March 12, 2024
6:09 AM]Turn Down For What: @Pallaith, Just a Justice you should be masked if the bot is working correctly
[11:00 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I am and it is
[12:03 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So we’re waiting for Elu then.
Are we going to be evenly matched on the question of the Chief Justice role as well?
[12:05 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: You have answered my question already I see
[12:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay. I don’t think it should be Elu (no offense to Elu but gestures at absence this is kind of the issue) but I don’t want this to be done without him at least having a chance to offer input. Since you broached it in the forum I’ll post there
[12:06 PM]Turn Down For What: im good with you having it
[12:08 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: If you get a thread going for the pending indictment, I do have some thoughts on that
[12:08 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m sneaking glances at work until I can go to lunch
[12:12 PM]Turn Down For What: ok i got a 15 min meeting and i will put something up
March 13, 2024
[6:17 AM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar Work to do https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198127/ https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198126/
[2:19 PM]Turn Down For What: doesnt LD loose their spot on the BAr Commission because they are no longer on the court
[2:21 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: And you lose yours because you got elected Justice
[2:22 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Easy fix though
[2:23 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Just swap places
[2:23 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I have no objection to you representing the Court on the commission and I’m sure @Eluvatar would agree
[7:21 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So think we can get the bar commission sorted out? We need to do that so we can get the examiner in place
[7:22 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: And of course we have to have a response ready for the indictment
March 14, 2024
[8:30 AM]Eluvatar: I should have some time early this evening.
[8:30 AM]Eluvatar: (For these matters)
[6:11 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar great, hopefully you can express an opinion on our Court member of the bar commission and the pending indictment so we can determine how to move forward
[7:05 PM]Eluvatar: Agreed but let's rerun this on the forum
[7:26 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar upon closer inspection, I think it’s usually the chief who accepts indictments
[7:26 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: See my post
[7:27 PM]Eluvatar: Lol
[7:28 PM]Eluvatar: Too late
[7:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I mean it doesn’t say the chief has to do it
[7:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: That’s another area that can perhaps be clearer
[7:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Look who becomes speedy turtle when he wants to
[7:30 PM]Eluvatar: I'm nearly home and not going to do TNP stuff after that
[7:43 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar that’s fine just confirm we should pick Dreadton as the commissioner and we can do that
@Pallaith, Just a Justice
@Eluvatar that’s fine just confirm we should pick Dreadton as the commissioner and we can do that
[8:25 PM]Eluvatar: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198139/
March 16, 2024
[2:01 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar if I’m not mistaken, I should be able to moderate the private justice archive to move sufficiently old threads to the public archive, but I seem to lack the permissions to do so
[4:20 AM]Turn Down For What: You might not have the chief justice mask I will have to look
[4:26 AM]Turn Down For What: Fixed
[5:29 AM]Turn Down For What: Work to do
[5:29 AM]Turn Down For What: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198140/
[5:48 AM]Eluvatar: That's a lot of words to say he doesn't agree with my reading of "leave"
[5:59 AM]Turn Down For What: ? I don’t think you were on that case
[6:10 AM]Eluvatar: True! I assumed I was, I guess because I wrote the law to be read this way
[6:12 AM]Eluvatar: Looks like I was part of deliberations but off the court by the time a ruling was delivered
[7:15 AM]Turn Down For What: There was very little debate on the part of the ruling this r4r addresses
[10:07 AM]Turn Down For What: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198143/#post-10675151 @Court I have opened discussion on the matter
[2:14 PM]Eluvatar: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9032780/post-10033570
[2:14 PM]Eluvatar: Spoilered discord log
[2:29 PM]Eluvatar:
[11:28 AM] Eluvatar: those provisions are for leaving
[11:28 AM] Eluvatar: i.e. to allow nations to leave the region for a safer one, and return
[2:30 PM]Eluvatar:
[6:47 PM] COE: 1) The delegate can absolutely allow ROs to eject nations during emergencies, as long as it is done explicitly, but not necessarily publicly
[6:49 PM] COE: 2) There are limits to what is "reasonable" under that clause, but we aren't ruling on what they are right now, and allowing RO's to eject does not break any limits
[6:49 PM] COE: 3) As always, ejections do not result in loss of citizenship
[2:32 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: “As always” so where in the law does it say that?
[3:12 PM]Eluvatar: When it says "leave"
[3:19 PM]Eluvatar: A relevant topic to look at may be https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6895268/
[3:24 PM]Turn Down For What: So would you overturn the law on citizenship removal due to admin ban since they didn’t leave Voluntarily?
[3:25 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Why is that thread relevant? I don’t see any discussion of this point in that thread?
[3:32 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I don’t see how that follows Dreadton. The law says “leave” in that clause but the direction to remove citizenship from admin bans is clearly separated from that general principle. However - since the principle only exists because of a Court ruling, there may be a case that that provision conflicts. Typically if the RA writes on something, that takes precedence over the Court. So I think that clause is still safe.
Having said all that: the Court made a call in what the word “leave” means but there is obviously a competing interpretation.
[3:33 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So it matters what that interpretation is based on
[3:37 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: The ruling doesn’t go into it at all. You have to read the briefs and discussion for that, and even then, the best I get is “the Speaker’s office has always interpreted it this way” but of course could have interpreted it differently, until this ruling. The region has been content to let the ruling decide this question ever since without explicitly clarifying it in the law.
The Court as of late has been staking ground that the law has to explicitly provide for such things and that the Court’s interpretation is a temporary one. This was particularly egregious in the case of writing guidelines for government bodies, but here we have a legal code provision which is somewhat ambiguous.
To basically shrug it off and say “this is fine” seems to me to open us up for contradiction as far as other rulings, like the one on subordinate rules. So I guess what I would like to see, Elu, is a legal and constitutional basis for the interpretation of “leave” to not include involuntary removal
[3:39 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: If we decide the original ruling was fine, this is a chance to clarify that ruling with some substantive backup. If such backup doesn’t exist, all we have is the Court’s arbitrary (albeit guided by functional precedent from the Speaker’s office) call on how to interpret the ambiguity
[3:41 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: And consider also that currently we have a bizarre situation where people who get ejected and don’t return to the region, who maybe go on to other places and get involved somewhere else, get to maintain citizenship in TNP for a month when they have no real stake or interest in it. It is important to guard against abusive use of BC, and I do believe that the law should protect against it, but I don’t like this particular situation. If we want to talk about practice, the RA has now explicitly stopped that scenario from occurring in the case of administrative bans. So there is clearly some kind of preference that that situation be mitigated
[3:47 PM]Turn Down For What: One of the biggest issues i see with that ruling is the general lack of rational the court provided for its decision. Its just "Oh this is how it is."
[3:48 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: They clearly had some rationale. But it didn’t make it into the ruling
[7:43 PM]Eluvatar: The law's use of "leave" was intended to mean this.
[7:43 PM]Eluvatar: It was revised from the previous legal code to be shorter not to revolutionize this aspect of rights
[7:45 PM]Eluvatar: I think it would be inappropriate to judicially change settled law. Contrary to what the petitioner says, the RA could change the law to override this decision's interpretation of "leave" at any time.
[8:47 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Once again, nothing you showed me indicated this was the case. And the fact the language was ambiguous was specifically addressed when this r4r was originally considered.
I agree that we have to be careful about messing with settled law. However, this isn’t the same kind of situation as the delegate oath or the VD check ruling where someone’s citizenship would have been retroactively taken away. The citizenship oath was settled law too until it had to be changed, and just like that situation this just requires handling certain situations differently moving forward. It doesn’t turn over years of work and set the region into chaos.
The more I look back at past rulings like this one, the more I see a Court that was happy to make declarations by fiat to make up for holes that the RA made, and in some cases they had absolutely no justification for the call except they just decided that was the answer.
I do happen to agree with you that the RA even today could clarify that - the very same reason that I am concerned with the existing ruling’s conclusion is what still gives them that option. As opposed to say, claiming a constitutional justification or BoR violation, which would preclude the RA from easily legislating this area
March 17, 2024
[5:21 AM]Eluvatar: I think it's possible to find ambiguity if you're looking for it, but the correct reading of the law is that "leave" means depart does not mean be removed.
[1:20 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: It’s possible to find ambiguity because ambiguity exists…literally reading the word in the law, ejecting or banning a nation causes that nation to leave the region. The only thing that makes your reading correct is the fact the Court said that was the correct reading. The decision does not explain why that is the case. It also did not need to cover that ground because that was not what the petitioner was asking about. So I think there’s plenty reason to take issue with this decision, and room for that original finding to be better explained at the very least. But if you’re just going to keep saying “it’s correct because it’s correct” that’s not really something I can work with
March 20, 2024
[8:49 AM]Turn Down For What: I’m going to have to go find counsel for this guy, any ideas?
April 3, 2024
[5:38 AM]Turn Down For What: @Court we are now in Deliberations for the New Ciken case
[6:24 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m inclined to accept the plea offer did you have something else in mind?
[6:41 PM]Turn Down For What: Bobs case was 5 months and that was internal, this guy posted support for a region we are at war with while in the NPA. I think two months is really light
[8:59 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Hm. That’s a good point. They were pretty lenient
April 4, 2024
[6:07 AM]Turn Down For What: im sitting at 9 months which is two general elections
[7:20 AM]Eluvatar: I can't really give this much attention until tomorrow
[7:20 AM]Eluvatar: is that workable?
[7:24 AM]Turn Down For What: should be
April 7, 2024
[12:24 PM]Eluvatar: PS @Turn Down For What a sword oath is pretty metal
[12:26 PM]Eluvatar: PPS would it be reasonable, do you think, for you to either answer the defendant or instruct Skaraborg to explain in private?
April 10, 2024
[2:36 PM]Turn Down For What: can we get to resolving the Criminal case this week
[2:42 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Let’s try
[2:42 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: How’s that draft opinion coming?
[2:48 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: There’s something to be said about higher punishment than the prosecution’s proposal having a potential negative impact on plea deals I suppose. Obviously I wasn’t putting much stock in that
April 11, 2024
[3:22 PM]Turn Down For What: I will have the sentencing order up tonight for review
[5:58 PM]Turn Down For What: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198150/#post-10678889 @Court have at it
[6:29 PM]Eluvatar: I see things I would like to adjust
[6:29 PM]Eluvatar: I will try to find time to reply tomorrow
April 12, 2024
[9:22 AM]Turn Down For What: Ive been thinking on the R4R and I may be able to resolve it where the voluntary leave/citizenship is preserved as @Eluvatar want while resolving the issue of people choosing to not return and keeping their citizen ship. If Elu is willing to accept that choosing not to come back when able to is enough voluntanrness to trigger a lost of citizenship
[10:27 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Yeah that sounds like a clarification ruling, one that reins in a bit of what was probably too expansive a previous ruling. I can certainly get behind such an approach
[10:28 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: By the way the sentencing seemed fine to me, just a few spelling/formatting things I would tweak
[11:48 AM]Eluvatar: The text will matter a lot for me
[11:48 AM]Eluvatar: Are we able to hold ruling on the R4R until after I'm back?
[11:48 AM]Eluvatar: (Not an obstacle to drafting, discussing)
[12:19 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Back from what? And when? How long is that going to be?
[12:47 PM]Eluvatar: Oh, sorry, I told Dreadton elsewhere but didn't tell you, my bad.
[12:47 PM]Eluvatar:
I'll be incommunicado, more or less, 4/13 to 4/20
[12:47 PM]Eluvatar: Going on a trip IRL that was a bit short-notice.
[12:48 PM]Eluvatar: Trying not to mention this publicly in case somebody wants to misuse it somehow.
[1:00 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Well that’s unfortunate
[1:01 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I don’t even see a draft ruling so we couldn’t release something prior to your return even if we wanted to
[1:01 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: But if we had the gist of it, and a quick little version of what points you want to be addressed we could get a draft up for you to review when you return
[1:19 PM]Eluvatar: I'll try to write up my thoughts before I'm gone, but I cannot promise I'll expand much beyond what I've previously written before I'm back. I'm trying to prioritize the Sentencing.
[1:43 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: That’s fine. I would note though that we can’t do much with “it’s correct because it’s correct, duh” and “that’s what people meant when they wrote it”
April 13, 2024
[1:28 PM]Eluvatar: I understand
[1:28 PM]Eluvatar: I might have a little time and internet at this stopover but time is likely to be limited
April 14, 2024
[5:03 AM]Eluvatar: Posted suggestions re: Sentencing
[5:03 AM]Eluvatar: I cannot guarantee I will have any more time before Saturday.
[5:05 AM]Eluvatar: Do we want to give the public an update in the courtroom thread, in the vein of https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197171/post-10596782 ?
April 16, 2024
[5:23 PM]Turn Down For What: @Court i have posted the first part of my proposed ruling on the r4r, there are no citations and its not in the proper format, i want to make sure we are on the same page before i keep going
[5:38 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay I’ll take a look
[6:21 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m surprised by what you have so far, but it looks like we’ll be able to come to a consensus
[6:22 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m not sure about the idea of striking anything, a clarification can probably avoid the need for that but I guess it depends on how it’s framed
[6:27 PM]Turn Down For What: i am planing on saying that failing to return to the region once able to would be enough voluntaryness to meet the lost of citiZenship
[6:29 PM]Turn Down For What: which i think will statisfy both elu and me
[6:42 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Yeah aside from quibbling about process and style, the main issue I had was that way too broad allowance. Reining that in and reiterating that the Court acted in a way that we want to avoid acting like in the future should be sufficient
April 20, 2024
[6:57 AM]Eluvatar: I can take a look tomorrow
April 22, 2024
[6:49 AM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar dont forget to look at the r4r so i can finish writting it if you agree with what we have so far
[9:01 AM]Eluvatar: I was not able to look yesterday and honestly I shouldn't look until late tomorrow or Wednesday (edited)
[9:02 AM]Eluvatar: I have a lot to catch up on after the trip
April 24, 2024
[4:54 PM]Turn Down For What: Ive added the overturning part, i kept it short i didnt want to negate the holding @Court
April 27, 2024
[12:08 PM]Turn Down For What: Poke
[12:57 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’ve responded
April 29, 2024
[6:23 AM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar any feed back before i write this up as a ruling?
[7:26 AM]Eluvatar: Ack
[7:32 AM]Eluvatar: Commented
[8:52 AM]Turn Down For What: Ive added a response on why i think that is over reach for this rulling but i will wait for @Pallaith, Just a Justice to respond
May 1, 2024
[4:13 PM]Turn Down For What: @Court i have a draft rulling up. there is formating to be done and i want to put citiations in the body. but there is enough to get your teeth into
May 5, 2024
[2:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: In case you missed it I responded with my own tweaks and proposals for the draft opinion
[2:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I figure we’re pretty darn close to something here
May 6, 2024
[2:55 PM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar can we get your feedback on @Pallaith, Just a Justice proposed ruling?
June 3, 2024
[10:48 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: We’re a few weeks from having to select a bar commissioner to present to the RA for confirmation. We should probably start narrowing down options and reach out to them. We can probably wait a bit on announcing the nomination after that depending on how smooth that process is
[11:17 AM]Turn Down For What: Zyvet and AS are two potential noms
June 5, 2024
[7:26 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I like those two candidates
June 6, 2024
[2:29 PM]Turn Down For What: I will be semi unavaible this weekend and next addressing family issues, i will not be out of communication just slow to respond
June 12, 2024
[4:45 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Who wants to reach out to the candidates?
June 13, 2024
[7:06 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I can do it.
[7:06 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I'll ask them to tell if they'd be interested in the role, and if so, to give a brief description on why it should be them.
[7:06 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Is that okay?
[7:07 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Also.
@Eluvatar still has the Court role
[7:45 AM]Turn Down For What: yeah, the only person who can remove it is himself
[4:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Oh we also have to appoint a new bar commissioner because Lore is termed out in a week
[4:10 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I have reached out to AS, Gorundu, and Zyvet
[4:10 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Oh we already started this
[4:10 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: See I’m senile? I belong on the court
[4:11 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: This is what I get for letting people scare me when I’m already on top of things
[4:11 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay so they need to answer us
[4:12 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Wow I’m floored that I actually brought this up two different times and forgot we already reached out to 2/3 of those people
[4:57 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: AS accepted but has to decline because he would be serving with Dreadton
[4:57 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So Zyvet or the other guy it is
[5:03 PM]Turn Down For What: dude is a bit bitter
June 14, 2024
[7:32 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Oof
[7:33 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: That's a certain being bad
[2:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Zyvet accepts
June 15, 2024
[1:18 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Fantastic news!
June 17, 2024
[2:08 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: @Court A new R4R has been filed
forum.thenorthpacific.org
[2:10 PM]Turn Down For What: go ahead and take it, its a rather routine one
[2:20 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Are we all in favour that I take it?
[2:26 PM]Turn Down For What: For an R4R any judge can accept without the need for others to approve
[7:12 PM]Turn Down For What: I went ahead and accepted it
[11:39 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I was gonna do it in the morning damnit
[11:39 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: No worries
June 25, 2024
[6:54 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I invite you to take first stab at the opinion @WAAGH Time! Vivanco
[6:55 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Will do, but in the afternoon, I'm pulling an all nighter because of a trial.
[6:56 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Oh don’t worry there’s no rush on this, I think it’s a straightforward decision and it’s not like it’s an urgent question
June 27, 2024
[3:55 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: It's been some days. Tomorrow I'll give it a go, apologies.
June 30, 2024
[3:46 PM]Turn Down For What: What’s the word on this?
[8:24 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I haven't forgotten but I'm finding trouble wording it in a proper way.
July 1, 2024
[7:10 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I think I finally have something good
[7:28 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198471/post-10694224
[7:29 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: @Court
[2:39 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Fair. I’ll have a draft opinion tonight
July 2, 2024
[4:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Any thoughts on the draft I posted last night? @Court
[4:07 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: It occurred to me while writing my campaign response that I may need to add a bit to it to correct the last defunct ruling, which I now believe was made partly in error
July 3, 2024
[5:27 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Posted my thoughts!
July 6, 2024
[2:04 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Court are we looking good to publish this thing? Any final thoughts?
[2:08 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay my bad, didn’t see the new posts. Not sure how I overlooked that since I checked the forum earlier today…okay then, I think it’s good to be posted in the thread @Turn Down For What and apologies for the unnecessary ping
[3:47 PM]Turn Down For What: Ok that will be done tomorrow I am on the road today
Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ., Turn Down For What is Dreadton, J., WAAGH Time! Vivanco is Vivanco, J.
6:09 AM]Turn Down For What: @Pallaith, Just a Justice you should be masked if the bot is working correctly
[11:00 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I am and it is
[12:03 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So we’re waiting for Elu then.
Are we going to be evenly matched on the question of the Chief Justice role as well?
[12:05 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: You have answered my question already I see
[12:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay. I don’t think it should be Elu (no offense to Elu but gestures at absence this is kind of the issue) but I don’t want this to be done without him at least having a chance to offer input. Since you broached it in the forum I’ll post there
[12:06 PM]Turn Down For What: im good with you having it
[12:08 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: If you get a thread going for the pending indictment, I do have some thoughts on that
[12:08 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m sneaking glances at work until I can go to lunch
[12:12 PM]Turn Down For What: ok i got a 15 min meeting and i will put something up
March 13, 2024
[6:17 AM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar Work to do https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198127/ https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198126/
[2:19 PM]Turn Down For What: doesnt LD loose their spot on the BAr Commission because they are no longer on the court
[2:21 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: And you lose yours because you got elected Justice
[2:22 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Easy fix though
[2:23 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Just swap places
[2:23 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I have no objection to you representing the Court on the commission and I’m sure @Eluvatar would agree
[7:21 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So think we can get the bar commission sorted out? We need to do that so we can get the examiner in place
[7:22 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: And of course we have to have a response ready for the indictment
March 14, 2024
[8:30 AM]Eluvatar: I should have some time early this evening.
[8:30 AM]Eluvatar: (For these matters)
[6:11 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar great, hopefully you can express an opinion on our Court member of the bar commission and the pending indictment so we can determine how to move forward
[7:05 PM]Eluvatar: Agreed but let's rerun this on the forum
[7:26 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar upon closer inspection, I think it’s usually the chief who accepts indictments
[7:26 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: See my post
[7:27 PM]Eluvatar: Lol
[7:28 PM]Eluvatar: Too late
[7:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I mean it doesn’t say the chief has to do it
[7:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: That’s another area that can perhaps be clearer
[7:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Look who becomes speedy turtle when he wants to
[7:30 PM]Eluvatar: I'm nearly home and not going to do TNP stuff after that
[7:43 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar that’s fine just confirm we should pick Dreadton as the commissioner and we can do that
@Pallaith, Just a Justice
@Eluvatar that’s fine just confirm we should pick Dreadton as the commissioner and we can do that
[8:25 PM]Eluvatar: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198139/
March 16, 2024
[2:01 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Eluvatar if I’m not mistaken, I should be able to moderate the private justice archive to move sufficiently old threads to the public archive, but I seem to lack the permissions to do so
[4:20 AM]Turn Down For What: You might not have the chief justice mask I will have to look
[4:26 AM]Turn Down For What: Fixed
[5:29 AM]Turn Down For What: Work to do
[5:29 AM]Turn Down For What: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198140/
[5:48 AM]Eluvatar: That's a lot of words to say he doesn't agree with my reading of "leave"
[5:59 AM]Turn Down For What: ? I don’t think you were on that case
[6:10 AM]Eluvatar: True! I assumed I was, I guess because I wrote the law to be read this way
[6:12 AM]Eluvatar: Looks like I was part of deliberations but off the court by the time a ruling was delivered
[7:15 AM]Turn Down For What: There was very little debate on the part of the ruling this r4r addresses
[10:07 AM]Turn Down For What: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198143/#post-10675151 @Court I have opened discussion on the matter
[2:14 PM]Eluvatar: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9032780/post-10033570
[2:14 PM]Eluvatar: Spoilered discord log
[2:29 PM]Eluvatar:
[11:28 AM] Eluvatar: those provisions are for leaving
[11:28 AM] Eluvatar: i.e. to allow nations to leave the region for a safer one, and return
[2:30 PM]Eluvatar:
[6:47 PM] COE: 1) The delegate can absolutely allow ROs to eject nations during emergencies, as long as it is done explicitly, but not necessarily publicly
[6:49 PM] COE: 2) There are limits to what is "reasonable" under that clause, but we aren't ruling on what they are right now, and allowing RO's to eject does not break any limits
[6:49 PM] COE: 3) As always, ejections do not result in loss of citizenship
[2:32 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: “As always” so where in the law does it say that?
[3:12 PM]Eluvatar: When it says "leave"
[3:19 PM]Eluvatar: A relevant topic to look at may be https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6895268/
[3:24 PM]Turn Down For What: So would you overturn the law on citizenship removal due to admin ban since they didn’t leave Voluntarily?
[3:25 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Why is that thread relevant? I don’t see any discussion of this point in that thread?
[3:32 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I don’t see how that follows Dreadton. The law says “leave” in that clause but the direction to remove citizenship from admin bans is clearly separated from that general principle. However - since the principle only exists because of a Court ruling, there may be a case that that provision conflicts. Typically if the RA writes on something, that takes precedence over the Court. So I think that clause is still safe.
Having said all that: the Court made a call in what the word “leave” means but there is obviously a competing interpretation.
[3:33 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So it matters what that interpretation is based on
[3:37 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: The ruling doesn’t go into it at all. You have to read the briefs and discussion for that, and even then, the best I get is “the Speaker’s office has always interpreted it this way” but of course could have interpreted it differently, until this ruling. The region has been content to let the ruling decide this question ever since without explicitly clarifying it in the law.
The Court as of late has been staking ground that the law has to explicitly provide for such things and that the Court’s interpretation is a temporary one. This was particularly egregious in the case of writing guidelines for government bodies, but here we have a legal code provision which is somewhat ambiguous.
To basically shrug it off and say “this is fine” seems to me to open us up for contradiction as far as other rulings, like the one on subordinate rules. So I guess what I would like to see, Elu, is a legal and constitutional basis for the interpretation of “leave” to not include involuntary removal
[3:39 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: If we decide the original ruling was fine, this is a chance to clarify that ruling with some substantive backup. If such backup doesn’t exist, all we have is the Court’s arbitrary (albeit guided by functional precedent from the Speaker’s office) call on how to interpret the ambiguity
[3:41 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: And consider also that currently we have a bizarre situation where people who get ejected and don’t return to the region, who maybe go on to other places and get involved somewhere else, get to maintain citizenship in TNP for a month when they have no real stake or interest in it. It is important to guard against abusive use of BC, and I do believe that the law should protect against it, but I don’t like this particular situation. If we want to talk about practice, the RA has now explicitly stopped that scenario from occurring in the case of administrative bans. So there is clearly some kind of preference that that situation be mitigated
[3:47 PM]Turn Down For What: One of the biggest issues i see with that ruling is the general lack of rational the court provided for its decision. Its just "Oh this is how it is."
[3:48 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: They clearly had some rationale. But it didn’t make it into the ruling
[7:43 PM]Eluvatar: The law's use of "leave" was intended to mean this.
[7:43 PM]Eluvatar: It was revised from the previous legal code to be shorter not to revolutionize this aspect of rights
[7:45 PM]Eluvatar: I think it would be inappropriate to judicially change settled law. Contrary to what the petitioner says, the RA could change the law to override this decision's interpretation of "leave" at any time.
[8:47 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Once again, nothing you showed me indicated this was the case. And the fact the language was ambiguous was specifically addressed when this r4r was originally considered.
I agree that we have to be careful about messing with settled law. However, this isn’t the same kind of situation as the delegate oath or the VD check ruling where someone’s citizenship would have been retroactively taken away. The citizenship oath was settled law too until it had to be changed, and just like that situation this just requires handling certain situations differently moving forward. It doesn’t turn over years of work and set the region into chaos.
The more I look back at past rulings like this one, the more I see a Court that was happy to make declarations by fiat to make up for holes that the RA made, and in some cases they had absolutely no justification for the call except they just decided that was the answer.
I do happen to agree with you that the RA even today could clarify that - the very same reason that I am concerned with the existing ruling’s conclusion is what still gives them that option. As opposed to say, claiming a constitutional justification or BoR violation, which would preclude the RA from easily legislating this area
March 17, 2024
[5:21 AM]Eluvatar: I think it's possible to find ambiguity if you're looking for it, but the correct reading of the law is that "leave" means depart does not mean be removed.
[1:20 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: It’s possible to find ambiguity because ambiguity exists…literally reading the word in the law, ejecting or banning a nation causes that nation to leave the region. The only thing that makes your reading correct is the fact the Court said that was the correct reading. The decision does not explain why that is the case. It also did not need to cover that ground because that was not what the petitioner was asking about. So I think there’s plenty reason to take issue with this decision, and room for that original finding to be better explained at the very least. But if you’re just going to keep saying “it’s correct because it’s correct” that’s not really something I can work with
March 20, 2024
[8:49 AM]Turn Down For What: I’m going to have to go find counsel for this guy, any ideas?
April 3, 2024
[5:38 AM]Turn Down For What: @Court we are now in Deliberations for the New Ciken case
[6:24 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m inclined to accept the plea offer did you have something else in mind?
[6:41 PM]Turn Down For What: Bobs case was 5 months and that was internal, this guy posted support for a region we are at war with while in the NPA. I think two months is really light
[8:59 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Hm. That’s a good point. They were pretty lenient
April 4, 2024
[6:07 AM]Turn Down For What: im sitting at 9 months which is two general elections
[7:20 AM]Eluvatar: I can't really give this much attention until tomorrow
[7:20 AM]Eluvatar: is that workable?
[7:24 AM]Turn Down For What: should be
April 7, 2024
[12:24 PM]Eluvatar: PS @Turn Down For What a sword oath is pretty metal
[12:26 PM]Eluvatar: PPS would it be reasonable, do you think, for you to either answer the defendant or instruct Skaraborg to explain in private?
April 10, 2024
[2:36 PM]Turn Down For What: can we get to resolving the Criminal case this week
[2:42 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Let’s try
[2:42 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: How’s that draft opinion coming?
[2:48 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: There’s something to be said about higher punishment than the prosecution’s proposal having a potential negative impact on plea deals I suppose. Obviously I wasn’t putting much stock in that
April 11, 2024
[3:22 PM]Turn Down For What: I will have the sentencing order up tonight for review
[5:58 PM]Turn Down For What: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198150/#post-10678889 @Court have at it
[6:29 PM]Eluvatar: I see things I would like to adjust
[6:29 PM]Eluvatar: I will try to find time to reply tomorrow
April 12, 2024
[9:22 AM]Turn Down For What: Ive been thinking on the R4R and I may be able to resolve it where the voluntary leave/citizenship is preserved as @Eluvatar want while resolving the issue of people choosing to not return and keeping their citizen ship. If Elu is willing to accept that choosing not to come back when able to is enough voluntanrness to trigger a lost of citizenship
[10:27 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Yeah that sounds like a clarification ruling, one that reins in a bit of what was probably too expansive a previous ruling. I can certainly get behind such an approach
[10:28 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: By the way the sentencing seemed fine to me, just a few spelling/formatting things I would tweak
[11:48 AM]Eluvatar: The text will matter a lot for me
[11:48 AM]Eluvatar: Are we able to hold ruling on the R4R until after I'm back?
[11:48 AM]Eluvatar: (Not an obstacle to drafting, discussing)
[12:19 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Back from what? And when? How long is that going to be?
[12:47 PM]Eluvatar: Oh, sorry, I told Dreadton elsewhere but didn't tell you, my bad.
[12:47 PM]Eluvatar:
I'll be incommunicado, more or less, 4/13 to 4/20
[12:47 PM]Eluvatar: Going on a trip IRL that was a bit short-notice.
[12:48 PM]Eluvatar: Trying not to mention this publicly in case somebody wants to misuse it somehow.
[1:00 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Well that’s unfortunate
[1:01 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I don’t even see a draft ruling so we couldn’t release something prior to your return even if we wanted to
[1:01 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: But if we had the gist of it, and a quick little version of what points you want to be addressed we could get a draft up for you to review when you return
[1:19 PM]Eluvatar: I'll try to write up my thoughts before I'm gone, but I cannot promise I'll expand much beyond what I've previously written before I'm back. I'm trying to prioritize the Sentencing.
[1:43 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: That’s fine. I would note though that we can’t do much with “it’s correct because it’s correct, duh” and “that’s what people meant when they wrote it”
April 13, 2024
[1:28 PM]Eluvatar: I understand
[1:28 PM]Eluvatar: I might have a little time and internet at this stopover but time is likely to be limited
April 14, 2024
[5:03 AM]Eluvatar: Posted suggestions re: Sentencing
[5:03 AM]Eluvatar: I cannot guarantee I will have any more time before Saturday.
[5:05 AM]Eluvatar: Do we want to give the public an update in the courtroom thread, in the vein of https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197171/post-10596782 ?
April 16, 2024
[5:23 PM]Turn Down For What: @Court i have posted the first part of my proposed ruling on the r4r, there are no citations and its not in the proper format, i want to make sure we are on the same page before i keep going
[5:38 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay I’ll take a look
[6:21 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m surprised by what you have so far, but it looks like we’ll be able to come to a consensus
[6:22 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’m not sure about the idea of striking anything, a clarification can probably avoid the need for that but I guess it depends on how it’s framed
[6:27 PM]Turn Down For What: i am planing on saying that failing to return to the region once able to would be enough voluntaryness to meet the lost of citiZenship
[6:29 PM]Turn Down For What: which i think will statisfy both elu and me
[6:42 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Yeah aside from quibbling about process and style, the main issue I had was that way too broad allowance. Reining that in and reiterating that the Court acted in a way that we want to avoid acting like in the future should be sufficient
April 20, 2024
[6:57 AM]Eluvatar: I can take a look tomorrow
April 22, 2024
[6:49 AM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar dont forget to look at the r4r so i can finish writting it if you agree with what we have so far
[9:01 AM]Eluvatar: I was not able to look yesterday and honestly I shouldn't look until late tomorrow or Wednesday (edited)
[9:02 AM]Eluvatar: I have a lot to catch up on after the trip
April 24, 2024
[4:54 PM]Turn Down For What: Ive added the overturning part, i kept it short i didnt want to negate the holding @Court
April 27, 2024
[12:08 PM]Turn Down For What: Poke
[12:57 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I’ve responded
April 29, 2024
[6:23 AM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar any feed back before i write this up as a ruling?
[7:26 AM]Eluvatar: Ack
[7:32 AM]Eluvatar: Commented
[8:52 AM]Turn Down For What: Ive added a response on why i think that is over reach for this rulling but i will wait for @Pallaith, Just a Justice to respond
May 1, 2024
[4:13 PM]Turn Down For What: @Court i have a draft rulling up. there is formating to be done and i want to put citiations in the body. but there is enough to get your teeth into
May 5, 2024
[2:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: In case you missed it I responded with my own tweaks and proposals for the draft opinion
[2:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I figure we’re pretty darn close to something here
May 6, 2024
[2:55 PM]Turn Down For What: @Eluvatar can we get your feedback on @Pallaith, Just a Justice proposed ruling?
June 3, 2024
[10:48 AM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: We’re a few weeks from having to select a bar commissioner to present to the RA for confirmation. We should probably start narrowing down options and reach out to them. We can probably wait a bit on announcing the nomination after that depending on how smooth that process is
[11:17 AM]Turn Down For What: Zyvet and AS are two potential noms
June 5, 2024
[7:26 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I like those two candidates
June 6, 2024
[2:29 PM]Turn Down For What: I will be semi unavaible this weekend and next addressing family issues, i will not be out of communication just slow to respond
June 12, 2024
[4:45 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Who wants to reach out to the candidates?
June 13, 2024
[7:06 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I can do it.
[7:06 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I'll ask them to tell if they'd be interested in the role, and if so, to give a brief description on why it should be them.
[7:06 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Is that okay?
[7:07 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Also.
@Eluvatar still has the Court role
[7:45 AM]Turn Down For What: yeah, the only person who can remove it is himself
[4:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Oh we also have to appoint a new bar commissioner because Lore is termed out in a week
[4:10 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I have reached out to AS, Gorundu, and Zyvet
[4:10 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Oh we already started this
[4:10 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: See I’m senile? I belong on the court
[4:11 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: This is what I get for letting people scare me when I’m already on top of things
[4:11 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay so they need to answer us
[4:12 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Wow I’m floored that I actually brought this up two different times and forgot we already reached out to 2/3 of those people
[4:57 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: AS accepted but has to decline because he would be serving with Dreadton
[4:57 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: So Zyvet or the other guy it is
[5:03 PM]Turn Down For What: dude is a bit bitter
June 14, 2024
[7:32 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Oof
[7:33 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: That's a certain being bad
[2:28 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Zyvet accepts
June 15, 2024
[1:18 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Fantastic news!
June 17, 2024
[2:08 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: @Court A new R4R has been filed
[R4R] Regarding "On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA"
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review? Previous court ruling number 36, On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA. 2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do...
[2:20 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Are we all in favour that I take it?
[2:26 PM]Turn Down For What: For an R4R any judge can accept without the need for others to approve
[7:12 PM]Turn Down For What: I went ahead and accepted it
[11:39 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I was gonna do it in the morning damnit
[11:39 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: No worries
June 25, 2024
[6:54 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: I invite you to take first stab at the opinion @WAAGH Time! Vivanco
[6:55 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Will do, but in the afternoon, I'm pulling an all nighter because of a trial.
[6:56 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Oh don’t worry there’s no rush on this, I think it’s a straightforward decision and it’s not like it’s an urgent question
June 27, 2024
[3:55 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: It's been some days. Tomorrow I'll give it a go, apologies.
June 30, 2024
[3:46 PM]Turn Down For What: What’s the word on this?
[8:24 PM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I haven't forgotten but I'm finding trouble wording it in a proper way.
July 1, 2024
[7:10 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: I think I finally have something good
[7:28 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198471/post-10694224
[7:29 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: @Court
[2:39 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Fair. I’ll have a draft opinion tonight
July 2, 2024
[4:06 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Any thoughts on the draft I posted last night? @Court
[4:07 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: It occurred to me while writing my campaign response that I may need to add a bit to it to correct the last defunct ruling, which I now believe was made partly in error
July 3, 2024
[5:27 AM]WAAGH Time! Vivanco: Posted my thoughts!
July 6, 2024
[2:04 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: @Court are we looking good to publish this thing? Any final thoughts?
[2:08 PM]Pallaith, Just a Justice: Okay my bad, didn’t see the new posts. Not sure how I overlooked that since I checked the forum earlier today…okay then, I think it’s good to be posted in the thread @Turn Down For What and apologies for the unnecessary ping
[3:47 PM]Turn Down For What: Ok that will be done tomorrow I am on the road today
Pallaith, King of the North is Pallaith, CJ., Turn Down For What is Dreadton, J., WAAGH Time! Vivanco is Vivanco, J.