Quote:Before I question the ruling made above, I must first call to attention the legitimacy of the ruling on this case. I've read this over a few times, and one passage early on caught my attention:

Quote:The following Legal Question is submitted, challenging the legality of the Cabinet's actions on 21 January 2015, which are: unilaterally creating a new forum and redirecting the domain (thesouthpacific.org) to these new forums; unilaterally removing Tsunamy, Sandaoguo, and Kringalia as forum administrators; unilaterally installing Hileville, Imkihca, and Scylla as forum administrators; unilaterally removing Kringalia's citizenship and his membership in the Committee on State Security; and unilaterally removing Regional Officer Border Control powers from Tsunamy, Sandaoguo, Kringalia, and Farengeto.

Boldness mine. I noticed that the ruling judge has been directly affected by this case. Sure, I suppose everyone has due to the fact that admins are involved and the forum hosting was changed, but not everyone lost abilities / positions as outlined by this case. Those who have should have recused themselves as they were directly involved and therefore may have prevented the judiciary from reaching a true and just result. That is the definition of "Miscarriage of Justice" as outlined in the Code of Laws. If one is directly affected to the point of losing abilities / positions by the recent actions of the cabinet (specifically, the delegate in this case), it is extremely beneficial for that individual to rule against the group or individual who removed their abilities / positions. I am unsure if there is a rule that specifically calls for justices to recuse themselves when directly involved in a case (there is for CSS members), but if there isn't, there clearly should be. It is the only way we can ensure the above ruling was made with impartiality.

I have recused myself from the parts of this case for which the executive action affected me. The Executive Action regarding the CSS had no bearing on the rest on the case thus I saw no reason recuse myself for it. Part 4 of the case, which deals with that subject matter, will be addressed by Temporary Justice Feirmont.

Quote:Part 1
The Charter states the following under Article 9:

Quote:1. The Coalition's official Regional Forum is located at http://thesouthpacific.org

As I write a reply to this topic, I am currently using the domain "http://thesouthpacific.org" and therefore using the official Regional Forum of the Coalition. By definition, the regional forums are located at that address. No other specifications are made, and no other qualifiers are used. Now, since the first section defines the regional forums, all other sections correspond to that definition. Based on that definition, the forums have not changed. I will point out that based on the wordage in Section 9, the location of these forums can only change if the web address becomes permanently unavailable, which would violate a return to the old forums, which are hosted at a different site (http://104.131.34.7/thread-3474.html). Therefore, based on the connotations and wordage of Section 9, we must continue to use forums located at "http://thesouthpacific.org" unless that forum "cease(s) to exist or otherwise become(s) permanently unavailable" (9.2). Isn't that what the law states?

Therefore, by what is written in law, we must always use forums connected to the http://thesouthpacific.org address unless it is rendered unavailable. At least, that's how I read it.

The laws on the matter are by no means perfect. As of this writing the forums must be located at the specified URL, however at the same time the forums currently occupying the URL are not legally authorized by our laws.

Quote:Part 3
Let me see if I understand the timeline of events correctly:

• 11/22/15 - Last public post by Kringle until 01/05/16
  
• 12/03/15 (6:34 pm) - Second to last overall post by Kringle until 01/05/16
  
• 12/03/15 (9:26 pm) - Last overall post by Kringle until 01/05/16
  
• 12/30/15 - Imkihca sends a list of those who are no longer citizens to Glen
  
• 01/02/16 (6:34 pm) - Kringle is now technically in violation of citizenship post requirement
  
• 01/04/16 - Glen checks over the list sent by Imkihca and clears all but Kringle
  
• 01/05/16 (10:01 am) - Early in the day, Kringle posts twice in public.
  

Is this correct? I connected these times based on Glen's timeline and the evidence submitted by Tsu (http://i.imgur.com/e8nlWGs.png), it appears the following happened: Imkihca sent a list of citizens in violation of the two post limit based on his knowledge of their post count. Glen checked this list as Kringle was in violation of that law and decided not to remove citizenship, which is against protocol. This may seem like a small caveat, but it is in fact central to a ruling the court made less than one year ago (HCLQ1510) which stated that an individual remains a citizen until administration removes them from the citizenship mask. In short, according to the ruling, and surmised by the statement below:

Quote:As such the Court reiterates its view that citizenship status remains until the physical act of removal and no retrospective powers of removal exist

This means that a non-citizen is technically a citizen until an administrator removes citizenship. When the administrator (Glen) checked citizenship of Kringle, Kringle was indeed in violation of the two-post per 30 days requirement, yet he was not removed as a citizen of the region. The fact that Imkihca submitted this request when Kringle was technically a citizen is irrelevant given the ruling referenced a few paragraphs ago. The nation is not a citizen when the vice delegate declares them to be a non-citizen, but when an administrator removes the masking. Since Glen checked this on 01/04/16, that would make Kringle a non-citizen. 

Bear in mind this ruling was made in order to validate an election where Glen narrowly edged out Wolf for a cabinet position by one vote, a vote cast by a nation that was technically a non-citizen by Charter definition, but after the ruling was made a citizen until administration removed their citizenship.

The matter of the date was a subject of much debate. However the rulings place the weight of determining citizenship expiration on the delegate (including as referenced above the "physical action of the removal of citizenship of this forum by the Vice-Delegate (or other authorised persons under the Charter)"), and the dates of Imkihca's submission of citizenship removals have been used as the reference point for the removal date by both Sandaoguo and Hileville in their testimonies, both of which led me to to use it as the relevant time period in the ruling.

Perhaps it is also fitting to reiterate the court's previous recommendation on the issue in HCLQ1509 from April 2015:

Quote:However, this question raises some important points that require consideration by the Assembly. Not least, the Charter makes no explicit reference to who should be empowered to remove citizenship should a nation fail to meet the provisions of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 8 or how often such citizenship checks should take place. On this basis, in addition to this ruling the Court urges the Assembly to debate this matter as a matter of urgency for the purpose of providing legislative clarity for future elections.