or Create an account
  The South Pacific Waterfront District Operations Center Recused Justices

We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Thread Closed  
Recused Justices
  • Offline Farengeto
    Council on Regional Security
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       2,828
    Threads:       229
    Rep:       373
    Credits: 34,980¢
#1
02-06-2015, 02:21 PM

Given the nature of this trial and the strong possibility that users involved in these ongoing allegations may be elected to court, I would like to request an alternative masking for any reclused Justices that have access to the private court forum. 
  • Offline Kris Kringle
    Chief Justice
  • *******
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       15,572
    Threads:       778
    Rep:       1,751
    Credits: 2,911,300¢
#2
02-06-2015, 02:36 PM

I'm hesitant to create new masks, even temporary ones. Would temporarily remasking recused Justices as citizens work?
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
  • Offline Belschaft
    Evil Emeritus
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       6,189
    Threads:       132
    Rep:       834
    Credits: 0¢
#3
02-06-2015, 02:39 PM

It wouldn't, as there'd be parts of the private office that they need to see. The best solution would be a passworded subforum where the threads that the recused justice shouldn't see could be located.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
[+] PREVIOUS ROLES
  • Offline sandaoguo
    Bane of TSP
  • *******
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       5,128
    Threads:       405
    Rep:       1,152
    Credits: 2,911,200¢
#4
02-06-2015, 03:50 PM

I don't understand why the recused Justices simply can't refrain from posting in the questioned threads?
  • Offline Belschaft
    Evil Emeritus
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       6,189
    Threads:       132
    Rep:       834
    Credits: 0¢
#5
02-06-2015, 05:23 PM

The issue is their ability to read them.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
[+] PREVIOUS ROLES
  • Offline sandaoguo
    Bane of TSP
  • *******
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       5,128
    Threads:       405
    Rep:       1,152
    Credits: 2,911,200¢
#6
02-06-2015, 05:30 PM

Huh? Why is that an issue?
  • Offline Belschaft
    Evil Emeritus
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       6,189
    Threads:       132
    Rep:       834
    Credits: 0¢
#7
02-06-2015, 05:38 PM

The issue is a justice being party to a case. They shouldn't have any access to the private deliberations regarding it.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
[+] PREVIOUS ROLES
  • Offline Farengeto
    Council on Regional Security
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       2,828
    Threads:       229
    Rep:       373
    Credits: 34,980¢
#8
02-06-2015, 07:54 PM

(02-06-2015, 05:38 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The issue is a justice being party to a case. They shouldn't have any access to the private deliberations regarding it.

The largest potential current example being that if Belschaft (though this is not solely for him, given the large number of citizens with a CoI in this case) is elected he would both be involved with the prosecution of a case and have access to the private discussions of the court, compromising the integrity of the process.
  • Offline Belschaft
    Evil Emeritus
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       6,189
    Threads:       132
    Rep:       834
    Credits: 0¢
#9
02-06-2015, 08:00 PM

(02-06-2015, 07:54 PM)Farengeto Wrote:
(02-06-2015, 05:38 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The issue is a justice being party to a case. They shouldn't have any access to the private deliberations regarding it.

The largest potential current example being that if Belschaft (though this is not solely for him, given the large number of citizens with a CoI in this case) is elected he would both be involved with the prosecution of a case and have access to the private discussions of the court, compromising the integrity of the process.

I'm in the process of securing a signed declaration from the relevant individual, which will eliminate any potential CoI from other current CSS members. As such this would only be necessary if I was elected to the court, which seems unlikely as the defamation appears to have been successful.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
[+] PREVIOUS ROLES
  • Offline Kris Kringle
    Chief Justice
  • *******
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       15,572
    Threads:       778
    Rep:       1,751
    Credits: 2,911,300¢
#10
02-06-2015, 08:02 PM

I have already talked in private with the Chief Justice, and a suitable solution has been worked out. Thanks.
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
Thread Closed  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



  The South Pacific Waterfront District Operations Center Recused Justices


Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .