[Private] R4R Regarding "On Content Ownership and Freedom of Information Requests against the Security Council"

Well the briefings more or less are on the same page with this one. Seems the best course here is to find the part where the decision says the SC is not subject to FOIA as written is defunct. Nothing else in the decision is under challenge nor should it be stricken out. I have an idea of how to put together a decision on it, but it's straightforward and given I drafted the previous case, I'm happy to defer to one of you, especially if your view on this is different from mine.
 
The matter at hand is easy. In the past, the Security Council would have been exempt from the FOIA, but as of the current status of the law, such statement is defunct, as it is considered in the most literal of senses as it is mentioned directly in the Legal Code. This is but an example of a change in the region's legal standing changing overtime. So, that position should be changed.
 
@Nutmeg The Squirrel think you can get that draft opinion soon? This one really should be able to get out soon, I think it's rather straightforward. Vivanco or I can throw one together if you need, just let us know.
 
Alright, in the hopes of maybe getting things moving, I'm presenting my draft for this opinion. I still welcome one from either of you if you have an alternative, but there is no reason for this r4r to take a month to get out.

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on the Reconsideration of Freedom of Information Requests against the Security Council

Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Pallaith, joined by Justices Vivanco and Nutmeg the Squirrel​

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

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here by Jinkies, here by SkyTheAquariusOP, and here by Zyvetskistaahn.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Constitution of The North Pacific.

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate:
10. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
Click to expand...

Article 5. The Security Council:
2. Once an application has been submitted, the Security Council may nominate that applicant by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may confirm a nominated applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.

4. The Security Council will monitor the security of the region and its territories and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
Click to expand...

Article 6. General Provisions:
15. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.

Chapter 4: Election and Appointment Procedure:
Section 4.5: General Elections
30. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
Click to expand...

Chapter 5: Regional Security Law:
Section 5.6: Disclosure of Security Council Information
31. Disclosure of private Security Council records will be regulated in the same chapter regulating disclosure of executive government records.
Click to expand...

Chapter 7: Executive Government:
Section 7.4: Freedom of Information Act
27. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee, the Vice Delegate and Security Council, and the Speaker's office.
28. For the purposes of this section, “appropriate officers” are those officers responsible for the types of records being requested or released.
29. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive are responsible for records related to the Executive.
30. The Vice Delegate is responsible for records related to the Security Council.
31. The Speaker is responsible for records related to the Speaker's office.
32. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:

  • Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
  • Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize Security Council operations in response to threats and attempted coups.
33. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
34. For the purposes of this section, "government records" are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are open to members of the government and anyone assisting them.
35. For the purposes of this section, “private government records” are those which are kept on any platform utilized by the government and are restricted to only the Delegate, the designated officers of the Executive, and any other individuals granted access by the Delegate; only the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, and any other individuals granted access by the Speaker; or only the Vice Delegate, the Security Council, and any other individuals granted access by the Vice Delegate.
36. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
37. At any time a resident may request the release of any government record or private government record through the appropriate officers.
38. The appropriate officers will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
39. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the appropriate officers may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable criteria for classification.
40. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration prior rulings by the Court here, here, here, and here,


The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On the Court’s Prior Ruling
The Court Examiner has requested that this Court reconsider our prior ruling related to the application of FOIA to the Security Council, which held that like the judiciary, the Security Council was also exempted from FOIA requests. As with the other ruling, subsequent changes in the Legal Code have explicitly included the Security Council in this law. When the original ruling was made, the point of contention was defining the Vice Delegate and the Security Council’s relationship to the Executive, and due to its exclusion from that branch, it was excluded from application of the FOIA law. The ruling was also concerned with the ownership of the posts that would be subject to FOIA. We see no reason to reconsider this aspect of the ruling, as no legal changes have taken place that relate to this matter.

The FOIA law now applies to the Security Council. There is no reason that should not be the case from a legal standpoint. Its exclusion in the past was due to the Court’s other ruling that FOIA only applied to the Executive branch, and the fact that the Delegate cannot compel the Security Council to release information. Our other conclusions regarding the Security Council’s relationship with the Executive branch and content ownership are still correct. The Legal Code now explicitly accounts for the Security Council in the FOIA process.

Holding
We find that the following portion of our prior ruling On Content Ownership and Freedom of Information Requests against the Security Council is now altered due to a portion of it being defunct as precedent:

Given that the Chair of the Security Council holds that power only in the absence of holding executive authority, the Court opines that the Security Council is not categorized under the Executive Branch. Given that, and given that the Delegate has no legal authority over the Security Council with which to compel it to release information, the Court opines that the Security Council is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as written.
Click to expand...

Therefore, the defunct portion of the ruling will be modified with strikethrough tags, acknowledging its obsolescence while preserving it for historical purposes.
 
Last edited:
I'd change the holding's textual part, the two "..." doesn't quite convince me.
 
I did it that way for a reason. Consider the full paragraph the defunct bit comes from:

As for the Security Council itself, its status likewise cannot be determined solely from Article 7 of the Constitution. Given that the Chair of the Security Council holds that power only in the absence of holding executive authority, the Court opines that the Security Council is not categorized under the Executive Branch. Given that, and given that the Delegate has no legal authority over the Security Council with which to compel it to release information, the Court opines that the Security Council is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as written.
Click to expand...

If you remove the portions I identified, it would read thusly:

As for the Security Council itself, its status likewise cannot be determined solely from Article 7 of the Constitution. Given that the Chair of the Security Council holds that power only in the absence of holding executive authority, the Court opines that the Security Council is not categorized under the Executive Branch and that the Delegate has no legal authority over the Security Council with which to compel it to release information.
Click to expand...

Now even to do that, I actually had to remove additional punctuation around the final clause, so getting an exact segment identified is a little tricky, but this is what I was going for. Observe the strikethroughs:

As for the Security Council itself, its status likewise cannot be determined solely from Article 7 of the Constitution. Given that the Chair of the Security Council holds that power only in the absence of holding executive authority, the Court opines that the Security Council is not categorized under the Executive Branch. Given that, and given that the Delegate has no legal authority over the Security Council with which to compel it to release information, the Court opines that the Security Council is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as written.
Click to expand...

I actually ran into the same problem when I struck out the other FOIA language we rendered defunct. Perhaps we want to steer away from being super exact on which text is being stricken? Sometimes when it's a single word it's an easy call, but when you have to rewrite sentences, perhaps it's best is we just say we remove the chunk that says the defunct thing without committing it precisely to the page. What do you think?
 
Being precise is nice, yes, but I do agree with not needing to be absolutely exact when removing sentences.
It does look awkward with the "...given...", so instead maybe we should just mark
The Court opines that the Security Council is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as written
Click to expand...
as the part of the ruling now defunct, and then insert our small grammatical edits, or we insert the larger portion of the ruling with the strike-outs, like we would show revisions to Regional Assembly proposals
 
I like it. Show the new text as it reads with all relevant changes visible. No doubt about how it’s been altered that way.
 
Either that, indeed, or use [...] if you stick to that method. However, Nutmeg's suggestion is more appropiate in my opinion
 
I have edited the ruling draft to reflect Nutmeg's suggestion, I tried altering the language to reflect that not the entire quoted segment is defunct. I think this is a much cleaner way to do this and hopefully serves as a model for similar future cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top