| Access to the courts by non citizens |
|
I'm filing this as proxy for Belschaft. The question is:
Does the current masking granted to residents of The South Pacific by forum administration violate the Bill of Rights? Currently residents cannot post to the courts and submit responses like amicus briefs to court matters they are involved in. Thank you for your thoughts.
As an amicus brief in response:
We seen recently, a number of outsiders wanting to try to pile onto our court discussions with comments - a masking that kept the judicial section free for posting would also keep our court open to those comments as well as particular comments from those actually affected.
Residents are granted an appropriate masking that allows posting rights in the Assembly and the High Court when they need it for specific purposes. Belschaft has not provided proof that he is a Resident and therefore has no right to said masking.
What QuietDad is referring to is the Registered mask, which is the default group for any user of the forum, not one granted by Forum Administration, and which naturally gives no posting rights in either of the aforementioned areas. 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
To further Kris' amicus brief, current court precedent directs that non-citizens may access the courts to defend themselves against charges in a criminal case. However, there is no court case we are aware of that interprets existing law to grant such post privileges to residents who are not facing criminal charges. Given that, the status quo determines what we do: existing permission structures do not grant posting permission to all registered users for spam purposes, and the only time we are directed to grant such privileges is to established Residents facing criminal trials. Admins did not make an affirmative decision on who can file legal questions. We followed existing protocol that respected the current status quo.
In response to the legal question at hand, the Bill of Rights is specific in when non-citizens have the right of access to the courts. A plain reading of the law does not indicate that non-citizens may even ask a Legal Question. While the question of whether this is good policy is a legitimate question, it is one that the courts cannot settle themselves under the law as currently written. Furthermore, I respectfully request that Farengeto recuse himself from this case, should it be heard during this term or should he be reelected for another term. It is clear through statements made by Belschaft that Farengeto has discussed this case at length with him prior to the filing.
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |