Post Archive
Region: The High Court
Your honours, I would like to thank you for the trial thus far, it has been run with honour and full commitment to the law, and I hope that this trial will serve as a role model for all future Courts in this region. Conversely, I hope that the defendant's outrageous violations of the law that we have proven before the Court today will serve as a role model as to what not to do in the future for the nations of this region.
Your honours, as the evidence showed, it is impossible for the connections made between Xernon and Tomb to be mere coincidences, it is impossible for the connections made to be well reasoned conjecture. It is an overwhelming assortment of circumstantial evidence that when connected, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant and Tomb are one in the same. Whether it be Xernon and Tomb's identical military history and regional membership history across NationStates, whether it be them living in the exact same region, or even them having identical typing patterns that those from not just Thaecia, but from all across the globe recognise, as the Court looks through the evidence when they make their ruling, your honours you will once again realise just how impossible it is for them to be anything different. Through their sophisticated techniques, NationStates moderators realised this, and they acted. And through our connection of the dots over two years of mayhem, we can realise it too in this esteemed Court.
As I know the Court will read over the evidence again to make certain of the defendant's guilt, I will spare the Court of yet another long summary of the evidence. Instead, I would like to address the defence's just previous point of the "story the defence has presented so far". Let us take a look at the story presented by the defence thus far: Because of the site NSHistory linked by the defence, Xernon and Tomb were probably not the same person. Yet when the Court will look at this site themselves, they will see that Xernon CTE'd, Tomb joined the WA, Tomb left the WA, Xernon joined the WA, Tomb joined the WA: all within quick succession of one another, and in some places, in the same time. I will point to the Court of the paragraphs of my cross-examination, the first beginning in "Let's take a closer look at the very site" and the last beginning in "This website establishes / Your honours, if the defence". This is where the defence's own story begins to fall apart as I build upon in the entire cross-examination: if it is the prosecution stringing together coincidences, then it is certainly more that the defence is the one stringing together stories without any backing in fact. The prosecution's assertation is that the defendant is Tomb, and is guilty of this heinous crime, and the defence's assertation is that they aren't because of a story that falls apart under the lightest bit of scrutiny. But as proved in my own cross-examination, upon further inspection of what the defence has presented and of my own evidence, the prosecution's argument only strengthens and strengthens some more.
I will take these two next paragraphs to discuss the witness testimony as we have already gone through the evidence in greater detail in the prior parts of this trial. As established by the witness's testimony, when a nation violates World Assembly rules, they are sent a telegram informing them of this, and are asked to leave the World Assembly immediately. Something additionally cruical is that the moderators are understanding when rules are broken, accept the mistake, and do not punish people in "any way, shape, or form", so long as they revert their mistake as soon as they learn of it. They understand human error. So why, your honours, did the defendant not try and revert this when he would have recieved the telegram for violating WA Rules? We know that he was ejected from the World Assembly: thus, logically, he would have received a telegram informing him of such. The defence's assertation that nations "often receive telegrams without having violated World Assembly rules" is irrelevant: any other telegrams he received were not of relevance to the trial, only this one is. We know he would have received it, so why did he as the defence suggests, "likely didn't think much of any telegram he possibly received"? That is because the defendant believed he was above being caught and thought he could game the system: in Exhibit E, he says himself "Knowing the in-game mechanics and the way the system swept the nations [...]".
It is clear that the defendant thought he knew what he was doing and he could get away with it. It is also clear that he knew what he was doing was wrong, as he would have received a telegram informing him of that. It is clear that the defendant had a chance to go back on what he did wrong: he would have received a warning and would have had a chance to act on that, or at least discuss his situation with moderators who could have helped guide him through what to do. If he is truly not guilty, why would he "likely [not] think much of any telegram he [...] received"? Your honours, if any of you received a telegram asserting you had violated the game's rules, would you not be very confused and would want to ask the moderators what was going on? Only if you were actually violating the rules would you not think much of it. But anyone who is actually innocent would be very confused, and would immediately be talking to the moderators, who again, are established as being reasonable people who are understanding of the rules being broken sometimes. Xernon was told what he was doing was wrong, was given a chance to fix it, and did not. That is why he was ejected from the World Assembly. The only possible circumstance in which he was ejected without warning is if he was a repeat offender: repeat offenders typically do not get telegrams, as they have already used up their second chance and goodwill of the moderators. And if so, while it certainly cannot be found out, if the defendant didn't receive a telegram, it would be because he is a repeat offender, which only makes it more believable (the piles of evidence notwithstanding) that he did this terrible crime.
Your honours, I hope that today, after reviewing the evidence, the re-explanation of evidence, and the witness testimonies, you will come to realise that there is no possible defence for the defendant's actions, that there is no story that can dispell the defence's crime. Your honours, the charge states "The defendant utilised between one and eight alternate accounts to vote multiple times, hindering the democratic process of the region", and it is more than certainly true that the defendant utilied at lesat one alternate account to vote multiple times. Considering the times of the ejections as well and to quote the defendant "knowing the in-game mechanics and the way the system swept the nations, it does seem like alts [alts: multiple] were employed", it is more than possible the defence used more than just one. But either way, the evidence has proven it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant did certainly utilise between one and eight alternate accounts to vote multiple times, hindering the democratic process of the region. I hope that the Court will make the right decision today, and as stated in LR 044, lay down the harshest possible sentence for the defence's heinous actions, a permanent ejection and ban, in order to send a message to not just Thaecia, but the world, NationStates at large, that this is not something that Thaecia tolerates, it is not something for the defendant to run away from by CTEing and ignoring their own defence team, and that nobody, nobody, whether it be the Founder, President, or Prime Minister, is above the law.
Thank you, your Honours.
The Ambis
The defense is now called on to make their closing statement.
Brototh
Your honours,
As much as the prosecution has done an undoubtedly good job at picking up coincidences to build up its argument, one point brought by the defence at the start of this trial still remains: nothing of absolute was proven by the prosecution. Ranging from the fact that the two nations are from Tennessee to both having used similar emojis in specific situations, the points raised by the prosecution have shown that it is impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that both are the same person. If that by itself is already impossible, proving the relation between the defendant and the other "puppets" was a task that the prosecution did not even bother attempting, instead choosing to focus its full attention in "Tomb".
What the defence believes to be the nail in the coffin to the wild theories of the prosecution, is that they all have alternative explanations beyond what the prosecution carefully selected to show. At one point the prosecution argued that both nations weren't in the World Assembly at the same time, yet we have proven that there was a period of at least around 3 weeks in which they were. The prosecution argued that the defendant's motive was to win the election, yet we have proven that the defendant would have won the election even without the illegal votes. The defence has even raised its own theory, that being the possibility that the defendant and "Tomb" are in fact friends who know each other in real life, a theory developed taking into account the words that the defendant himself used to justify this situation in the past. Of course, maybe even this theory is wrong, we may never know what actually happened that day, but that by itself is proof that it is impossible to prove the defendant is the one behind all of this beyond a reasonable doubt.
If an alternative explanation can be presented to each and every point raised by the prosecution, then what is the real value of this whole conjecture that the prosecution has built? Perhaps some could be indicators that something might be going on, sure, but if they are all just indicators and not concrete evidence, are they really anything more than just a theory? The defence vehemently believes in the principle of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has failed at eliminating the doubts required to make this a reality.
Thank you both, the High Court will now retire to create a ruling.
I request a ruling on this case
While I have aired my disagreement very aggressively on Discord with this ruling I appreciate that there is actually an attempt to deliver one. I seriously urge the other Justices to get one actually done
Following the assent of Associate Justice Creckelenney, this is now the majority judgement of the High Court of Thaecia in the matter of Thaecia v. Xernon. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1762503
I hereby resign from the High Court effectively immediately
Brototh
Well then pov no court now I guess bye (I resign)
Brototh
Justice Sunipi will serve as Chief Justice.
The Ambis
The High Court has determined to return now to the charge of disobeying a subpoena, which was delayed until an issue on constitutionality was settled (C.R.022), and subsequently not returned to.
The Court considered whether the precedent set in the ruling of Thaecia v. Xernon applies in this case. We hold that it does not. Note that the Court will not be commenting on the merits of the ruling itself. In the ruling, the case was dismissed because of repeated violations of the defendant's right to a speedy trial, on the actions of the prosecution. In this scenario, the delay to the defendant's trial was caused due to procedural errors and delays, for which the Court must be regarded as responsible, rather than the prosecution and defence.
The misdemeanour charge was delayed, pending a constitutional review. Following a review of the case, the Court has determined that, in this situation, the information requested in the subpoena was connected with any legitimate governmental interest and didn't require personal information.
As such, the Court will now move to trying the charge of disobeying a subpoena, in the case of Thaecia v. Xernon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pre-trial phase resumes now. The charge against Xernon is as follows:
Misdemeanour - LR 044 Article VIII Section XII (x1) - The defendant failed to respond to a legally binding subpoena within 14 days of its enactment.
Brototh, unless you indicate that you wish otherwise, you are still the prosecutor in this case.
Cerdenia, unless you indicate that you wish otherwise, you are still the defence counsel in this case.
Brototh, you have previously submitted witness and evidence form for this charge. Do you intend to amend these forms in any way? Note that witnesses Marvinville and Of Altonianic Islands have been, and remain, sworn in.
Cerdenia, you have not submitted an evidence or witness form for this charge. Do you intend to submit any, or remain as you are?
Both parties are reminded that the defence has previously entered a plea of not guilty.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1772500
The prosecution has indicated their wish to dismiss this case.
In the matter of Thaecia v. Xernon (misdemeanour), the Court dismisses the charge of disobeying a subpoena. This case is now closed.
Constitutional Review: L.R. 056 Judicial Framework Act (2022)
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional; YES[/B]
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution;
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
L.R. 056 states, in Article II Section II Subsection II (among other areas of the legislative resolution), "Appeals are a proceeding which, if successful, would have the High Court overturn a lower court decision if the lower court erred in their judgement".
The Constitution of Thaecia establishes Appeal cases in Article V, Section II & Section V, Subsection I.
The Constitution of Thaecia also guarantees all Citizens the right to equal protection under the law, the right to seek legal redress from government actions, including through votes of no confidence and the courts, and the right to due process of law in all interactions with the government of Thaecia.
However, L.R. 056 states that appeals are a procedure that only applies to the High Court overturning lower court decisions. This means that any decision made by the High Court is non-appealable and final, which is a rejection of my right to equal protection under the law (a citizen found guilty by a lower Court can appeal; if I am found guilty by the High Court I cannot), the right to seek legal redress from government actions (I cannot appeal decisions made by the High Court against me), and the right to due process (the appellate process is denied to me despite it being a fundamental part of due process, which guarantees me fairness, justice, and liberty, which is denied under High Court cases not being appealable.)
As such, L.R. 056 is not compatible with the Constitution of Thaecia, and the offending sections should be struck down.
[spoiler=Justices]Chief Justice Sunipi
Associate Justice Andusre
Associate Justice Dendrobium[/spoiler]
The filing is noted. The Court will now determine whether to accept the case.
Public Defender The Ambis will be representing the Legal Affairs Ministry in this review.
Brototh, Sunipi
My argument will be presented on 23 Oct 2022
Hello, your honors.
I would first like to say that it is a pleasure getting to represent the Thaecian Government, and I would like to thank LM Cerdenia for this chance. Now then, onto the actual case at hand.
The Thaecian Government agrees with the filing party and believes that L.R. 56 IS unconstitutional for the following reasons. The constitution very clearly states in Article II, Section I, Subsection III: [All Thaecian Citizens have] The right to equal protection under the law, and in Subsection IV: The right to seek legal redress from government actions, including through votes of no confidence and the courts. This clearly shows that Thaecians have an inherent right to seek protection from the law, and from government actions. In the case of the judicial branch, this would obviously be an appeal, because there are no other types of court cases, as laid down by the law, that allows for the overturning of a previous court case.
In L.R. 56, it states in Article II, Section II, Subsection III "Appeals are a proceeding which, if successful, would have the High Court overturn a lower court decision if the lower court erred in their judgment." This line states that the high court can only overturn a lower court, which is a blatant error, since, as pointed out by the filer, if one person were to get a statement issued by a lower court, they could get an appeal from the High Court, whereas, if issued a sentence from the High Court, they could not get an appeal, which is a glaringly obvious inequality under the law.
Furthermore, the second example brought (Article II, Section I, Subsection IV of the Thaecian Consitution) states that every citizen has the right to see legal redress from government actions. In the scenario of an appeal, the government action would be the high court issuing a verdict on a case, and the legal redress would be seeking an appeal. If you cannot appeal a high court ruling, then you have very blatantly broken the Constitution.
One could even argue, and I am about to, that this impedes on your right to a fair trial. When you think of a fair trial, you think of being the judges being unbiased, your attorney/ defender being willing to work with you, and also having it not impede on your constitutional right. If you are in the middle of being accused of treason, would you consider it fair to know that you have no redemption after this? What if you genuinely did not commit the crime but your attorney simply does not convey that well enough? Is that fair? No. That is not.
In summary, the Thaecian Government believes that L.R. 56 is unconstitutional, as it invalidates several rights granted to each citizen of Thaecia.
Cerdenia
Your honours,
L.R. 056 violates the Constitution in the following areas:
Article II, Section II, Subsection II
Article II, Section V
Article III, Section III
The Constitution of Thaecia in Article V, Section II & Section V Subsection I, establishes appeals as a function of the judicial system. Section II establishes the High Court as the court of 'final' appeal: this indicates that there may be a level of appeal that is not final. Section V Subsection I notes that only the High Court may hear 'cases on appeal from lower courts'. However, this does not mean that appeals at all cannot occur- in the parent section, 'any court [...] may hear [...] legal reviews', and in this subsection, 'only the High Court may hear legal reviews involving Constitutional questions'. What we can gather from this is that "cases on appeal" is the type of case that is heard: the appeal filing party disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal it. Further information is given in "from lower courts", indicating that only the High Court may hear a case on appeal from lower Courts. Just the same as how any lower Court can hear a regular legal review, but only the High Court can hear a constitutional question (i.e. what is the correct interpretation of this section in this scenario).
Courts can certainly hear cases on appeal- it is just the High Court that can hear cases on appeal from lower courts. This is a logical fallacy obviously, as any appeal case in which a lower Court was to hear would redirect to the High Court, hence why in Section V there is no mention of all Courts being able to hear appeal cases. But it then begs the question: clearly the High Court can hear cases on appeal from lower courts, but can they hear appeals on themselves? I argue, that yes, they certainly can. The subsection in which the High Court is established to be able to hear 'cases on appeal from lower Courts' only adds from lower Courts as more information: the High Court is too able to hear legal reviews, and Constitutional questions is simply extra information.
Yet the sections above clearly do not allow the High Court to hear cases on appeal from themselves. If the High Court makes a decision, it is effectively locked into place until the Court edit it themselves internally, with no ability to appeal the case.
Now, this brings me onto Article II of the Constitution: rights. If the High Court can only hear cases on appeal from lower courts that have erred in their judgement, that is a violation of the right to seek legal redress from government actions: if the High Court has made a decision that harms a citizen, they in no way can seek legal redress through the judicial system. It would be a violation of the right to equal protection under the law, because citizens who have been judged by a lower Court can appeal to the High Court, but I cannot because I have been judged first by the High Court. And it would undoubtedly be a violation of the right to due process of law, because the appellate process is a fundemental part of due process. Due process guarantees me fairness, justice, and liberty, and if I am denied the right to appeal a High Court decision, that is a clear violation of fairness (those from lower courts can appeal, I cannot), justice (no justice can be done to the decision in error), and liberty (which is being revoked as I have been harmed by this decision).
The Court must also consider that at this time, there are no lower Courts, and no efforts to establish any. While judicial interpretation must attempt to make a ruling that will stand for all time under any circumstance, it must also consider the plights of the citizens of the day too: in Thaecia's modern legal culture and society, there exists only one Court. And Legislative Resolution 056 fundamentally denies the right of appeal to all citizens, because there are no lower courts to err in their judgement. Despite the fact that the Constituion in Article V clearly establishes appeal processes, which is reinforced by LR 056, no appeals can actually occur. Which is, obviously, a violation of the right to seek legal redress from government actions through the Court.
Evidently, the denial of the right to appeal High Court cases is a violation not only of the Article V ability of the High Court to hear cases on appeal from itself, but of the citizen's rights. As such, I request that the High Court strike down the offending areas of each of the sections/subsections listed above.
The Ambis
Thank you both. The Court will now retire to form a verdict.
The Court has delivered its verdict on C.R. 023. It can be found below.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1786493
Judicial Review on the Ban of Yowande
On Tuesday 22nd November 2022, the Thaecian citizen Yowande was banned from the region by the executive branch, under the powers afforded to it by Article III, Section VI of the Constitution.
The same section requires automatic judicial review to determine the legality of the ban. Following private discussions on the matter, the Court will now hold a hearing to receive testimony from relevant individuals.
The Prime Minister was contacted in order to determine any regional security concerns a public hearing would create. No such concerns were raised, and so the hearing will go ahead.
The following individuals are invited to testify:
[list][*]Marvinville
[*]Brototh
[*]Altys[/list]
Note at this time, testimony is optional.
I would like to remind those who choose to testify in this hearing that they must tell the truth; wilfully lying in this hearing does constitute the offence of perjury and may constitute contempt of court.
The Court wishes to ask the witnesses the following questions:
[list][*]Did you approve of the ban of Yowande before it took place?
[*]Why did you not ban Yowande yourself?
[*]What threat to regional sovereignty did Yowande pose?[/list]
[list]
[*]Why did you ban Yowande, despite not holding public office at the time?[/list]
[list][*]Did you approve of the ban of Yowande before it took place?[/list]
The Court thanks the witnesses in advance for their cooperation.
I have indeed approved the ban.
Justice Sunipi
I object to this.
LR 044 states:
2. Perjury - A person is guilty of this offence if they falsify evidence in a court of law or wilfully lie under oath or affirmation, or do any or both of these things in an official hearing.
This is an official hearing as per the final sentence, however I have taken no oath or affirmation. A false statement would only be perjury if I took an oath; again, I have not. Unless I presented false evidence ie fake screenshots, which is distinguished from wilfully lying, I would not be commiting perjury.
I have no intention of lying or submitting falsified evidence but until the Court withdraws these baseless threats of perjury I will take no part in this hearing.
Thats fair enough, in an initial draft I had included an oath, hence the perjury. It will be withdrawn as requested.
Holding public office is not a requirement to holding legal power to ban
Section IV - The powers of the Prime Minister may be delegated to Ministries
I see no need for further elaboration unless required to do so
Sunipi
An additional question for Marvinville:
[*]did you delegate your powers to Brototh?
A reasonable time has now elapsed for the Prime Minister to testify, so the hearing will now conclude.
The Court thanks the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Defence Minister for their cooperation, and a verdict will be released in due course.
The Court's decision on C.R. 024, authored by Chief Justice Sunipi, has been published and can be found below.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1808263
The Ambis, Justice Dendrobium
Legal Inquiry Form
Seeking: A Court declaration that a past course of action is or is not legal.
Specific order or declaration being sought: The nullification of the results of the January 2023 midterm elections.
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
A series of election irregularities which constitute violations of regional law were identified through the course of this election. To start off, I would like to bring up the topic of party acronyms. As per Article IV Section I of Legislative Resolution 058, the "Legalisation of Political Parties Act":
"Candidates contesting an election may choose to run under their registered political party, in which case their party acronym is to appear to the right of their nation name on the ballot. Candidates may not run under political parties they are not registered members of."
as well as Section II:
"Candidates may also opt to run as independents, in which case the acronym "IND" is to appear to the right of their nation name on the ballot."
Your honours, this option was NOT enforced through the course of the election. I myself registered to run as an independent, yet such label was not present on election day, and I am certain other candidates also registered to run with their respective political parties and had said right deprived of them. This fundamentally changes the way voters view candidates, be it for better or worse. An acronym next to the name of a candidate could have made them more or less attractive for the average voter, and yet said information was not present on election day, fundamentally altering the course of the election.
The second point I would like to bring up is in regards to the Vice Delegate candidate Astorius who ran on a ticket with The Ambis. The candidacy declaration period closed on the 4th of January, as per the announcement of the Electoral Commission, and the Vice Delegate candidate which had been previously selected, Vedenmark, left the region on the 5th of January, being replaced by Astorius in the same day, meaning Astorius became Vice Delegate candidate after the candidacy declaration had already closed. While the Vice Delegate Candidate is selected by the Delegate Candidate, it is still an elected office as per the Thaecian Constitution, and as such should be subjected to the same restrictions as any other office as per the rules set up in Article II of Legislative Resolution 049, "The Electoral Commission Act". This also fundamentally influences choices made by the voters, considering Astorius showed up next to The Ambis on the ballot. Astorius' name could have influenced voters to support The Ambis simply by showing up in the ballot, much like party acronyms, yet Astorius himself was illegitimately allowed to run for office, so the voters were essentially fooled in that regard, also fundamentally altering the course of the election.
In conclusion, considering this election was conduced in an unfair manner which does not comply with regional law, I request the result of the January 2023 election be deemed illegal and that a new election be organised as per Article III Section III (I) of Legislative Resolution 049, "The Electoral Commission Act":
"A new election may also be called if the High Court has reasonable suspicion that the election was not conducted fairly, impartially, or in a timely manner."
[spoiler=Justices]Sunipi
Dendrobium[/spoiler]
Snowflame, Brototh, Toerana V
Due to my recent nomination to the position of Electoral Commissioner, I believe that it would be more beneficial to the Court and any precedent it sets that I recuse myself from this case.
Brototh, Experthady
Snowflame, Andusre
Your honours,
As mentioned in the original Legal Inquiry Form, the January 2023 Midterm Election had a series of irregularities which constitute violations of Electoral Law, and which can not be resolved through a simple recount of the votes, considering the irregularities were such that voters could have been lead to vote differently had the law been enforced correctly.
Let's start off elaborating on the point regarding political party acronyms. As per Article IV Section I of Legislative Resolution 058, the "Legalisation of Political Parties Act":
"Candidates contesting an election may choose to run under their registered political party, in which case their party acronym is to appear to the right of their nation name on the ballot. Candidates may not run under political parties they are not registered members of."
as well as Section II:
"Candidates may also opt to run as independents, in which case the acronym "IND" is to appear to the right of their nation name on the ballot."
Your honours, as mentioned previously, this option was not enforced in the actual election. Below I present screenshots with evidence of this:
This screenshot shows me registering to run for World Assembly Delegate with the Electoral Commissioner. As you may see, I made it clear that I was running as "Independent": https://i.imgur.com/tPc7eit.png (the edit is from the same day, a screenshot of the edit time can be provided if needed)
This one shows the ballot for the World Assembly Delegate Election. It is clear that the "IND" acronym is not next to my name, despite the fact that I stated to the Electoral Commissioner that I was running as an Independent: https://i.imgur.com/RG0mj4Z.png
While I have not personally spoken to anyone else regarding whether they registered to run with a party for the House of Commons election, I would still like to present the following screenshots with the ballot of said election, just to show that no candidate has a party acronym next to their names:
https://i.imgur.com/Pq1pQci.png
https://i.imgur.com/C60CmA6.png
I believe this establishes clearly that, at the very least, my candidacy (and possibly others) was harmed because of this violation of regional law. Acronyms are a part of the ballot, it is undeniable that acronyms change voter preferences. The average voter might not know enough about all candidates, but they might prefer one over the other because of a specific party they recognise, or because one represents an independent vision rather than the adherence to a restricted list of party principles. Either way, with this option allowed by regional law not being present in the ballot, voters might have been lead to vote differently than they normally would if the proper procedures were followed.
On to the second point. Article II of Legislative Resolution 049, "The Electoral Commission Act", lays off the following restriction under its Section III (I):
"The Candidacy Declaration Period shall begin three days before the end of the month prior to the scheduled election and it shall close on the 4th day of the month the election was scheduled for."
Your honours, the following are screenshots which prove The Ambis' Vice Delegate Candidate Astorius was chosen one day following the closure of the Candidacy Declaration Period:
In this screenshot The Ambis announces his new running mate (date is the 5th of January): https://i.imgur.com/g9vP2ag.png
In this one the Electoral Commissioner confirms that The Ambis' original Vice Delegate candidate had left the region that day (5th of January), which would mean there was no longer time for The Ambis to nominate a new running mate: https://i.imgur.com/PyBKipS.png
Your honours, I believe this establishes clearly that Astorius was chosen following the closure of the Candidacy Declaration Period. While some may argue that the position of Vice Delegate is different from other offices, Article III Section II (I) of the Thaecian Constitution makes it very clear that the Vice Delegate is an elected position, even if the system may be slightly different from other offices:
"There may be a Vice Delegate serving at the pleasure of the World Asembly Delegate elected on a ticket with the Delegate or confirmed through a simple majority vote in a referendum."
Considering the Vice Delegate is an elected position, I believe it to be clear that it is subject to the same general electoral regulations as any other elected office, specially because if it were not subject to said regulations, this could mean a World Assembly Delegate candidate could replace them at any point in time, even seconds before the start of the election, creating an unreasonable situation for the Electoral Commission.
With this established, I argue that this situation gives The Ambis an unfair advantage in the World Assembly Delegate Election, with the potential to alter election results. Considering Astorius showed up next to The Ambis on the ballot, Astorius' name could have influenced voters to support The Ambis simply by being there, much like the situation with party acronyms. That said, Astorius himself was illegitimately allowed to run for office, and if the proper procedures were followed his name would not have showed up there. Voters essentialy might have had an additional reason to support The Ambis, that being Astorius name next to his on the ballot, and yet Astorius would not have been there if the law had been properly enforced.
In conclusion, considering this election was conduced in an unfair manner, as regional laws were violated multiple times throughout the course of the electoral process, I request the result of the January 2023 election be deemed illegal and that a new election be organised as per Article III Section III (I) of Legislative Resolution 049, "The Electoral Commission Act":
"A new election may also be called if the High Court has reasonable suspicion that the election was not conducted fairly, impartially, or in a timely manner."
[spoiler=Justices]
Sunipi[/spoiler]
Your honors, I request the ability to submit a statement as a voter in the January 2023 Midterm Election.
I realize this is a somewhat novel request, but given the quite severe ask of the plaintiff I as a voter would be harmed if their proposed relief was granted.
Experthady
Legal Inquiry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of an item, or otherwise an advisory opinion by the Court;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What specific order or declaration are you seeking:
Whether or not I, as the technical World Assembly Delegate am allowed to make votes/decisions in the World Assembly
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
Earlier, I resigned my position of World Assembly Delegate. After much of a kerfuffle, every person in the line of succession resigned, leaving no one to hold the position of World Assembly Delegate (henceforth called the WAD), though I am still gameside (or technical) World Assembly Delegate, as the person with the most endorsements. According to L.R.042 the incumbent WAD is legally required to cast their vote in line with the recommendations of the WAD-elect. Since there is no WAD-elect, nor is there a legal WAD, am I allowed to cast votes/ approvals in the WA.
[spoiler=Justices]
Lego Darkslayer[/spoiler]
Post self-deleted by Marvinville.
Justices Dendrobium, Islonia, and The Islamic Country Of Honour, update on my case please
I have been elected as the Chief Justice of Thaecia.
[spoiler=Case Content][quote=the_ambis;50809566]Legal Inquiry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of an item, or otherwise an advisory opinion by the Court;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What specific order or declaration are you seeking:
Whether or not I, as the technical World Assembly Delegate am allowed to make votes/decisions in the World Assembly
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
Earlier, I resigned my position of World Assembly Delegate. After much of a kerfuffle, every person in the line of succession resigned, leaving no one to hold the position of World Assembly Delegate (henceforth called the WAD), though I am still gameside (or technical) World Assembly Delegate, as the person with the most endorsements. According to L.R.042 the incumbent WAD is legally required to cast their vote in line with the recommendations of the WAD-elect. Since there is no WAD-elect, nor is there a legal WAD, am I allowed to cast votes/ approvals in the WA.
[spoiler=Justices]
Lego Darkslayer[/spoiler]
The filing has been accepted by the High Court of Thaecia. The Statement Phase begins now.
Both the filing party and the Minister of Legal Affairs are invited to make their opening statements.
Post self-deleted by The Ambis.
Hounourable Justices,
As I mentioned in the filing form of this case, and as I'm sure you all know, in late January of 2023 I resigned from my position as the World Assembly Delegate of Thaecia. After about 6 hours of Legal Hot Potato, the entire line of succession, as set out in L.R.045 The Designated Survivor Act of 2021, had either been fired or had resigned, as detailed in the spoiler below:
[spoiler=Further Detail]
Astorius, Vice-Delegate - Fired by me in the final moments of delegacy. (https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=50802963)
Marvinville, Prime Minister - Resigned (https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=50806803)
Brototh, Foreign Affairs - Resigned (https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=50807230)
Domestic Affairs - Vacant
Snowflame, Legal Affairs - Resigned (https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=50807530)[/spoiler]
On the same day as all this happened, Electoral Commissioner Sunipi started an election for the World Assembly Delegate. This is not the issue. The issue that arose was that I had the gameside position as the World Assembly Delegate, and there was no legal holder. According to L.R.042, the Delegacy Transition Act,
"For the duration of the Delegacy Transition Period, the incumbent WAD is legally required to cast their vote in line with the recommendations of the WAD-elect. The incumbent WAD shall be prohibited from voting on any World Assembly resolutions without the consent of the WAD-elect, unless they voted on that resolution before the incoming WAD became the incoming WAD. The incumbent WAD shall also approve World Assembly resolutions which the WAD-elect asks to be approved. The incumbent WAD shall be prohibited from sponsoring World Assembly resolutions without the consent of the WAD-elect."
This is the procedure for the delegacy transition act and possibly applies to my situation as well, which is what I am asking about. As there was no legal World Assembly Delegate for the time between Snowflame's resignation and the election of Rayekka as World Assembly Delegate, my question, and the reason I am filing this case, is, was I, or anyone else after me in the same position, am I allowed to cast votes and/ or approvals in the World Assembly?
(Edited to remove a factual error)
[spoiler=Justices]
Dendrobium[/spoiler]
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1862360
Brototh, The Ambis
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional;
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; ✅
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
III.III.I states: « The Prime Minister shall have the powers to sign or veto laws passed by Congress ».
I.II states: « Section II - Amendments to this Constitution may only be passed with a 2/3rds majority in each Chamber of Congress and the approval of the citizenry with a 3/5ths majority vote in a referendum. »
My question is: can the Prime Minister veto a Constitutional amendment by itself? Additionally, if a bill partially contains a Constitutional amendment (part of it is legislative resolution; part of it is an amendment to the constitution) and the Prime Minister issues a veto, is the entire bill vetoed including the amendment, or is only the legislative resolution vetoed but the Constitutional amendment progresses? Furthermore, when such a bill is passed, if it attains a simple majority (i.e 6/11) but not a two thirds majority (i.e. 8/11), does the legislative section of the bill progress but the constitutional amendment is removed?
[spoiler=Justices]
Dendrobium[/spoiler]
The filing has been accepted by the High Court of Thaecia. The statement phase begins now.
Both the filing party and the Government are invited to make their opening statements.
Justices, I apologise for no statement in 2 weeks- I know I am the one constantly sounding the slow court trumpet but this time it was me: the delay was caused by my wish to have a LAM confirmed first before we go through with this. Now I have been confirmed as LAM I will be giving my statement by Monday on behalf of myself and the government.
Have to apologise for the delay again, simply just forgot- human error
Your honours, I will approach the problems that I have raised one at a time.
First of all: Can the Prime Minister veto a Constitutional amendment by itself?
My answer to this is a simple 'No', for the Constitution states that amendments "may only be passed with a 2/3rds majority in each Chamber of Congress and the approval of the citizenry with a 3/5ths majority vote in a referendum". There is no mention of the Prime Minister, whereas the passage of law does explicitly state "in order for a bill to become law, it needs to have passed each chamber with a simple majority vote and attain the signature of the Prime Minister." Thus, a bill which has the only function of amending the Constitution cannot be vetoed by the Prime Minister. There is a clear distinction here and thus while regular laws can be vetoed, amendments cannot.
Secondly: If a bill partially contains a Constitutional amendment (part of it is legislative resolution; part of it is an amendment to the constitution) and the Prime Minister issues a veto, is the entire bill vetoed including the amendment, or is only the legislative resolution vetoed but the Constitutional amendment progresses?
First we must consider this problem with the mind that a Constitutional amendment has a distinct process from legislation and thus cannot be vetoed whereas legislation can be. Now with that in mind, if the Prime Minister vetoes a passed bill that contains both legislation and amendment, we first must discard the idea of a 'bill' as a precursor to an 'act'. While LR 039 does explicitly state that bills are defined as "legislation that has not yet been passed through Congress", there is no good synonym for a piece of text passed by Congress. I further recognise IV.IV states 'in order for a bill to become law'- but what I am discussing is just text. 'So when we discuss bill here, we are discussing it as separate to LR 039 and meaning only text that is passed by Congress.
Thus this hypothetical bill of which Congress has passed many contains both an 'act' and a 'constitutional amendment': These are distinct processes. Congress passes the act via its procedures as per IV.IV and passes the amendment as per I.II; While they are performed at the same time, they are separate, much like how cores in computers perform separate processes on the same computer at the same time distinct from each other. As such, if the PM issues a veto, only the legislation is vetoed, but the Constitutional amendment must persist on to a referendum.
However, what I have truly come to the Court to consider is not a literalist interpretation of text which in my opinion is obvious, but rather one that considers the situation as well. For what if a Constitutional amendment logically requires the contents of the bill? There have been many instances of the Constitution being amended but bills actually effecting those changes. If the legislation can be vetoed but the amendment persists, then the amendment may simply become defunct as well and the Prime Minister has de facto blocked the amendment without actively blocking it. I cannot truly provide an interpretation to this myself for I am not of the Court, but if I had to, it would have to be literalist and simply be that it is an issue for Congress and the PM to resolve between themselves.
Finally: When such a bill is passed, if it attains a simple majority (i.e 6/11) but not a two thirds majority (i.e. 8/11), does the legislative section of the bill progress but the constitutional amendment is removed?
Now my interpretation to this relies on, much like the second, the interpretation that the process between IV.IV and I.II are separate. If the bill attains only a simple majority, then it is passed and the constitutional amendment part must be removed in all manners. This still creates a rather silly situation where there may now be an utterly nonsensical bill, however, this seems like an issue for Congress to resolve with a Constitutional amendment.
Yet if I were a Justice and were actually considering this case, I think I would tend to err on the side of a practical rather than literalist approach to this legislation and interpret my second and third questions as being that the entire bill is vetoed and the entire bill fails. For it would be difficult to legislate on such a topic, and it would be nonsensical/impractical to go with a literalist interpretation of this text. If such an interpretation is taken by the Court, it will open up more problems for Congress and the voters if referendums happen that are nonsensical or laws are passed that are nonsensical without constitutional amendments.
Your Honours,
The government motions for an immediate injuctive relief for the Prime Minister Marvinville against the "Recall of Marvinville from the Position of Prime Minister" submitted by Toerana V which has reached the legal requirement of signatures for a recall election to be held. The reasoning for this is that there are too many legal grey areas around the commission of a recall against the Prime Minister that must be resolved in Court before the commencement of a recall election. These areas must be resolved by the Court through a constitutional review before any recall election can be reasonably held.
To summarise briefly, the Constitution states on the recall of an individual "the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur." should the initial recall vote be successful. First the Court must clarify what the extent of 'if applicable' is in the circumstances of a recall of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the intent of the recall is to initiate a snap election for the post of Prime Minister, but this may be contradictory to the Constitution. This would mean that some of the signatures for the recall may have been made under the potentially false pretences (although not knowingly) of an election being immediately scheduled, which would be clearly contradictory to a democratic society in which a recall election is held under misguided principles.
Additionally, the statement of 'if applicable' also causes confusion when it is considered that the Prime Minister was elected on a ticket. Would the removal of the Prime Minister then not also automatically cause the removal of the Deputy Prime Minister Rayekka? They may be specified as different positions in Article VI Section I of the Constitution, but the concurrent election of both positions mean it is a question that should be immediately considered by the Court before a recall election can even be attempted.
Additionally, the Deputy Prime Minister's potential succession raises other questions that should be addressed in a legal review. If the removal of Marvinville would mean the accession of Rayekka to the PM office, this would create a clear contradiction with the Positions Restrictions Reform Act which states that the World Assembly Delegate cannot be the Prime Minister. This would also not be protected by the Designated Survivor Act which creates procedures for succession only if "the offices of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are vacant"; Thus the succession of the WAD DPM would not be protected by LR 045 and it could cause a further problem where yet another WAD election is needed or even another succession crisis like there was upon the resignation of The Ambis as WAD to force an election.
This would collapse the entire government as it would arguably require Ministers to resign from Prime Minister, however another interpretation of the Designated Survivor Act suggests that the resignation of, for instance, the FAM, would not mean the DAM is automatically next, rather the law should be checked again, and the conditions that the line of succession goes FAM first as the PM and DPM are vacant, would still be met, and the FAM would retain their role as Prime Minister and force Thaecia into an infinite loop. This absolutely cannot be reasonably justified in a democratic society and would be a clear violation of the Prime Minister's rights and any of his successor's rights as citizens to due process and fair treatment: to allow this recall to occur without these issues being resolved would unfairly treat the entire region and cause serious damage to the region's democracy and health in an already tense time; a government collapse cannot be dealt with by Thaecia at this time.
Thaecians must know for us to call Thaecia democratic what actually occurs in the recall process. It is the Court's duty as defenders of Thaecian law to uphold our democracy, and by forcing any recall process to be delayed until the conclusion of an immediately pending case on this constitutional crisis, Thaecian regional democracy would be saved from this impending crisis. The Court has set a precedent for stopping procedures for cases before, like criminal trials that were paused or otherwise declined to answer legal reviews. This precedent must be carried over to the recall petition for the health of Thaecian democracy. There is simply absolutely no way this recall can be held without these questions being answered first: we must have these answered before anything can be done.
The injuctive relief has been granted. The recall vote is to be held only after a ruling has been reached on the questions asked by Brototh.
Brototh
The constitutional reviews will be submitted within the coming period
After discussion with the Chief Justice we have agreed for me to submit my reviews after the conclusion of his examination period so on the 25/26 May
Having finally found the time in my busy irl schedule to check the ongoings of Thaecian politics, I saw support for a motion in favor of removing several Justices from office on the basis of the Constitution's Article VI, Section II. I have concluded it would indeed be best I resign from my post and let others with more time and motivation on their hands take over. I wish to thank those I had the pleasure of working with and those who put their trust in me. To the latter I also wish to apologise for my own inactivity as a Justice over the last few months.
The Ambis
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional;
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; ✅
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
Your honour, this is the first of three reviews to be submitted in total (pending the interpretations of each case; they all rely on the former, and this may ultimately take up to four reviews due to the functions of our legal system- I cannot ask the second question without the knowledge of the first's answer).
To summarise briefly, the Constitution states on the recall of an individual "the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur." should the initial recall vote be successful. First the Court must clarify what the extent of 'if applicable' is in the circumstances of a recall of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the intent of the recall at question is to initiate a snap election for the post of Prime Minister, but this may be contradictory to the Constitution. This would mean that some of the signatures for the recall may have been made under the potentially false pretences (although not knowingly) of an election being immediately scheduled, which would be clearly contradictory to a democratic society in which a recall election is held under misguided principles.
Additionally the Court must also describe what the full meaning of 'if applicable' is - is this only for situations in which there is no valid successor? And to what extent does a valid successor qualify for succession in recall? Does a successor even apply for recall - we know that Ministers stay on as Acting Ministers after a term has concluded, but do they stay after a forceful recall and can they ascend to the position of PM themselves? Also, can petitions themselves define what 'if applicable' is? Can a petition say that its success will cause a new election or say that it replaces with the DPM/next in line (despite the fact we do not have a 'challenge' system a'la TRR)? Or is this not what is meant by 'if applicable'? The question we must first ask is, what does 'if applicable' mean, where does it apply here, and what is the succession to the PM? Because it appears very clear that the DPM is the one to succeed the PM in all cases- the Constitution nor statute law makes any exceptions for this. However since the petition was then clearly signed by many on the false pretence of an election being held, it is clear that we must have an official Court ruling on the extent of these two words in order to once and for all settle this part of the issue.
Your honour, once you have concluded with this review, I will submit my next.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ich_chief_justice/detail=factbook/id=1892620
Appeal has been accepted.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1892782
Brototh
Upon reflection I believe that this appeal may take 4 cases. However this will be worth it in the long run as we will never have another question to ask on this matter ever again and the process will be permanently cleared up.
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional;
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; ✅
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
VI.I.II
"If a majority votes for removal the officeholder shall be removed from office immediately and if applicable a snap election shall occur."
This submission is sort of a 'mini-appeal' although I do not disagree with the contents of CR 026 (On Appeal). However, I feel as though it is a fair point to bring up once stated in context. The statement of 'if applicable' causes confusion when it is considered that the Prime Minister was elected on a ticket. Would the removal of the Prime Minister then not also automatically cause the removal of the Deputy Prime Minister Rayekka? They may be specified as different positions in Article VI Section I of the Constitution, but the concurrent election of both positions mean it is a question that should be immediately considered by the Court before a recall election can even be attempted. Is the DPM not specifically tied to the Prime Minister? And would it not make logical sense that those signing a recall petition, unless otherwise explicitly stated, would probably also want the Deputy Prime Minister (a position that does not have a significant workload, if any at all) gone so that a new government can be brought about? While I understand that the Court has made the position of the DPM's succession clear in CR 026, I wanted to bring up this point of ticket elections potentially leading to automatic ticket recall as I feel it is something important to clarify for future contexts.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1900092
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional;
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; ✅
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
In Article II, Section I, Subsection 5 (II.I.V), the Thaecian constitution states that
[All residents have] The right to stand for all offices elected by the whole citizenry;
The question here is simple:
Does this give a candidate the ability to stand for the same position twice?
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
Brototh
We refuse to accept this case.
If the person filing the case read the clause again, they should be able to notice that the rights clause mentioned "office" and not "position". And when there are elections for the House being held for example, all the eleven seats are of the same office. So, this should be crystal clear to anyone that a person can't stand for the same position twice. And furthermore, the Constitution mentions in Article II, Section III, "This Constitution guarantees the rights set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
So, we don't see any reason to waste the time of the Court in pursuing a case of interpretation clarification where there has not been any known differences in interpretation.
And even if this case had been accepted, the ongoing elections would have still gone forward as scheduled.
Are you seeking (check one):
- an order by the Court commanding a citizen to take or refrain from taking a particular action or actions; ✅
- a Court declaration that a person is or is not the rightful holder of a particular office;
- a Court declaration that a past course of action is or is not legal
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of an item, or otherwise an advisory opinion by the Court;
What specific order or declaration are you seeking: The EC, Sma Cyrillic, to not recognize Not A Party, which was created by The Ambis
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be: Not A Party (NAP) seeks to recognize itself as a legal political party in Thaecia and obtain the rights and privileges that all other political parties hold. However, NAP should not be recognized as a legal political party since it fails to meet the requirements set out by L.R. 058 Legalisation of Political Parties Act. Article I, Section I of L.R. 058 states that for a party to receive official recognition, it must "Present an official party name and acronym" and "Present a list of policies supported by the party." NAP fails to meet the requirements of both of these parts in Article I, Section I. First of all, this simply can not be recognized as a party. Its name is literally, Not a party, as classifies itself as "Independent" in its manifesto. Its purpose also says "NAP's purpose in the Thaecian Political Landscape is simple - provide a way for people to remain as independent as they would like, while still having all the benefits of a party! These include a color (light blue), an acronym (NAP), and (best of all) a party discord!" Its purpose is to provide a way to remain as independent as they like, even though by joining this, they join a party. If people want to remain independent, they can simply be an independent. This logic means that this "party" does not meet the requirement of having an official party name as its name is "not a party." It also does not meet the requirement of presenting "a list of policies supported by the party." Under the policy section, the manifesto states "There are none," meaning the "party" holds no policy. This is in direct violation of Article I, Section I of L.R. 058, and therefore, should not be recognized as a legal political party.
[spoiler=Justices]
[/spoiler]
The filing has been accepted by the High Court of Thaecia. The statement phase begins now.
Both the filing party and the Government are invited to make their opening statements.
Sma Cyrillicand The Ambis are also invited to make their statements.
Alright then
1) Your thing about my name is ridiculous. It falls in the law. The law says Political Parties shall have the liberty to select any name for themselves, provided it complies with the following requirements:
Must not violate any NationStates rules.
Must be composed exclusively of letters of the latin alphabet and/or arabic numerals.
Must contain no less than 5 characters and no more than 40 characters.
It fits all these things. It doesnt violate any NS rules (Voice of Mod feel free to correct me lol), its only letters of the Latin alphabet, and is 9 characters. My name is of no issue.
The thing with my policies is fair, which is why we now have two policies
To the thing about it being for independents who want a party? We have The right to free association; this includes the right to form or join a political group or media organization;
So please justices, my party is well within the law. That will be all
I dont know what I need to specifically say. In my reading of LR58, the proposed party had a stated policy. Ypu can disagree with the policy, but I plead to the Court that if you rule against the proposed party, you open the door for other people to ask for parties to be revoked simply by not agreeing with the policies of the party. In addition, the fact that a legal argument was made before the Court that "NAP is a dumb acronym" is frankly insulting to the seriousness of this Court. It adheres to the guidelines set out in LR58 as being Latin letters and it greater than 1 and less than 4. If the people who wrote the bill wanted to prevent this, LR58 would be vague as to define what a "policy" is or isn't. And last time I checked, this High Court doesn't write laws.
The Ambis
Your honours, the state's opinion is the assessment that the party name makes the party invalid is not a legitimate concern. All names are valid unless they violate what is specifically stated in law and "NAP" does not violate any of them. As such we would like to retract that assessment of NAP as made in the original filing by the Prime Minister. However we do agree with the assessment that the policy of not having any policies does invalidate the party and its right to be on the electoral ballot.
The founder The Ambis recognises this and on or around 0:58:55 BST [5 Jul 23] amended his party dispatch to include the policies of 'keeping thaecia' and 'keeping Discord.' I would argue that these are two legitimate policies (especially considering that these are things that have been suggested to change in the past, although usually in 2020- but that invalidate the policy, unicameralism was only big in 2020 but it would still be a policy to support bicameralism), however, I would argue that the party as applied to the Commissioner at the time is still invalid.
Legislative Resolution 058 states that the Commissioner is charged with recognising parties based 'exclusively on the criteria set through this act' (058.2.1); the policy of not having any policies is not a policy in and of itself, that would be like saying 'the only rule is there are no rules' which is a logical contradiction. If a government stated their strategy for recruitment was to not recruit, it would be clear and obvious they did not have any strategy to recruit. This is the same logic for policies as stated before having been recognised by The Ambis. The Court by rejecting this as a policy would not be defining what is or is not a policy, it would be rejecting a clear and obvious logical contradiction designed to manipulate and bypass the spirit of the law; this Court should before anything else recognise that and reject the notion that having any policy can, in and of itself, be a policy.
The Commissioner's recognition of the party whilst they had this policy is thus therefore illegal & invalid under Legislative Resolution 058. As such, the Court should order that the recognition of the party as was given is invalid as it was not based on the criteria in the law. However, the Court should then also recognise in an addendum that the party only now fulfils the criteria of a valid political party as it has (a) name (b) acronym (c) member list (d) policies, and that the Electoral Commissioner should then and only then extend recognition.
It may seem needless for the Court to reject NAP's existence however I argue that because the recognition granted to it by the Commissioner was not exclusively based upon the law (as the party did not have any policies) the party never legally obtained recognition- which is the Commissioner's alone to extend (058.2.1). As such the Court should rule that NAP did not legally have the right to recognition and thus the Commissioner must re-extend recognition once the ruling is completed.
Your Honors,
I would like to digress from the current issue at hand and instead address a matter more pressing. Through a series of clerical errors, I have missed putting people's names on the ballots. It is by this error that I request the Court to allow a restart of the voting. I also further request that the initial deadline of 23:36 6 Jul 2023 BST or 6:26 6 July 2023 EST to obtain citizenship or have a waiver for the purposes of the voting. If criminal proceedings are due, I will justly face them, but I personally want to run a fair election with all names on the ballots.
Here signed,
Ping for the Justices
Post self-deleted by Brototh.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1909793
What decision are you seeking to appeal: CR 028
Describe how the court in question erred in its decision: The court improperly expanded the scope of the case beyond the type of case filing by deciding the constitutionality of Article I, Section I of LR 058, therefore violating L.R. 056 Judicial Framework Act.
Are you seeking an order to temporarily stop the effects of the decision of the court in question, if so on what grounds: No
[spoiler=Justices]
[/spoiler]
Are you seeking (check one):
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional;
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; ✅
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
In Article VI, Section I, Sub-Section I of the constitution, it states If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder is presented to the Electoral Commissioner in a period other than within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for their office, the Electoral Commissioner shall start a recall referendum for the named positions as soon as possible with two options, one for the individual being removed from office and one against.
This only mandates when it can not be presented. However, it does not give a limit to them. Take for example, the former MP Zon Island. He has been in the house countless times. If a recall petition were to have been brought against him back in his second term, and gained 15 signatures, this would not have recalled him. However, now that the bar has been lowered to 10. So, if the petition were to be represented, would it automatically go into effect? Does every recall that gained over 10 signatures in the past automatically come to pass when that person retakes the elected office? This is a genuine question that I think could have serious impact on our democracy.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
In a majority decision, the Thaecian High Court has decided not to accept this case. The Thaecian Constitution states, "any law or government action inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect." The plaintiff not mentioning this particular clause in their argument doesn't prevent the question of its constitutionality from arising. Notice this clause doesn't mention "any law inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution is of no force and effect after legal examination." If something is unconstitutional and we don't strike it out just because it's not a question asked by the plaintiff, we will actually be going against the Thaecian Constitution.
Justices, I seek a something more novel, in the form of a re-review of the above decision.
From an outsider perspective, the above decision reads as the court now has the ability to rule anything unconstitutional, regardless of whether it was brought up. Additionally, making this ruling when simply denying a case is dangerous. Because this tells us the court can make anything unconstitutional at any point in time. I understand this is not normal. But I believe it to be necessary.
The case is accepted. The Statement and Discussion Period commences now.
Justices, please allow at most 26 hours for Ashlawn to be confirmed as LAM
Request granted.
The Ambis
Alright, after slightly more than the allotted time (sorry!) I'm ready to make my case.
Your honors, my case is rather simple. I ask two questions, both of which I believe to be rather imperative to our democracy.
1) Do recall petitions have an expiration date?
This is a genuine question I have had for the longest time. The constitution states that " If a recall petition is presented within 14 days of a regularly scheduled election for that position, no snap election or recall referendum shall be held." (VI.I.V) This means that in the first and last 2 weeks of an election, no recall can be presented. However, the Constitution also states that "The term of any elected office shall end when a successor is duly elected and inaugurated in a scheduled election." (VIII.II.I). This reads as "Unless a successor is inaugurated, they still hold the same elected office. For example, using me, I had the position of MP since April of last year, and never left the house. According to the constitution, this means I never left office. However, that also means that under current laws, a recall petition could be brought against me in May of 2022, not get the required signatures, (let's say only 9), then someone goes digging, and signs it, bringing it to the legal number of 10, in June of 2023. This *technically* is not within 14 days of an election, and under current rules, I have kept the same elected 0ffice. So is this a valid scenario, or not?
My second question is slightly more speculative and less likely to happen:
Can recall petitions be in effect post-ex fact?
Taking me as an example again, let's say a petition got brought against me again in May of 2022. This petition reached 16 signatures, which is one short of the 17 that was required. Now, again in 2023, someone really doesn't like me and points it toward the Electoral Commissioner. As I have never left office, it still is in effect, and now has over 10 signatures. Do I get recalled? Or am I protected from post-ex facto recalls?
This is all I have to say. Mr. Ashlawn, I now hand it to you.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
Honorable Justices of the Court,
It is the opinion of the government that the case before the court can be better answered by addressing three questions rather than the two the petitioner presents in their case brief. First, do recall petitions expire while a person remains in office? Second, do recall petitions expire at the end of a term? Finally, do changes to recall petitions apply retroactively?
1) Do recall petitions expire while a person remains in office?
The states opinion is that so long as a person continually holds office any recall petition against them for that office is valid. This is because neither the Constitution or Thaecian law or precedent explicitly states or implicitly indicates that a recall petition expires after a certain set time period. The simple answer to this question based on a plain text reading of the Constitution and Law is No.
2) Do recall petitions expire at the end of a term?
The government believes this question should be answered separately from the first question because it believes that there are provisions of the Constitution in addition to other factors that lead to a different answer than that of the first question. Article VI, Section I, Sub-section I states "If a qualifying petition naming any recallable officeholder " A "qualifying" petition indicates there are certain factors that make a petition qualifying, i.e. if they aren't met then the petition is not qualifying and is thus invalid as a whole. The only factor it gives is the immediate following phrase "any recallable officeholder". A person ceases to be a recallable officeholder when they leave office; the petition is thus not qualifying and is dead when the targeted officeholder leaves office. This applies even if the target is re-elected to the same position under court precedent set in C.R 001. The petition was targeting a qualifying officeholder who ceased to be that officeholder and will never be that officeholder ever again as you don't keep office after election ends, because as per CR 001 the Constitution only refers to officeholders in their current standing form, not an officeholder in perpetuity or future context. They cease to be said officeholder once the inauguration occurs under this precedent.
This also means that if the target were to return to the position named in the recall petition the petition would still be dead under this precedent. Additionally if for some reason the court finds that C.R. 001 is insufficient to protect against recall petitions being revived after returning to office it would still run afoul of the Constitution. Under 041.1.1, Thaecian citizens have a right to sign a petition. Additionally, petitioning classifies as the expression of an opinion which is therefore protected by the 1st Right of Thaecian Citizens in Article II of the Constitution. Automatically reviving the petition with all its signatures is essentially assuming the continued agreement of its original signatories and is consequently compelling speech on their part and is therefore in violation of the 1st Right of Thaecian Citizens.
3) Do changes to recall petitions apply retroactively?
This is probably the simplest question to answer. The 12th Right of Thaecian Citizens includes protection from ex-post facto laws and any changes to recall requirements fall within the scope of the right and therefore do not apply retroactively. If the court wishes to preemptively set a precedent on whether a law applies ex-post facto in scenarios where the 12th Right does not apply the court should rule that Congress must demonstrate clear intent that it desired for a change to apply post ex-facto. This is because Congress is the only body empowered by the Constitution to write laws and the court attempting to rule beyond what Congress wrote is infringing upon that authority.
I'm more than happy to answer any questions the Justices may have.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1924266
I will be submitting a number of Cases to the Court. The Court will be considering these cases one at a time (provided they are accepted by a majority vote of the currently sitting Justices including myself).
These Cases will primarily seek to overturn prior unfavourable precedent. The Cases are contained below in a series of spoilers. The Court will be deciding on the Cases in chronological order, top to bottom.
[spoiler=Case I - Constitutional Review: 056.2.6; I.I]Are you seeking:
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional; YES
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; YES
- Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be: A little over a month ago, former Chief Justice The Islamic Country of Honour submitted the majority decision of the High Court to reject citizen Ashlawn's appeal of the Court's decision to decide the constitutionality of Article I, Section I of LR 058. Ashlawn's appeal lied on the grounds that the Court was operating beyond her scope by declaring an item unconstitutional when said item was not referred to during the course of the discussion period of the case. The Court correctly ruled at the time that "not mentioning this particular clause in their argument doesn't prevent the question of its constitutionality from arising", as 056.2.6 had not yet been amended into legislation and was only included as a Congressional response to the Court refusing to hear the appeal.
056.2.6
All Court rulings on legal reviews are restricted solely to the questions presented in the original case filing or during oral arguments.
The issue of contention here is not whether the Court was operating beyond her scope: that issue was resolved at a later date by Congress and the ruling at the time was valid to make. The issue is that the High Court made a ruling in a circumstance other than through a legal inquiry or review. This was not a decision made like those described in 049.3.3 where the Court can by majority vote rule election results as invalid/illegal; this was a decision made totally out of the blue. The issue here is that the Court seemingly had given itself the power to make rulings outside of cases. The issue is also that if the former Chief Justice's ruling is the correct interpretation, 056.2.6 is legally invalid clause as the Court ruled "if something is unconstitutional and we don't strike it out just because it's not a question asked by the plaintiff, we will actually be going against the Thaecian Constitution." even without legal examination.
As such, the Court must consider now the following:
[list=1][*]Does the Court have the power to make rulings outside of the result of a legal inquiry, constitutional review, or criminal case, without violating the right of due process by all Thaecian citizens and in this circumstance bill authors? Would making rulings without giving the Government a chance to input not violate the rights of due process for citizens, as the Court would theoretically hold unlimited power?
[*]Is 056.2.6 a legally valid clause or not, regardless of whether the Court has the power to make rulings outside of cases? Does I.I mandate the Court to strike down all unconstitutionalities in law, or can the Court's power be restricted from doing this by Congress?[/list][/spoiler]
[spoiler=Case II - Appeal: Thaecia v Xernon [II]]What decision are you seeking to appeal: Thaecia v Xernon [II] - [Link]
Are you seeking an order to temporarily stop the effects of the decision of the court in question, if so on what grounds: NO
Describe how the court in question erred in its decision: In this ruling, the Court decided the following:
Thaecia v Xernon [II]
In making this determination, we must first consider whether Xernon, currently a non-citizen, even has rights concerning this trial.
We rule that he does.
We cannot have a parallel justice system, one track for those who are currently citizens and one track for those who are no longer citizens. Xernon was a citizen at the time of his indictment. Justice must be accorded equally for all crimes for which one was accused while one was a citizen. The citizens right to due process in a court of law and all associated rights cannot end halfway through a trial, they must continue throughout the whole of the proceedings.
The issue here is that while the Court's intention was noble in making this ruling in protecting the rights of all Thaecians, past and present, it is directly contradictory to the Thaecian constitution. The Constitution specifically states:
II.I
All Thaecian Citizens are guaranteed the following rights without government interference;
The Constitution does not state "all past and present Thaecian Citizens"; it only refers to Thaecian Citizens. While this may leave the Court to interpretation, there is no confusion whether other laws refer to the past or present. For instance, if a law stated "All MPs must vote correctly", it would not refer to past MPs voting as well, as they are no longer MPs and thus no longer have voting rights in the House of Commons. By the same logic, "All Thaecian Citizens" should only refer to present Thaecian citizens, as past citizens are no longer citizens and thus no longer have the rights of present day Thaecian citizens. The Court's logic that because Xernon was indicted as a citizen he retained his rights after vacating his citizenship was misguided. Non-present Thaecian citizens logically cannot retain their rights if they have left the region.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Case III - Constitutional Review: II.I.IX]Are you seeking:
- a Court order declaring an item or government action, to the point of the inconsistency, unconstitutional; POTENTIALLY
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of the Constitution; YES
Some time ago, L.R.015 Thaecian Bar Association Act (2019) was repealed by the new L.R. 067. This means that there is no longer any legal method for a nation to become an attorney. This means that the 9th, the right to representation in a court of law, cannot be fulfilled. The Court must consider how the Constitution should be interpreted in the way that citizens can actually gain representation in a court of law, considering that the legislation's bar exam no longer exists. The Court should interpret what an attorney actually means and how citizens can exercise their rights. Potentially, this means that the Court should declare the government's action, or perhaps inaction, of not providing a way to employ attorneys.[/spoiler]
I also have plans for a case on whether or not non-citizens can be charged at all, especially persons who were never citizens in the first place, and especially relating to proscriptions, but I will save that for later pending the result of Case II which may be influential to the filing.
[spoiler=Justices, Government]CJ Marvinville
AJ Brototh
AJ Santa Marana
LAM Ashlawn[/spoiler]
Ashlawn, The Ambis
The High Court has accepted Case I and the statements and discussion phase has now begun.
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]
I will not be making a statement as plaintiff due to my position as Associate Justice
Honorable Justices of the Court,
One of the defining aspects of Thaecian democracy is a system of checks and balances that ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful. The case before the court today brings up legitimate questions about the effects of a previous ruling on this system of governance. It necessary that we preserve this fundamental part of Thaecian government and for this reason the Government takes the position that the court does not possess the power to make rulings rulings outside of the result of a legal inquiry, constitutional review, or criminal case. Additionally the government takes the position that 056.2.6 is a legally valid clause.
Regarding the first question, the Constitution clearly sets out in Article V the items the court can issue rulings on: Criminal Cases, Appeals, and Legal Reviews. Legal Reviews have further been expanded on by LR 056 to create Legal Inquiries and Constitutional Reviews. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Court the ability to rule outside of these legal avenues. In fact under the Courts own ruling in CR 013 Government Officials only have powers that are granted to them by the Constitution or by legislation. Therefore the Court is barred by precedent from making rulings outside of the previously listed legal avenues because they are not granted the power to do so by any provision of the Constitution or law. It is with this in mind that we look at the denial of the hearing of appeal that led to this case being filed. The court rejected the appeal of CR 028 under Cons.V.IX and provided a public reasoning as is required by Cons.V.IX.I. Notably Cons.V.X states that In any case heard, a judgment shall be reached by majority vote and delivered as soon as possible. The application of appeal of CR 028 was rejected and therefore the case was not heard. Therefore under Cons.V.X a judgment, or ruling, cannot be issued meaning that the reasoning given for the rejection of the application of appeal does not carry any legal weight as it is not a judgment.
With respect to the second question, we believe that 056.2.6 is a legally valid clause as it is consistent with precedent and does not in any way prevent the ability of the judiciary to meet its constitutional responsibilities. Under the Thaecian system of checks and balances each branch is given certain abilities to ensure the other branch doesnt become too powerful. With respect to the court, Congress has long been understood to have the ability to regulate the basic structure and procedure of the judiciary as evidenced by Cons.V.VIII and the existence of LR 056. The provision 056.2.6 is consistent with this precedent and long standing authority as at the most basic level, all it does is regulate the procedure of the court with respect to rulings. Additionally 056.2.6 does not violate Cons.I.I as it does not prohibit the judiciary from meeting the obligations of the Constitution. Cons.I.I declares the Constitution to be the supreme legal document of Thaecia and the phrase any law or government action inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect simply reiterates the supreme status of the Constitution in Thaecian law. The Court, as the judicial branch, is tasked with interpreting the laws or government actions to determine if they are in violation of the constitution and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. 056.2.6 does not prevent the court from fulfilling this obligation as all it does is require that there be at least some publicly visible discussion of a question before it can be ruled on. The court is still able to ensure that the Constitution is the supreme legal document, just with an extra step. Therefore 056.2.6 does not in any way violate Cons.I.I because the court is still able to ensure that any law or government action inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect.
Should the Honorable Justices have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
Honorable Justices of the Court,
I appear again before you in my personal capacity as a citizen. Anything I say in this filing does not represent the position or opinion of the government and is entirely my own.
I again ask that the court overturn CR 028. The Constitution creates the category of legal reviews to hear questions about the Constitution and Thaecian Law. LR 056 further clarifies the category of legal reviews by creating Constitutional Reviews, where the question is related in some way to the Constitution, and Legal Inquiries, where the question does not relate to the Constitution. LR 056 later goes on to explicitly state the different formats for the filing of a Constitutional Review or Legal Inquiry. Looking at the case application that spurred CR 028 we can see that it was filed in the format consistent with a legal inquiry, not a constitutional review. Therefore under 056.2.2.2 in ruling on the case the Court was empowered to only make a ruling commanding a citizen to take or refrain from taking a particular action or actions, a declaration that a person is or is not the holder of an office,... a declaration that a past action is or is not legal, or determine the correct interpretation of an item. However by declaring 058.1.1 to be unconstitutional the Court did none of these and therefore violated 056.2.2.2 by issuing a ruling with a result reserved for Constitutional Reviews, a completely separate legal avenue with its own rules and requirements. It is because of this that on procedural grounds I respectfully ask the court to overturn its ruling in CR 028 that 058.1.1 is unconstitutional.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
I am withdrawing Case II (Appeal: Thaecia v Xernon [II]) as the case would require the Court to, during an appeal, issue an interpretation on the Constitution. This would violate past precedent on criminal cases which decided that alleging that an individual has violated the Constitution in some fashion that is not already decided or directly violates the letter of the law, requires a constitutional review on the issue first.
For the appeal to succeed, I would have to argue that the Court's proceedings underwent a fundamental defect that had not yet been established. As such, once Case III is completed, pending any other cases submitted by different plaintiffs, I intend to submit a constitutional review on whether non-present Thaecian citizens can retain their rights if they have left the region.
If that case has the outcomes that non-present citizens do not retain their rights in some circumstances, I will then and only then appeal the dismissal on the basis that it was made upon a fundamental defect in the Court's proceedings (056.2.4.1.2) as the Court's proceedings were to give the defendant the right of a speedy trial that regular citizens have.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1934339
[spoiler=Relevant parties]
[/spoiler]
The Court has accepted Case III.
Minister of Legal Affairs Ashlawn is invited to give the government testimony.
The plaintiff, Brototh, has declined to give plaintiff testimony and indicated that Ashlawn is privileged to give plaintiff testimony on her behalf, if he wishes to do so.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
Honorable Justices of the Court,
On behalf of the government I submit the following filing. The question before the court is a simple one, what does it mean to receive representation in a court of law. In 2019 through L.R.015, the Thaecian Bar Association Act, the legislature defined representation as an attorney who had passed the Thaecian Bar Exam, a process which that same legislation established. This process and therefore definition remained until 2023 when it was repealed as part of L.R. 067, the Security Modernization Amendments & Statute Law Revision Act. The plaintiff asserts that due to the repeal of this act, and therefore definition and process, the 9th right cannot still be fulfilled. The government disagrees and believes that it can.
All L.R.015 did was simply regulate and define which individuals met the standard of representation in a court of law by creating the title of attorney and creating a process to attain said title. In the absence of any legislative or executive policy regulating the standard of what representation in a court of law is, the definition reverts back to the most basic one, that a citizen is able to request and ensure that someone acts on their behalf, aka represents them, in court. This is something that can still be fulfilled in the status quo and therefore means that the 9th right is not being infringed on.
The government also opposes the plaintiffs request that the court define or interpret what attorney means. The 9th right simply says The right to representation in a court of law, nothing about an attorney. As stated previously, the concept of an attorney was created by L.R.015 to create a raised standard for the fulfillment of the 9th right. Since it was repealed both that raised standard and the concept of an attorney were also repealed. For all intents and purposes if the court were to issue a ruling on the definition of the word attorney it would essentially be defining a concept that no longer exists in Thaecian law or would have to, in a completely constitutionally unfounded manner, invent the concept again. This would be a massive overstep and is why the government strongly believes that the court should dismiss as moot the portion of the plaintiff's complaint requesting a court interpretation of the word attorney.
Should the Honorable Justices have any questions I will be happy to answer them.
[spoiler=Justices]
Santa Marana[/spoiler]
The Ambis
I resign from the High Court
Toerana V
Toerana V, The Ambis
Are you seeking (check one):
- an order by the Court commanding a citizen to take or refrain from taking a particular action or actions;
- a Court declaration that a person is or is not the rightful holder of a particular office;
- a Court declaration that a past course of action is or is not legal
- a Court declaration on the correct interpretation of an item, or otherwise an advisory opinion by the Court; YES
What specific order or declaration are you seeking:
An interpretation of the law surrounding the felony of Leaking Classified Information
Describe the relevant facts as you hold them to be:
Honorable Justices of the High Court, I appear before you in my capacity as Legal Affairs Minister of Thaecia and on behalf of the Prime Minister Administration to resolve a legal gray area that occured on current PM Toerana V's (Bow's) first day of being Prime Minister. During Andusre's (Andy's) most recent tenure as Prime Minister, he shared a certain plan that he and then DAM Brototh had created together, which I cannot state here due to reasons I will outline below, with his cabinet, consisting of myself, Brototh, Bow, Obalostan, Snowflame, Ashlawn and Sunipi. He told us that this was of utmost secrecy and sharing this information would be regarded as Leaking of Classified Information, a felony under 044.IX.2. We understood this, and none of us brought it up outside DMs in the cabinet group chat on Discord.
On this first day of Bow's tenure, he reached out to me asking if he could share the above plan with his cabinet, even though it was classified as classified information by the former Prime Minister. We managed to get it worked out, however, it did raise a couple of legal questions that I seek to have answered.
1) Can the Prime Minister deem any information classified, or does it have to fit a certain qualification,
2) If a former Prime Minister deems something classified, and then ceases to become part of the government in any way shape or form, is the information still classified, and
3) Can a Prime Minister rule something previously classified information non-classified information?
Thank you.
[spoiler=Justices]
Sma Cyrillic[/spoiler]
The High Court has voted to accept this case. The Government is invited to give its statement. As the government has brought this case to the Court, they are reminded that the Legal Affairs Minister has the right to submit a personal statement unaffiliated with the government opinion.
As Chief Justice, I advise any and all citizens giving an opinion before the Court to handle supposedly classified information sensitively. If whomever gives an opinion believes they have information that may or may not be classified, they should not state it in a public forum. Regardless of whether it is ultimately classified, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
[spoiler=Relevant Parties]
Sma Cyrillic[/spoiler]
Sma Cyrillic, The Ambis
I will aim to submit the governments argument within 24 hours, but will keep the court updated if this changes
Santa Marana
As an update, this will not come within 24 hours. The government is considering dropping part of the case, which is prolonging the process.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.