| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2208.HQ] Requirement of in-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV |
|
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION I, Belschaft, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered. REFERENCE NAME Requirement of in-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils ARGUMENT Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter of the South Pacific states; "(5) No law may be passed by the Assembly that directly affects the activities of the in-game community without the consent of the in-game community." Article Thirteen, Clause Two of the Charter states; "(2) Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also receive the consent of the gameside community before coming into force, where the consent shall not require more than a three-fifths supermajority in a vote. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its structure in the Charter, which must receive the consent of the Assembly before coming into force." A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils has removed a specific protection in Article 14, Clause Five of the Charter which stated; "(4) Any and all changes to regional law proposed by a Great Council may be adopted by a three-fifths supermajority of the Assembly, which must be confirmed by a majority vote of the game-side community." An amendment removing a clause specifically protecting the rights the game-side community is a clear and unambiguous breach of Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter - as it directly affects the activities of the in-game community - and as such no such amendment can be adopted without a the consent of the in-game community. As such the decision of the Chair to accept the passage of the amendment without a confirmatory in-game vote is contrary to the Bill of Rights and thus unconstitutional. Whilst the Chair is responsible for determining which amendments directly affect the gameside community this determination cannot be arbitrary, and the failure to make this determination in this case is clearly against both the letter and the spirit of the law. Whilst I do not believe there is any malice in this decision government actions which are contrary to law cannot be allowed to stand. I ask the following; 1. For the Court to overturn the decision to not refer A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils to the in-game region as required by law. 2. For the Court to issue a temporary injunction preventing the adoption of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils as law and any subsequent vote under it's provisions until this case has been decided. REQUEST Does A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils require the consent of the in-game region as laid out Article Three, Clause Five and Article Thirteen, Clause Two of the Charter? Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2208.HQ] REQUIREMENT OF IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV — GREAT COUNCILS SUBMISSION 31 MAY 2022 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2208.HQ REFERENCE NAME Requirement of in-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils QUESTION Does A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils require the consent of the in-game region as laid out Article Three, Clause Five and Article Thirteen, Clause Two of the Charter? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than , but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2208.HQ.NR | Issued 31 May 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENT Your Honor, This case is not justiciable because Article 13, Section Two of the Charter gives the Chair and the Chair alone the power to determine whether or not an amendment affects the gameside community. Therefore, to rule against the Chair would be a usurpation of the Chair's authority as the Court has not been granted the authority to review the decision of the Chair. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC PETITION OF NON-JUSTICIABILITY ARGUMENT Your Honor, I submit this petition in agreement that this case is non-justiciable by the High Court. I reach this conclusion, and believe the Court should as well, in part due to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Charter and in part because the Chair's is not clearly erroneous and egregious, even if there is disagreement over it. The Charter places the determination of whether or not an amendment "directly affects the gameside community or its home governance" specifically with the Chair of the Assembly. This occurs in not only in Article XIII, but also in Article I. The specificity of this mandate is abundantly clear, being twice mentioned, and should not be diluted without exceptional cause. Unless the Chair of the Assembly makes a determination that is a prima facie erroneous and egregious violation of the Charter, where no reasonable person could conclude otherwise, the Court should show deference to the Chair per the mandate given to them in the Charter. In all other cases, a disagreement over the Chair's determination, even if deep and contentious, is a political question that should be resolved by the Assembly itself. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2208.HQ] REQUIREMENT OF IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV — GREAT COUNCILS SUBMISSION 31 MAY 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 01 JUN 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is not found justiciable. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR AN IN-CHAMBERS OPINION Interested parties may request the Chief Justice to provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination no later than . It is so ordered.
2208.HQ.DJ | Issued 01 Jun 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC PETITION OF NECESITY ARGUMENT Your Honor, The necessity of a ruling on this matter is clear for one simple reason; to uphold a right clearly enumerated in Article Three, Clause Four of the Charter. The right of gameside consent - that decisions directly affecting the gameside community or its home governance can only be made with the agreement of gameside community - is clear and unambiguous. The Chair of the Assembly is tasked with determining which matters qualify as such, but like all other government actions this determination must be reasonable, objective and non-arbitrary to be lawful. It would be unlawful for a Chair to determine that a law dealing solely with internal Assembly procedure requires the agreement of the gameside community; at the same time it is unlawful for a Chair to determine that a law explicitly granting the gameside community community a particular right or power does not effect that very community. Should the Chair be empowered to make such an arbitrary determination then the entire legal principle - and the right enumerated in Aticle Three, Clause Four - become meaningless and unenforceable. A Chair of the Assembly could declare any matter as not-effecting the gameside community and there would be no legal recourse. The right of gameside consent would cease to exist. The Bill of Rights clearly states in Article Three, Clause Six that "The High Court may strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter." It is my contention that the act of not referring the amendment in question to the gameside community is a clear violation of the right of gameside consent. The Charter provides a simple and clear redress in situations where a right or freedom is violated; for the Court to strike down the general law or action that has caused the violation. Your honour, it is this redress I seek. A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils does not appear unlawful by itself, even if I may disagree with it's contents. The determination of the Chair that it does not require the consent of the gameside community is unlawful and thus must be struck down. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (06-01-2022, 10:58 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I request the Chief Justice to provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination. In particular I would ask that the Chief Justice provide an explanation of why they concluded that the Court's responsibilities under Article Three, Clause Six of the Charter did not apply. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2208.HQ] REQUIREMENT OF IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV — GREAT COUNCILS SUBMISSION 31 MAY 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 01 JUN 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to explain the reasons for the dismissal of this case, the Court explains as follows: It is true, as the petitioner argues, that the Court has a standing authority to review the actions of government officials. The question at hand, however, does not purport to have the Court do so; instead, it asks the Court to deliver judgement on whether A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils requires from gameside consent before it can become law. It is clear from Article I, Section 4 of the Charter that the determination of when a bill requires gameside consent rests on the Chair of the Assembly1, not on the High Court. It is the view of the Court that while it could conceivably review a determination made by the Chair, though perhaps only if the case is sufficiently egregious, to directly answer this question as it was asked would be to usurp the functions of the Chair of the Assembly, an action that the Court is not willing to undertake. For the reasons exposed above, the question is not found justiciable. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article I, Section 4 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. 2208.HQ.IO | Issued 01 Jun 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |