Ropanama's Request for Review Regional Ban

[Ropanama]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

I am requesting review of my recent ban from the region, for "violation of community guidelines on multiple occassions", as seen here: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/634763/35#post-10707978

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?

I believe that Sections 2, 5 and 8 of the Bill of the Rights have been violated by this action. I believe that Sections 5 and 8 of the Bill of Rights have been violated due to the nature of the ban issued against me, i.e. for a reason not expressly given in the Constitution or Legal Code. I believe that Section 2 of the Bill of Rights has been violated due to not being informed as to my rights with regards to requesting review of this ban, thereby denying me my right to seek redress of grievances.

I also believe Legal Code Section 7.3 has been violated by this ban, as I have been banned for a reason that is not covered by the reasons laid out in the appropriate section of the Legal Code covering Onsite Authority.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

In "On the Regional Ban of Kirana" and "On The Regional Ban of Siberia Union", the court made clear that the use of regional banning is restricted by the Legal Code to those instances which are covered by TNP law, namely: " Violators of NationStates rules, residents banned offsite by forum administration, or residents who maintain a nation in a region or organization at war with The North Pacific" (under Section 7.3.16), "Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning." (7.3.18), "Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned." (7.3.19) and Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned." (7.3.20) with none of these applying to the ban handed out to you, thus showing the overreaching nature of the ban.

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.

I have standing under the Legal Code of TNP Section 7.3.26 and due to being the banned party:

26. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, Frontier WA Delegate, Serving Frontier Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

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.

The compelling regional interest in my request is the fundamental violation of my rights and potentially the rights of other people banned for "Community Guidelines violations"

 

[Pallaith]

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

 

[Ropanama]

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

Thank you, this'll be a reminder to my future self to behave and not get in to trouble again. I'm a troublesome truck, like the ones from TTTE (Thomas the Tank Engine).

 

[Dreadton]

A Brief in Opposition to the Petitioner

The petitioner correctly cites relevant case law in their petition but incorrectly provides legal analysis for their petition.

On the Regional Ban of Kirana and On the Regional Ban of Siberia Union establish that the Delegate, under their legal authority to moderate the RMB, has the right and responsibility to enforce extralegal moderation as part of that authority. On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board, further establishes "But we are also cognizant of the difficulty in applying the Legal Code to situations which are properly under the jurisdiction of NationStates itself. Everywhere else in the region, such extralegal moderation concerns are rightfully handled by the administrative team and governed by the TNP Community Guidelines. But in the case of the Regional Message Board, extralegal moderation is handled by NationStates moderation. And when they cannot act, only the Delegate and those with the power to suppress, eject, or ban can. " The court has already established in previous precedent that enforcement of Nation States rules and TNP Community Guidelines fall within the authority of the Delegate to regulate the RMB.

As the petitioner only alleges that the ban is unlawful because the Delegate's authority to regulate the RMB does not extend to the enforcement of TNP Community Guidelines and prior court precedent establishes that it is within said authority, the court must reject the petition. Challenging the previous ruling is a mater for a Request for review and not a Ban Petition. Furthermore, the petitioner does not allege that their actions were not a violation of TNP community rules, thus such an argument is not properly before the court and cannot be considered.

 

[Ropanama]

I'd like to say that my past actions were a violation of TNP community rules, I learned from those past experiences of mine, apologizing for them.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court recognizes @Marcus Antonius @Griddyland @Picairn as respondents.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post. I will also state as a reminder this period may be extended at my discretion, I understand there may be a lot of information to bring into the case, if an extension is needed please indicate as much and for how long it will be needed.

After a brief search in the GA discord channel I found a post entered by myself reporting inappropriate posts by Ropanama dating from 07/31/2023 12:00 PM

I thank the court for the offer of extra time in evidence gathering - we may need it.

There is a lot of history.

 

[St George]

A Short Brief in Response to Dreadton's Brief

Neither On the Regional Ban of Kirana and On the Regional Ban of Siberia Union establish that the Delegate can go outside the law in applying standards of behaviour not explicitly prohibited by law as established in the Constitution or Legal Code, two documents that the Community Guidelines are not in fact part of. Nor does On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board establish that the Delegate is entitled to go outside of those laws.

Nor does there exist a difference between a "Request for Review" and a "Ban Petition". That is not a distinction that exists in our legal system and indeed the relevant portion of the legal code on banning explicitly calls this process a "judicial review". Further, the court, should it find itself in agreement with the petitioner, could decide to take a second look at its decision in On the Regulation of the Regional Message Board and overturn it or reaffirm it in partial or in full, as it did in that very case, when it overturned its prior ruling in On the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Sedition, despite that not being in the scope of the petitioner's request.