread? I’d check but I’m at work
[18:56]Pallaith, King of the North: But yes there should be an official thread
[18:59]Sil Dorsett: I don't think it necessarily needs to be the moderating justice that opens the thread. In fact, I see examples where deliberating who the moderating justice would be started in such a thread.
[19:01]Kronos: I can start a thread for deliberations, do we need the ruling template yet or will that come later?
[19:03]Sil Dorsett: That'll come later. Just need the thread open so we can post our thoughts. Supposed to do that there rather than here, it seems.
[19:04]Kronos: Okay I will open one
[19:08]Kronos: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195759/
There it is!
April 20, 2022
[00:29]Sil Dorsett: I don't get why we're getting so many "I join X's brief..." messages. There's really no point to them. The amount of support a brief has should have no influence on whether we think it's correct or not.
[00:29]Sil Dorsett: It's not a vote.
[00:47]Pallaith, King of the North: Someone did it and people followed suit because they wanted to echo support
[00:47]Pallaith, King of the North: You’re right that they don’t actually count when we’re considering briefs
[04:45]Kronos: Full agree, though it is fun to keep count haha
[20:16]Kronos: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6989211/post-10491278
look at what came in the mail today frends
This indictment is under consideration.
[23:03]Pallaith, King of the North: What did I say
[23:03]Pallaith, King of the North: It’s been dropped
[23:15]Kronos: The Force is strong with you
April 23, 2022
[05:43]Pallaith, King of the North: @Sil Dorsett I do have thoughts on what you posted but they will take some time and I don’t want to write it up on my phone
April 27, 2022.
[20:10]Pallaith, King of the North: Can’t wait to hear your respective takes on the draft opinion @Court
[20:11]Pallaith, King of the North: I hope to iron it out tonight because it’s basically there. But since we’re so close I figured it wouldn’t hurt to start digging into it and polishing it up now anyway
[20:12]Pallaith, King of the North: I don’t imagine the remaining content will change what’s already there as far as the basic arguments
[20:13]Pallaith, King of the North: On an unrelated note, while digging through old rulings, and starting to think about how I would reorganize the records, I detected a few discrepancies
[20:13]Pallaith, King of the North: There’s a few rulings that have been overruled in whole or in part which are not indicated as such in the current record
[20:14]Pallaith, King of the North: And there’s at least one missing case (!) that I don’t see in our archive. We have the r4r on how a prior case was decided but that case itself is not in the archive. Sure, it was overruled, but it should still be in the record
[20:23]Kronos: sounds like administrative oofs
[20:44]Pallaith, King of the North: Makes me wonder how many other rulings may be missing
[20:44]Pallaith, King of the North: Now instead of just posting these decisions in a new thread, we’ll have to comb through old archives to see if any got missed in the record
[20:45]Kronos: Time is of the essence then?
[21:10]Pallaith, King of the North: No. This project doesn’t have a timer on it. I just thought it would be one sitting of copying posts to a new thread and posting said thread in our Court section. Now before the thread is made I want to double check that we actually do have every court ruling in that list. The combing process will take longer but it’s still a relatively straightforward process I think
[21:11]Pallaith, King of the North: The judicial term has over two more months left so there’s plenty of time for that
[21:11]Pallaith, King of the North: so it may not be ME who ends up doing that work
[21:13]Kronos: That's what I was indirectly referring to; get done what you can before you can't lol
[22:33]Pallaith, King of the North: I mean if you guys want to help me by seeing if any decisions are missing and point them out to me, I can code them and add them to the thread
April 28, 2022
[01:15]Sil Dorsett: I doubt I'll be of much use to polish the ruling tonight, but I did find a breakthrough. Left a comment in the thread.
[03:55]Pallaith, King of the North: Oh wow I see what you mean. Yes that’s going to tie it all together super nicely
April 29, 2022
[04:31]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court we have a complete draft opinion I hope you have a chance to look it over and share your thoughts
[08:37]Pallaith, King of the North: I have discovered that you did. No idea how I missed those posts earlier sorry
[18:09]Kronos: Silly ghost
[18:13]Kronos: I know the ruling is already drafted and confirmed by the court to be acceptable, but should we take the time before posting it to see if Dreadton’s screenshot of a GHR response fits? I think we already covered that sort of thing in the extralegal section but just wanted to touch base.
[18:28]Pallaith, King of the North: I wanted to do another sweep of the ruling before having you post it anyway, so I’ll see if I can’t work it in. We actually cited the thing Sil found which covers much of the same ground, but this is a more current statement that addresses actionable posts in particular so it’s worth incorporating it I think
[18:30]Kronos: Alrighty!
April 30, 2022
[04:48]Sil Dorsett: I nitpicked your recent draft.
[05:41]Pallaith, King of the North: I responded. Last call? @Court
[06:07]Sil Dorsett: Nothing else here.
[06:11]Kronos: I'm still good with it!
May 1, 2022
[01:07]Pallaith, King of the North: So I’ve done a review (and thanks to Kronos for your help with this), and thankfully the past rulings archive isn’t missing a ton of cases. It’s missing two and it’s the nesting r4r cases
[01:07]Pallaith, King of the North: As Sil knows, we just discovered that the original r4r that started it all has been deleted from the forum
[01:09]Pallaith, King of the North: Now we do have the ruling that was made in response to that r4r, and I’m assuming that part of the reason it’s not on the list is because it was immediately overturned. But we still got to put it on the list, and I will. Unless we can miraculously recover that first thread though, I’m going to have to just put some note in there about how it’s lost to time. And what a shame that the Court at the time didn’t make a thread for their discussion of that case, because at least maybe I would be able to post the ruling. Alas
[01:11]Pallaith, King of the North: I note there is a ruling that was done to officially overturn an old ruling that subsequent changes in law rendered obsolete. I don’t know if that means we should take it upon ourselves to unofficially overrule old rulings, we probably shouldn’t just apply the cross out on them
[01:15]Pallaith, King of the North: But when the Court has overruled an old decision, I think that should be properly noted on the record. And I saw a few that should have been crossed out but still aren’t so I’ll be doing that. The plan is not to use the old archive thread anymore. I’ll be renaming in to reflect this fact, and we’ll use a new thread in our court forum, pinned of course. Somewhere more visible and a thread with an OP that actually links to the decisions and doesn’t stack a bunch of them in the same posts
[04:51]Kronos: Happy to help! I’m glad you found where the inconsistencies were they were bugging you for a hot minute
May 6, 2022
[18:43]Sil Dorsett: I'm not sure if an R4R is going to come out of my conversation with Dreadton about whether an election commissioner that declares candidacy and then withdraws is no longer considered absent for that election, but if one does come about, I will obviously be recusing myself.
[18:54]Pallaith, King of the North: …do we seriously need an r4r for that?
[18:56]Sil Dorsett: Personally I don't think so, but the question has come up a few times...
[23:55]Pallaith, King of the North: Well shucks
[23:56]Pallaith, King of the North: I feel bad griping about the Court hearing this stuff, because when there’s a doubt the Court does have to resolve it. But I feel like the answer is…kind of obvious here
[23:57]Pallaith, King of the North: I guess I’ll dive deeper a little later when the discussion starts. I imagine this will be rather quick to resolve, which is good because we want it to be quick
May 7, 2022
[00:24]Kronos: Yes!
[12:50]Pallaith, King of the North: So I actually started the new court rulings index. In the process I learned that in fact, while we lost the original r4r that started the nesting r4rs, there wasn’t actually a ruling on that one, so we don’t have a lost ruling. We did have a ruling that was not in our archive, but I suspect that’s because it was basically instantly overturned. In any case, I will be including it in this version of the archive. I have posted the first 20 rulings to the new index and set up the links on the OP so they take you straight to the ruling you want to see. I’ve also changed the style of the rulings so that we clearly identify the role of all the people in the ruling. THOs are now labeled as such and we will be consistently stating which justices recuse themselves, since that seems to be something older rulings had and was done inconsistently.
I also wanted to note that since we had a recusal in the current r4r, we set up our THO in the special court chamber - in the process admin restored my access to that forum so I was able to finally archive the reject fascism r4r discussion. Going forward I understand admin won’t be disabling access for specific justices - we will rely on recusing justices to stay out of the thread that doesn’t concern them.
May 11, 2022
[10:52]Pallaith, King of the North: So I posted the new rulings index. Made an announcement and an admin request to get it linked in the forum menu. I highlighted the basic new features, I hope it also serves as a guide for future courts as to how to organize and record rulings, including dissents. The thread is locked but should be editable for anyone on the Court, not just the Chief Justice (obviously that can be double checked). I’m very glad we were able to get that one done after all this time, and it should make life much easier for people moving forward.
[10:53]Pallaith, King of the North: If I don’t get a chance to say anything tomorrow, you guys have been great, happy we could sink our teeth into some actual court business, I learned a lot and I got to say, I’m way more attuned to the legal side of TNP now. I enjoyed my time on the Court. Good luck guys in the rest of the term and beyond
[19:12]Kronos: It was great serving with you I definitely learned a lot!
May 12, 2022
[06:36]Sil Dorsett: Thanks for everything, Ghost!
@Kronos, I think we need to... first, choose an interim chief justice, which I think should be you, and second, we need a temporary hearing officer.
[06:48]Kronos: Okay I can be interim.
[06:49]Sil Dorsett: Thoughts on a THO? Maybe see if Tlomz wants to come back until the special election is done?
[06:52]Kronos: Yeah I can ask Tlomz back. This is just for the vacancy right?
[06:54]Sil Dorsett: Yep. Law says "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."
[07:01]Kronos: Alright awesome
[09:35]Kronos: Hmm there is a section above that in the law that says if the Chief Justice position is vacant the remaining justices vote to select a new one I don't think an interim chief justice is possible.
[15:08]Sil Dorsett: Then I guess you have it until July? Or do you not really want that?
[17:57]Kronos: I can have it til July no prob there
[21:00]Kronos: I just heard back from Tlomz he is happy to do THO again
So I will be announcing the Chief and the THO shortly
[21:23]Kronos: Announcement made!
May 13, 2022
[17:45]TlomzKrano: Oh cool this chat exists
[18:24]Kronos: Oh snap you can see!
May 21, 2022.
[18:17]Kronos: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195886/ Alright we have another R4R in the chamber. Anyone feel particularly called to moderate it?
[R4R] On the ability of the Speaker to retract incorrect decisions
[19:10]Sil Dorsett: Let me ask this, are you convinced we should take it?
[19:51]Kronos: Hm yes but no. The petitioner filed the R4R to review whether or not they had legal authority to perform an action, the action being retracting citizenship from an applicant who was given citizenship in error. Part of me feels obligated to answer the question now that it’s before us, but another part doesn’t really see a point to taking it because the answer seems supremely obvious.
[21:06]Sil Dorsett: Because an answer seems obvious isn't really a reason to reject it. I'm looking at it from the position of standing and compelling regional interest. I'm not convinced of standing, but interest based on regional security might be enough, albeit rather marginally.
[21:51]Kronos: Indeed. My phrasing about there being an obvious answer seems like a personal opinion when in reality it's fact. I should've phrased that better.
I definitely agree in regards to regional security being of interest. Regional security is held to the upmost regard here especially in regard to the citizenship process.
I concur on the standing because the petitioner has not shown to be harmed by this action, only that they could be depending on the Court's opinion. However, a government official I believe should be able to bring questions regarding their own actions to the Court. Though they really should know better if they serve in a position bearing heavy legal responsibilities.
May 22, 2022
[00:06]Sil Dorsett: I have the ball rolling now. I did set the briefs time to 2 days instead of 5.
[00:08]Kronos: I would’ve suggested two days also that’s good time.
May 23, 2022
[15:26]TlomzKrano: So
[15:26]TlomzKrano: because voting ended in the special election, but no victor has been announced, am I in for this?
[15:27]TlomzKrano: I fine with it, I was jus curious how that timing worked
[15:45]Kronos: I’ve been thinking about that too my initial take was that you are our THO for the duration of the election and since there is no winner yet there is no one to take the seat yet. But, if Zyvet wins the seat seeing he posted a brief in the r4r then I’m thinking he’d have to recuse himself from the opinion, in which case we’ll need a THO again.
Legally speaking we cannot have a THO appointed officially unless there is an absence or recusal so when a winner is declared we won’t have a THO for a minute or two before possibly needing one again.
Safest way to do that should Zyvet win I’m thinking would be the new justice moves in, we wait for a recusal, then we bring a THO back
[15:57]Sil Dorsett: I wouldn't worry about it too much. @TlomzKrano, you're stuck with us for at least another five days.
[16:00]TlomzKrano: Lmao yeah I just saw the announcement
[16:00]TlomzKrano: Fine by me
May 24, 2022
[04:37]Sil Dorsett: @TlomzKrano Are you able to see the Private Conference Room or do you only see the Special Court Chambers?
[05:38]TlomzKrano: I am yes
[05:38]TlomzKrano: Wait
[05:42]TlomzKrano: I cannot
[05:42]TlomzKrano: I was mistaken
[05:50]Sil Dorsett: Alright. I've opened our discussion thread in the Special Court Chambers then.
May 29, 2022
[05:14]Sil Dorsett: @Kronos You're working on a draft opinion still, right?
[05:15]Kronos: I posted it in Chambers couple hours ago
[05:16]Sil Dorsett: Oh, whoops. Alright, I'll have a look
[05:17]Kronos: Alrighty
May 30, 2022
[18:38]Kronos: @Sil Dorsett With the judicial election finally over do we need to change the location of the discussion thread on the forum?
May 31, 2022
[00:29]Sil Dorsett: Probably?
[03:00]Kronos: Alright I'll move it over
[03:02]Sil Dorsett: I already did.
[03:02]Sil Dorsett: LD should have a look too. Don't think they've been masked on discord yet.
[03:03]Kronos: Yeah they don't have the mask yet they have the forum mask though
[05:46]Lord Dominator: I arrive
[05:47]Lord Dominator: As a point of interest then, I presume you both are alright with me contributing fully despite having been a DS when it started?
[05:47]Lord Dominator: (I have been reading back on the forum portions)
[07:25]Kronos: Yeah I'm alright with that!
[15:23]Sil Dorsett: I'm okay with it since you weren't the DS involved.
[18:07]Lord Dominator:
June 21, 2022
16:18]Kronos: We have another R4R friends! https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9196000/
[R4R] On whenever Status Updates are considered Posts
[17:18]Kronos: Looking at how the case is developing I suggest we drop this. The problem listed in the filing seems already taken care of.
[18:03]Sil Dorsett: I would drop this on the basis of standing. It's Advancia-Sizzletown that should bring it forward. Another case of someone checking their own actions. The only reason I accepted Freg's case was that there was technically an action made by someone else that resulted in consequences that Freg had to live with.
[18:03]Sil Dorsett: If Viv tells Adv to enter the case, I'd take it then. Would be an interesting case. But yeah...
[18:05]Kronos: That's the less restrained thought I had haha
[18:05]Kronos: Another case of checking their own actions, indeed.
[18:06]Kronos: If we get an R4R by Caius before the election we'll have hit the trifecta.
[18:08]Sil Dorsett: Can I do the write up of the rejection? This would be the second time I reject an R4R from Viv.
[18:10]Kronos: Feel free keep the streak going
[19:36]Lord Dominator: Looks good to me, I say after waking up two hours later that I expected
Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ.
[00:16]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court the first order of business has been completed, as you may have noticed.
I couldn’t help but notice there was talk of a potential r4r floating around. Would be silly for us not to take note of it. But since it’s coming up, seems like a good opportunity to touch base about how the Court handles r4rs. We had a bit of criticism not too long ago because the Court as a whole decided to discuss whether one should be accepted and denied it as a group instead of as the moderating justice alone. But as you can see, it’s long been common for the Court to discuss the matter as a whole when r4rs actually get accepted, and we’ve even seen split opinions. Hard to imagine that if there’s a hard line about the other two members of the Court not being able to touch the matter at all. Thoughts?
[00:23]Kronos: Let me look for something, I have an opinion of sorts but I need to fact check first.
[00:39]Kronos: Ok for court involvement in r4rs I understand the criticism given but only half of it has merit in my perspective. Looking at the rules and procedures there doesn't seem to be a bar on Justices discussing r4rs as a group, so that half of the argument does not apply. When it comes to accepting or denying r4rs as a group in my perspective doing such doesn't seem to be within the court's rules. Chapter 2 provision 2 uses Justice in the singular when talking about accepting and denying r4rs, so if the Court is to accept or deny one then only one Justice should do it since the one Justice is who becomes Moderating Justice.
Discussing the matter as a whole after the r4r is accepted sounds just fine to me because the custom of the court rulings is that the opinion is drafted by all three Justices.
[01:15]Sil Dorsett: Which R4R are you talking about?
[01:24]Sil Dorsett: Also, I think the rules save us in this situation. It's pretty clear that any of us can deny an R4R, and then it's on the petitioner to appeal that call to the court at-large. I think a lot of the pressure that resulted in past courts deliberating on acceptance comes from cases where someone does accept an R4R and those in the peanut gallery get all up in arms because they think it's something we shouldn't be reviewing.
[01:26]Sil Dorsett: There is no procedure for discarding an already accepted R4R. Once it's accepted, it's up to others to file briefs to explain why the court shouldn't have taken it, but it still generates the end result of a precedent-setting ruling.
[01:29]Sil Dorsett: So basically, it's a safer option to deny the R4R if you aren't sure the criteria for standing has been met and let the petitioner appeal that. If you're going to accept it, you need to be sure you're right in accepting it, and I think it's that pressure that leads to preemptive discussion.
[01:38]Sil Dorsett: Also, if they're about to test a law because they see an ambiguity and they want to know how we would rule on said ambiguity, why wouldn't they just fix the law in question so that there is no ambiguity?
[02:03]Kronos: They may do that to get the court's interpretation so they can gain insight on how best to fix it. Since r4rs review government policy or law they could believe that the court has a duty to clear ambiguities.
It would come down to the standing of the petitioner in which I agree that it's safer to deny if you aren't sure the criteria are met especially since once that precedent is set we're bound to it.
[02:37]Pallaith, King of the North: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194883/ is what I was thinking of, however I may have misremembered, it may have been this one: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194471/
[R4R] The Limits of the VD’s Security Evaluation
[R4R] Citizenship admin checks
[02:38]Pallaith, King of the North: Pete even says in there that one of the justices would have accepted it. That seems highly irregular
[02:38]Pallaith, King of the North: He basically treated the denial like an official opinion with an indication of votes and what not
March 16, 2022.
[06:44]Pallaith, King of the North: My fellow justices, I’ve been kicking around that idea of doing stuff with clerks. I do want there to be a way for people to gain experience and exposure to the court without having to be justices. I have worried that they may end up in the same boat as the Speaker’s staff, with little to do most of the time. But obviously even worse since we often have nothing to do. Is there a feasible way for us to come up with something like this?
[06:46]Pallaith, King of the North: On another note, over the last year, the Court has looked at ways to update and improve our record or court rulings. I think we ought to look at this again. We used to have an index that linked directly to each decision in the opening post. We don’t have that anymore with this forum. I’m not married to having this on the forum at all - I’m open to having a link to an external source like our citizenship roster. But if we can make the forum work, I think that’s obviously got to be a consideration
[18:41]Sil Dorsett: I wonder if admin could implement anchor links and we could rebuild the TOC. Something like this:
XF 2.0 - How do I make an anchor link bbcode?
Just wondering if there's a guide to making anchor links in bbcode, we have some big posts with a table of contents, anchor links would be great!
xenforo.com
XF 2.0 - How do I make an anchor link bbcode?
[18:57]Kronos: When I think of a generic clerk I think of someone who helps with administrative tasks so clerks could help with any administrative things to gain experience inside the court at the very least without going too above and beyond the role. Other than that I'm not coming up with much because as it has been said the court does not do much usually so there would not be much to do.
An archive/index with anchors sounds cool!
March 29, 2022
[00:50]Pallaith, King of the North: Dreadton was working on something previously, should be linked somewhere in this channel, could be worth taking a look at it first
[00:51]Pallaith, King of the North: I’d like us to try to pick at that project a bit, get some headway with it
March 30, 2022.
[06:23]Pallaith, King of the North: So I guess there’s this thing being planned to feature the legal officials from various regions. I thought it was related to Europeia’s upcoming state visit but apparently it is a separate thing
[06:24]Pallaith, King of the North: It would be cool if we participated. Not sure on any specifics at the moment
[06:26]Kronos: That sounds fun!
April 12, 2022
[06:18]Pallaith, King of the North: how do we feel about simply making a single post for every ruling? that way you can have an OP that links to the specific rulings, because each has its own post ID?
[06:36]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court
[07:14]Kronos: Yeah! That sounds easier since we already have the tools to do it.
April 17, 2022
[07:44]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court look what we got here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195757/
R4R
[07:48]Kronos: You know I was hoping with the passage of time they’d chill and let it go
[07:49]Kronos: But it looks like fun!
[07:50]Pallaith, King of the North: first thing we do is determine if the submitted form is correct
[07:50]Pallaith, King of the North: looks at first blush to me like it is
[07:51]Pallaith, King of the North: then we determine if the applicant has standing - looks like he does; then we determine if the thing he is challenging fits the definition of what he can challenge - looks like it does
[07:51]Pallaith, King of the North: if all of that is met, it can be accepted
[07:51]Pallaith, King of the North: whoever accepts it becomes the moderating justice for it
[08:07]Kronos: Do we have to take number 5 into account about regional interest?
[08:11]Pallaith, King of the North: that's if they don't have standing
[08:12]Kronos: Ah ok!
[17:41]Sil Dorsett: When we contact respondents, do we do that by telegram and forum PM?
[19:05]Pallaith, King of the North: I don’t think it specifies
[19:08]Pallaith, King of the North: It seemed like @Kronos had expressed an interest in accepting this r4r but was having doubts about accepting?
[19:09]Pallaith, King of the North: Certainly if another justice did have an interest in moving forward I would be willing to let him accept it. At the very least a post should be made indicating a decision is forthcoming
[19:11]Kronos: I’m mostly having doubts from the way forum timing works everything else I’m fine with.
[19:11]Pallaith, King of the North: Like how to code a post?
[19:12]Kronos: Like the briefing period is 5 days long but which time zone would I go off of to count that?
[19:14]Pallaith, King of the North: Don’t overthink it. Just say five days
[19:14]Pallaith, King of the North: Follow the example of the other r4r threads
[19:14]Pallaith, King of the North: We don’t have to be super exact
[19:15]Kronos: I read the other case threads most of em had exact times and that’s when I went uh oh
[19:15]Kronos: But just saying five days works just as well haha
[19:15]Pallaith, King of the North: Did they?
[19:15]Pallaith, King of the North: We didn’t always have the code stuff
[19:16]Pallaith, King of the North: @Sil Dorsett can you advise on the timing code thing
[19:16]Pallaith, King of the North: I hate for that to hold things up
[19:18]Kronos: I was just looking to follow how it’s been done the procedures don’t say how detailed we have to be just that the normal brief time is 5 days but the moderating justice has the discretion to change the period of time.
[19:18]Pallaith, King of the North: Mhmm
[19:18]Pallaith, King of the North: I appreciate you trying to be consistent with past posts
[19:19]Kronos: Yeah I tried lol
[19:26]Kronos: Since we don’t have to be super exact with laying out the time I think we can proceed
[19:29]Sil Dorsett: I was planning on accepting it myself, but if you do want to accept it and become moderating justice, the way the time code works is (time=1650649500), where that number is a unix timestamp. You can find those here: https://www.epochconverter.com/
Epoch Converter
[19:32]Sil Dorsett: @Kronos were you going to go for it, then?
[19:34]Kronos: I was thinking of accepting it yeah
[19:36]Sil Dorsett: Go for it then. Say something like
This request for review is accepted. The period for submitting briefs is now open and shall remain open for five days, closing on (time=1650650400).
[19:37]Sil Dorsett: and that timestamp is Friday at 6:00 PM GMT (2:00 PM eastern time)
[19:41]Kronos: okie I'll go do that now. I also have to list the respondents is there a precedent for doing that or does the court usually send them something through discord?
[19:41]Sil Dorsett: That's what I was asking about before. You could probably send Madjack and Kastonvia telegrams and forum PMs to cover that.
[19:45]Sil Dorsett: I did change the stamp to give another 15 minutes. Or you could just say 5 days. It's not a big deal. It's not like election voting periods where they have to be exactly 120 hours long.
[19:45]Kronos: I'll use 5 days for now while I learn how to use the stamps I've never seen this be used anywhere before lol
[19:46]Sil Dorsett: It's a custom feature of our forum.
[19:47]Sil Dorsett: There's javascript that runs when the page loads and converts (time=...) into actual times according to the user preferences.
[19:47]Kronos: That is so cool!
[19:49]Pallaith, King of the North: Sorry Sil, I hadn’t heard anything from you didn’t mean to step on your toes
[19:49]Pallaith, King of the North: The fact is any of the three of us would have accepted this
[19:49]Sil Dorsett: Oh, no, it's fine.
[19:50]Sil Dorsett: I figured "I'm not doing anything about this until I get back from church."
[19:51]Sil Dorsett: We all have lives. I was up late doing work, then sleep, then church.
[19:52]Pallaith, King of the North: Past justices have included a line in their post about whether the petitioner wants to request the recusal of any justices. I told Kronos when he asked me about this that it’s essentially a courtesy on the part of the Court reminding the petitioner of that option, but it’s not required when responding to the r4r
[19:56]Kronos: Acceptance has been posted, I'll notify the respondents now.
[19:57]Pallaith, King of the North: Thanks Kronos
[19:57]Kronos: sure thing!
[20:03]Sil Dorsett: I am not surprised Zyvet was ready to go with a brief.
[20:06]Kronos: Did they have it saved beforehand? That was wicked fast!
[20:08]Sil Dorsett: Zyvet lives for this stuff.
[20:08]Kronos: I saw they were a justice before their opinions are very detailed I liked it
[20:15]Pallaith, King of the North: He was a Chief Justice and got to write several opinions, lucky guy
[20:20]Pallaith, King of the North: The problem with citing the sedition ruling is that it’s explicitly about political speech related to TNP, which the law very clearly is strict about. The petitioner in this case is not speaking in such terms. I have always had a problem with clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. Am I supposed to understand that an IC government is extending protections for OOC matters, things that have absolutely no relation to the game we’re playing?
[20:20]Pallaith, King of the North: It seems almost off topic compared to the rest of the document
[20:21]Pallaith, King of the North: I can understand all three of those things in an IC context
[20:22]Pallaith, King of the North: Anyway those are some initial thoughts I have on it
[20:22]Sil Dorsett: @Kronos Just a side note, you don't want to actually edit posts made in a court thread. If something has changed, make a new post.
[20:23]Pallaith, King of the North: It’s also relevant how much of a burden suppression is, but it seems like a cute point more than anything because it obviously sends a message and it’s in the name: suppression
[20:23]Pallaith, King of the North: What was edited?
[20:23]Sil Dorsett: Just a note that respondents were notified.
[20:23]Sil Dorsett: It was harmless, but you know there will be people crying foul.
[20:24]Pallaith, King of the North: Ah yes. We got to be extra careful with Court business
[20:25]Kronos: Separate posts alrighty got it thanks!
April 19, 2022
[18:51]Sil Dorsett: I assume that our deliberations would take place in a thread on this subforum?
[18:55]Sil Dorsett: We should give this a proper title, like... "On Free Speech and Moderation Abilities of Regional Officers", or "On Free Speech and Post Suppression on the Regional Message Board", or something like that...
[18:56]Pallaith, King of the North: Does the moderating justice typically start the thread? I’d check but I’m at work
[18:56]Pallaith, King of the North: But yes there should be an official thread
[18:59]Sil Dorsett: I don't think it necessarily needs to be the moderating justice that opens the thread. In fact, I see examples where deliberating who the moderating justice would be started in such a thread.
[19:01]Kronos: I can start a thread for deliberations, do we need the ruling template yet or will that come later?
[19:03]Sil Dorsett: That'll come later. Just need the thread open so we can post our thoughts. Supposed to do that there rather than here, it seems.
[19:04]Kronos: Okay I will open one
[19:08]Kronos: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195759/
There it is!
April 20, 2022
[00:29]Sil Dorsett: I don't get why we're getting so many "I join X's brief..." messages. There's really no point to them. The amount of support a brief has should have no influence on whether we think it's correct or not.
[00:29]Sil Dorsett: It's not a vote.
[00:47]Pallaith, King of the North: Someone did it and people followed suit because they wanted to echo support
[00:47]Pallaith, King of the North: You’re right that they don’t actually count when we’re considering briefs
[04:45]Kronos: Full agree, though it is fun to keep count haha
[20:16]Kronos: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6989211/post-10491278
look at what came in the mail today frends
This indictment is under consideration.
[23:03]Pallaith, King of the North: What did I say
[23:03]Pallaith, King of the North: It’s been dropped
[23:15]Kronos: The Force is strong with you
April 23, 2022
[05:43]Pallaith, King of the North: @Sil Dorsett I do have thoughts on what you posted but they will take some time and I don’t want to write it up on my phone
April 27, 2022.
[20:10]Pallaith, King of the North: Can’t wait to hear your respective takes on the draft opinion @Court
[20:11]Pallaith, King of the North: I hope to iron it out tonight because it’s basically there. But since we’re so close I figured it wouldn’t hurt to start digging into it and polishing it up now anyway
[20:12]Pallaith, King of the North: I don’t imagine the remaining content will change what’s already there as far as the basic arguments
[20:13]Pallaith, King of the North: On an unrelated note, while digging through old rulings, and starting to think about how I would reorganize the records, I detected a few discrepancies
[20:13]Pallaith, King of the North: There’s a few rulings that have been overruled in whole or in part which are not indicated as such in the current record
[20:14]Pallaith, King of the North: And there’s at least one missing case (!) that I don’t see in our archive. We have the r4r on how a prior case was decided but that case itself is not in the archive. Sure, it was overruled, but it should still be in the record
[20:23]Kronos: sounds like administrative oofs
[20:44]Pallaith, King of the North: Makes me wonder how many other rulings may be missing
[20:44]Pallaith, King of the North: Now instead of just posting these decisions in a new thread, we’ll have to comb through old archives to see if any got missed in the record
[20:45]Kronos: Time is of the essence then?
[21:10]Pallaith, King of the North: No. This project doesn’t have a timer on it. I just thought it would be one sitting of copying posts to a new thread and posting said thread in our Court section. Now before the thread is made I want to double check that we actually do have every court ruling in that list. The combing process will take longer but it’s still a relatively straightforward process I think
[21:11]Pallaith, King of the North: The judicial term has over two more months left so there’s plenty of time for that
[21:11]Pallaith, King of the North: so it may not be ME who ends up doing that work
[21:13]Kronos: That's what I was indirectly referring to; get done what you can before you can't lol
[22:33]Pallaith, King of the North: I mean if you guys want to help me by seeing if any decisions are missing and point them out to me, I can code them and add them to the thread
April 28, 2022
[01:15]Sil Dorsett: I doubt I'll be of much use to polish the ruling tonight, but I did find a breakthrough. Left a comment in the thread.
[03:55]Pallaith, King of the North: Oh wow I see what you mean. Yes that’s going to tie it all together super nicely
April 29, 2022
[04:31]Pallaith, King of the North: @Court we have a complete draft opinion I hope you have a chance to look it over and share your thoughts
[08:37]Pallaith, King of the North: I have discovered that you did. No idea how I missed those posts earlier sorry
[18:09]Kronos: Silly ghost
[18:13]Kronos: I know the ruling is already drafted and confirmed by the court to be acceptable, but should we take the time before posting it to see if Dreadton’s screenshot of a GHR response fits? I think we already covered that sort of thing in the extralegal section but just wanted to touch base.
[18:28]Pallaith, King of the North: I wanted to do another sweep of the ruling before having you post it anyway, so I’ll see if I can’t work it in. We actually cited the thing Sil found which covers much of the same ground, but this is a more current statement that addresses actionable posts in particular so it’s worth incorporating it I think
[18:30]Kronos: Alrighty!
April 30, 2022
[04:48]Sil Dorsett: I nitpicked your recent draft.
[05:41]Pallaith, King of the North: I responded. Last call? @Court
[06:07]Sil Dorsett: Nothing else here.
[06:11]Kronos: I'm still good with it!
May 1, 2022
[01:07]Pallaith, King of the North: So I’ve done a review (and thanks to Kronos for your help with this), and thankfully the past rulings archive isn’t missing a ton of cases. It’s missing two and it’s the nesting r4r cases
[01:07]Pallaith, King of the North: As Sil knows, we just discovered that the original r4r that started it all has been deleted from the forum
[01:09]Pallaith, King of the North: Now we do have the ruling that was made in response to that r4r, and I’m assuming that part of the reason it’s not on the list is because it was immediately overturned. But we still got to put it on the list, and I will. Unless we can miraculously recover that first thread though, I’m going to have to just put some note in there about how it’s lost to time. And what a shame that the Court at the time didn’t make a thread for their discussion of that case, because at least maybe I would be able to post the ruling. Alas
[01:11]Pallaith, King of the North: I note there is a ruling that was done to officially overturn an old ruling that subsequent changes in law rendered obsolete. I don’t know if that means we should take it upon ourselves to unofficially overrule old rulings, we probably shouldn’t just apply the cross out on them
[01:15]Pallaith, King of the North: But when the Court has overruled an old decision, I think that should be properly noted on the record. And I saw a few that should have been crossed out but still aren’t so I’ll be doing that. The plan is not to use the old archive thread anymore. I’ll be renaming in to reflect this fact, and we’ll use a new thread in our court forum, pinned of course. Somewhere more visible and a thread with an OP that actually links to the decisions and doesn’t stack a bunch of them in the same posts
[04:51]Kronos: Happy to help! I’m glad you found where the inconsistencies were they were bugging you for a hot minute
May 6, 2022
[18:43]Sil Dorsett: I'm not sure if an R4R is going to come out of my conversation with Dreadton about whether an election commissioner that declares candidacy and then withdraws is no longer considered absent for that election, but if one does come about, I will obviously be recusing myself.
[18:54]Pallaith, King of the North: …do we seriously need an r4r for that?
[18:56]Sil Dorsett: Personally I don't think so, but the question has come up a few times...
[23:55]Pallaith, King of the North: Well shucks
[23:56]Pallaith, King of the North: I feel bad griping about the Court hearing this stuff, because when there’s a doubt the Court does have to resolve it. But I feel like the answer is…kind of obvious here
[23:57]Pallaith, King of the North: I guess I’ll dive deeper a little later when the discussion starts. I imagine this will be rather quick to resolve, which is good because we want it to be quick
May 7, 2022
[00:24]Kronos: Yes!
[12:50]Pallaith, King of the North: So I actually started the new court rulings index. In the process I learned that in fact, while we lost the original r4r that started the nesting r4rs, there wasn’t actually a ruling on that one, so we don’t have a lost ruling. We did have a ruling that was not in our archive, but I suspect that’s because it was basically instantly overturned. In any case, I will be including it in this version of the archive. I have posted the first 20 rulings to the new index and set up the links on the OP so they take you straight to the ruling you want to see. I’ve also changed the style of the rulings so that we clearly identify the role of all the people in the ruling. THOs are now labeled as such and we will be consistently stating which justices recuse themselves, since that seems to be something older rulings had and was done inconsistently.
I also wanted to note that since we had a recusal in the current r4r, we set up our THO in the special court chamber - in the process admin restored my access to that forum so I was able to finally archive the reject fascism r4r discussion. Going forward I understand admin won’t be disabling access for specific justices - we will rely on recusing justices to stay out of the thread that doesn’t concern them.
May 11, 2022
[10:52]Pallaith, King of the North: So I posted the new rulings index. Made an announcement and an admin request to get it linked in the forum menu. I highlighted the basic new features, I hope it also serves as a guide for future courts as to how to organize and record rulings, including dissents. The thread is locked but should be editable for anyone on the Court, not just the Chief Justice (obviously that can be double checked). I’m very glad we were able to get that one done after all this time, and it should make life much easier for people moving forward.
[10:53]Pallaith, King of the North: If I don’t get a chance to say anything tomorrow, you guys have been great, happy we could sink our teeth into some actual court business, I learned a lot and I got to say, I’m way more attuned to the legal side of TNP now. I enjoyed my time on the Court. Good luck guys in the rest of the term and beyond
[19:12]Kronos: It was great serving with you I definitely learned a lot!
May 12, 2022
[06:36]Sil Dorsett: Thanks for everything, Ghost!
@Kronos, I think we need to... first, choose an interim chief justice, which I think should be you, and second, we need a temporary hearing officer.
[06:48]Kronos: Okay I can be interim.
[06:49]Sil Dorsett: Thoughts on a THO? Maybe see if Tlomz wants to come back until the special election is done?
[06:52]Kronos: Yeah I can ask Tlomz back. This is just for the vacancy right?
[06:54]Sil Dorsett: Yep. Law says "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."
[07:01]Kronos: Alright awesome
[09:35]Kronos: Hmm there is a section above that in the law that says if the Chief Justice position is vacant the remaining justices vote to select a new one I don't think an interim chief justice is possible.
[15:08]Sil Dorsett: Then I guess you have it until July? Or do you not really want that?
[17:57]Kronos: I can have it til July no prob there
[21:00]Kronos: I just heard back from Tlomz he is happy to do THO again
So I will be announcing the Chief and the THO shortly
[21:23]Kronos: Announcement made!
May 13, 2022
[17:45]TlomzKrano: Oh cool this chat exists
[18:24]Kronos: Oh snap you can see!
May 21, 2022.
[18:17]Kronos: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195886/ Alright we have another R4R in the chamber. Anyone feel particularly called to moderate it?
[R4R] On the ability of the Speaker to retract incorrect decisions
[19:10]Sil Dorsett: Let me ask this, are you convinced we should take it?
[19:51]Kronos: Hm yes but no. The petitioner filed the R4R to review whether or not they had legal authority to perform an action, the action being retracting citizenship from an applicant who was given citizenship in error. Part of me feels obligated to answer the question now that it’s before us, but another part doesn’t really see a point to taking it because the answer seems supremely obvious.
[21:06]Sil Dorsett: Because an answer seems obvious isn't really a reason to reject it. I'm looking at it from the position of standing and compelling regional interest. I'm not convinced of standing, but interest based on regional security might be enough, albeit rather marginally.
[21:51]Kronos: Indeed. My phrasing about there being an obvious answer seems like a personal opinion when in reality it's fact. I should've phrased that better.
I definitely agree in regards to regional security being of interest. Regional security is held to the upmost regard here especially in regard to the citizenship process.
I concur on the standing because the petitioner has not shown to be harmed by this action, only that they could be depending on the Court's opinion. However, a government official I believe should be able to bring questions regarding their own actions to the Court. Though they really should know better if they serve in a position bearing heavy legal responsibilities.
May 22, 2022
[00:06]Sil Dorsett: I have the ball rolling now. I did set the briefs time to 2 days instead of 5.
[00:08]Kronos: I would’ve suggested two days also that’s good time.
May 23, 2022
[15:26]TlomzKrano: So
[15:26]TlomzKrano: because voting ended in the special election, but no victor has been announced, am I in for this?
[15:27]TlomzKrano: I fine with it, I was jus curious how that timing worked
[15:45]Kronos: I’ve been thinking about that too my initial take was that you are our THO for the duration of the election and since there is no winner yet there is no one to take the seat yet. But, if Zyvet wins the seat seeing he posted a brief in the r4r then I’m thinking he’d have to recuse himself from the opinion, in which case we’ll need a THO again.
Legally speaking we cannot have a THO appointed officially unless there is an absence or recusal so when a winner is declared we won’t have a THO for a minute or two before possibly needing one again.
Safest way to do that should Zyvet win I’m thinking would be the new justice moves in, we wait for a recusal, then we bring a THO back
[15:57]Sil Dorsett: I wouldn't worry about it too much. @TlomzKrano, you're stuck with us for at least another five days.
[16:00]TlomzKrano: Lmao yeah I just saw the announcement
[16:00]TlomzKrano: Fine by me
May 24, 2022
[04:37]Sil Dorsett: @TlomzKrano Are you able to see the Private Conference Room or do you only see the Special Court Chambers?
[05:38]TlomzKrano: I am yes
[05:38]TlomzKrano: Wait
[05:42]TlomzKrano: I cannot
[05:42]TlomzKrano: I was mistaken
[05:50]Sil Dorsett: Alright. I've opened our discussion thread in the Special Court Chambers then.
May 29, 2022
[05:14]Sil Dorsett: @Kronos You're working on a draft opinion still, right?
[05:15]Kronos: I posted it in Chambers couple hours ago
[05:16]Sil Dorsett: Oh, whoops. Alright, I'll have a look
[05:17]Kronos: Alrighty
May 30, 2022
[18:38]Kronos: @Sil Dorsett With the judicial election finally over do we need to change the location of the discussion thread on the forum?
May 31, 2022
[00:29]Sil Dorsett: Probably?
[03:00]Kronos: Alright I'll move it over
[03:02]Sil Dorsett: I already did.
[03:02]Sil Dorsett: LD should have a look too. Don't think they've been masked on discord yet.
[03:03]Kronos: Yeah they don't have the mask yet they have the forum mask though
[05:46]Lord Dominator: I arrive
[05:47]Lord Dominator: As a point of interest then, I presume you both are alright with me contributing fully despite having been a DS when it started?
[05:47]Lord Dominator: (I have been reading back on the forum portions)
[07:25]Kronos: Yeah I'm alright with that!
[15:23]Sil Dorsett: I'm okay with it since you weren't the DS involved.
[18:07]Lord Dominator:
June 21, 2022
16:18]Kronos: We have another R4R friends! https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9196000/
[R4R] On whenever Status Updates are considered Posts
[17:18]Kronos: Looking at how the case is developing I suggest we drop this. The problem listed in the filing seems already taken care of.
[18:03]Sil Dorsett: I would drop this on the basis of standing. It's Advancia-Sizzletown that should bring it forward. Another case of someone checking their own actions. The only reason I accepted Freg's case was that there was technically an action made by someone else that resulted in consequences that Freg had to live with.
[18:03]Sil Dorsett: If Viv tells Adv to enter the case, I'd take it then. Would be an interesting case. But yeah...
[18:05]Kronos: That's the less restrained thought I had haha
[18:05]Kronos: Another case of checking their own actions, indeed.
[18:06]Kronos: If we get an R4R by Caius before the election we'll have hit the trifecta.
[18:08]Sil Dorsett: Can I do the write up of the rejection? This would be the second time I reject an R4R from Viv.
[18:10]Kronos: Feel free keep the streak going
[19:36]Lord Dominator: Looks good to me, I say after waking up two hours later that I expected
Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ.