1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
I request that the Court review @Attempted Socialism appointing @Oracle as Standby Hearing Officer in The North Pacific v. St George. Appointment here. Appointment text:
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
The Legal Code requires that justices "recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest," and @Attempted Socialism has done exactly that by recusing themselves from the aforementioned case here. However, after recusing, they have taken a significant action in their judicial capacity by appointing @Oracle as Standby Hearing Officer for the case. A Standby Hearing Officer's purpose is "to serve as a Hearing Officer should any matter requiring the recusal of the Moderating Justice arise during the trial," per Section 1 clause 6 of the Court Rules and Procedures.
The recusal system exists to ensure that nations "have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer," as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. By continuing to involve themselves in a matter from which they recused, even in an allegedly procedural capacity, Attempted Socialism has by definition continued to impact a matter in which they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. This is not only a violation of the Legal Code, but violates the Bill of Rights' guarantee that "Nations of The North Pacific and its territories shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer."
The Legal Code's recusal provisions and defendant @St George's rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights were both violated by Attempted Socialism's actions. A justice or Temporary Hearing Officer lacking the potential conflict of interest that required Attempted Socialism's recusal may reasonably have not made the same action, or made it differently. Without the need to communicate with or go through Attempted Socialism to appoint a Standby Hearing Officer, it is conceivable that a different Standby Hearing Officer would have been selected. Even should Oracle have been removed as Standby Hearing Officer, Attempted Socialism's continued involvement in the case would have had an irrevocable effect on the fairness and impartiality of the case. A trial incorporating significant decisions made by a recused justice cannot be fair or impartial.
Additionally, The Bill of Rights' power is ensured by the Constitution, which states that no "law or government policy may contradict this constitution." The Legal Code does not describe a process for what to do in this situation, and neither does the Court Rules and Procedures. Attempted Socialism stated that it is their duty to appoint a Standby Hearing Officer. Presumably they were referring to the following clause of the Court Rules and Procedures:
This clause is not only subservient to the region's actual laws, meaning the Legal Code, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, but does not even apply in this situation. The clause clearly refers to appointment of a Standby Hearing Officer when the "indictment is accepted," not when another justice has taken over the case due to a recusal and requires a Standby Hearing Officer. Indeed, the Constitution specifically empowers the Chief Justice to use their discretion in matters such as this:
Attempted Socialism could have used their discretion as Chief Justice to allow for the appointment of a Standby Hearing Officer without violating the Legal Code or St George's rights. Moderating Justice @Eluvatar agreed that there was a deficiency, stating that "your motion has highlighted a flaw of the court procedures" here.
The above quote is from Eluvatar's decision regarding this mistrial motion concerning the subject. While Eluvatar has declined said motion, it must be noted that Eluvatar determining their own and Attempted Socialism's impartiality in the matter is an obvious conflict of interest, for which an indictment has been filed. It is essential that this matter be resolved by an actually impartial slate of Hearing Officers, for this as well as future cases. The Court acknowledged the procedural error in their decision and elected to admonish Defense council for pursuing it.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
To my knowledge, no such situation has occurred under the region's current judicial system. This makes official, binding clarification on this matter all the more important.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
In regard to a request for review filed by Flemingovia on the definition of “affected party," the court opined "that an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government."
I am currently serving as one of the Defense Counsel for @St George, the accused in the ongoing case in question. A lack of clarification on this situation impedes my ability to competently represent them. St George's rights are obviously violated by not being ensured a fair and impartial trial, and as their counsel, I am representing them in bringing this request for review before the Court with his support.
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
Official and binding clarification on this matter is not just relevant to this case, but to any future matter before the court wherein a Justice takes any actions in their official capacity in a matter from which they are recused. The lack of such clarification not only results in this case being colored by a potential conflict of interest, but every case involving a similar situation, and opens the door to abuse of power by Justices who deliberately mishandle or maliciously influence matters before the court after recusing themselves. Criminal trials require a clear and legal process. When conflicts with the law occur within those trials, no matter how slight it may be, it jeopardizes the basic and most fundamental guard rails of our society.
More obviously, there is a compelling regional interest in clarifying whether the Bill of Rights was violated in the Court's handling of a criminal case. There is also a compelling regional interest in an official review of this matter conducted by actually impartial Hearing Officers.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
I request the recusal of @Attempted Socialism, @Eluvatar, and @Pallaith from this matter, and request that @Great Bights Mum, @TlomzKrano , @Oracle, @Sanctaria. @St George, and @Cretox recuse themselves from this matter should they be appointed as Temporary Hearing Officers for it. All have conflicts of interest in this matter due to their involvement in or recusal from the aforementioned case.
In the interest of transparency, this request was drafted with assistance from @Cretox.
I request that the Court review @Attempted Socialism appointing @Oracle as Standby Hearing Officer in The North Pacific v. St George. Appointment here. Appointment text:
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
The Bill of Rights clause 7:
The Bill of Rights clause 11:
Constitution of The North Pacific Article 1 clause 1:
Constitution of The North Pacific Article 6 clause 17:
Legal Code of the North Pacific Chapter 3 clause 1:
Legal Code of the North Pacific Section 3.2 clauses 4 and 5:
The Legal Code requires that justices "recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest," and @Attempted Socialism has done exactly that by recusing themselves from the aforementioned case here. However, after recusing, they have taken a significant action in their judicial capacity by appointing @Oracle as Standby Hearing Officer for the case. A Standby Hearing Officer's purpose is "to serve as a Hearing Officer should any matter requiring the recusal of the Moderating Justice arise during the trial," per Section 1 clause 6 of the Court Rules and Procedures.
The recusal system exists to ensure that nations "have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer," as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. By continuing to involve themselves in a matter from which they recused, even in an allegedly procedural capacity, Attempted Socialism has by definition continued to impact a matter in which they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. This is not only a violation of the Legal Code, but violates the Bill of Rights' guarantee that "Nations of The North Pacific and its territories shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer."
The Legal Code's recusal provisions and defendant @St George's rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights were both violated by Attempted Socialism's actions. A justice or Temporary Hearing Officer lacking the potential conflict of interest that required Attempted Socialism's recusal may reasonably have not made the same action, or made it differently. Without the need to communicate with or go through Attempted Socialism to appoint a Standby Hearing Officer, it is conceivable that a different Standby Hearing Officer would have been selected. Even should Oracle have been removed as Standby Hearing Officer, Attempted Socialism's continued involvement in the case would have had an irrevocable effect on the fairness and impartiality of the case. A trial incorporating significant decisions made by a recused justice cannot be fair or impartial.
Additionally, The Bill of Rights' power is ensured by the Constitution, which states that no "law or government policy may contradict this constitution." The Legal Code does not describe a process for what to do in this situation, and neither does the Court Rules and Procedures. Attempted Socialism stated that it is their duty to appoint a Standby Hearing Officer. Presumably they were referring to the following clause of the Court Rules and Procedures:
Court Rules and Procedures:
This clause is not only subservient to the region's actual laws, meaning the Legal Code, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, but does not even apply in this situation. The clause clearly refers to appointment of a Standby Hearing Officer when the "indictment is accepted," not when another justice has taken over the case due to a recusal and requires a Standby Hearing Officer. Indeed, the Constitution specifically empowers the Chief Justice to use their discretion in matters such as this:
Constitution of The North Pacific:
Attempted Socialism could have used their discretion as Chief Justice to allow for the appointment of a Standby Hearing Officer without violating the Legal Code or St George's rights. Moderating Justice @Eluvatar agreed that there was a deficiency, stating that "your motion has highlighted a flaw of the court procedures" here.
The above quote is from Eluvatar's decision regarding this mistrial motion concerning the subject. While Eluvatar has declined said motion, it must be noted that Eluvatar determining their own and Attempted Socialism's impartiality in the matter is an obvious conflict of interest, for which an indictment has been filed. It is essential that this matter be resolved by an actually impartial slate of Hearing Officers, for this as well as future cases. The Court acknowledged the procedural error in their decision and elected to admonish Defense council for pursuing it.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
To my knowledge, no such situation has occurred under the region's current judicial system. This makes official, binding clarification on this matter all the more important.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
In regard to a request for review filed by Flemingovia on the definition of “affected party," the court opined "that an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government."
I am currently serving as one of the Defense Counsel for @St George, the accused in the ongoing case in question. A lack of clarification on this situation impedes my ability to competently represent them. St George's rights are obviously violated by not being ensured a fair and impartial trial, and as their counsel, I am representing them in bringing this request for review before the Court with his support.
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
Official and binding clarification on this matter is not just relevant to this case, but to any future matter before the court wherein a Justice takes any actions in their official capacity in a matter from which they are recused. The lack of such clarification not only results in this case being colored by a potential conflict of interest, but every case involving a similar situation, and opens the door to abuse of power by Justices who deliberately mishandle or maliciously influence matters before the court after recusing themselves. Criminal trials require a clear and legal process. When conflicts with the law occur within those trials, no matter how slight it may be, it jeopardizes the basic and most fundamental guard rails of our society.
More obviously, there is a compelling regional interest in clarifying whether the Bill of Rights was violated in the Court's handling of a criminal case. There is also a compelling regional interest in an official review of this matter conducted by actually impartial Hearing Officers.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
I request the recusal of @Attempted Socialism, @Eluvatar, and @Pallaith from this matter, and request that @Great Bights Mum, @TlomzKrano , @Oracle, @Sanctaria. @St George, and @Cretox recuse themselves from this matter should they be appointed as Temporary Hearing Officers for it. All have conflicts of interest in this matter due to their involvement in or recusal from the aforementioned case.
In the interest of transparency, this request was drafted with assistance from @Cretox.
