The matter being requested is exactly what the LQ involved. The petitioner is asking that the court define the equivalency of two offices according to the respective clause, specifically the case of a "Delegate" which does not hold the in-game Delegacy.

Reply

Yes, but I'm trying to compare delegate to delegate, not to a cabinet minister position...

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply

Your honor,

When can we expect a ruling on this matter?

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply

Your honor,

I must again ask for a timeline for ruling on this case.

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply

For Immediate Release
05 November 2017

---

The Court provides notice to the general public that the ruling on Define Delegate [HCLQ1711] will be released on 12 November 2017 at 12:00 EST. The Court will thereafter entertain questions and doubts regarding the legal reasoning expressed in its ruling, and the process it followed in the consideration of the legal question, but it will not consider questions regarding the political ramifications of the same, nor will it express opinions of a political nature on any other unrelated subject.

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

Reply

Thank you for the response, your honor.

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply

Is it of the opinion of the court that additional briefs may be submitted before the ruling?

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply

While the Court will admit amicus curiae briefs during the following week, it asks for diligence in their submission, since it will need time to evaluate their arguments and incorporate them into the prospective ruling.

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

Reply

[Image: wNC8JrQ.png]

Define Delegate
HCLQ1711

Petitioner: rolandarmstrong

Legal Question: Does the word “Delegate” mean on-site delegate, or the delegate our government recognizes?

Amicus Curiae Briefs

• rolandarmstrong [21 October 2017]

Presiding Justice: Kris Kringle

Law Clerk: Griffindor13

---

Summary of the Ruling

It is the opinion of the Court that the recognition of any possible office by the Coalition should have no bearing in the determination of equivalency under Article 5, Section 5 of the Elections Act. While the Cabinet has the sovereign right to determine to which governments it extends recognition, such recognition has no impact on the actual exercise of duties on the part of the official. Any position held within the context of a government holding actual control of a region should be evaluated for equivalency, along with positions within organisations that, while lacking effective control over a region, exercise actual duties that could cause conflicts of interest. This stems from an examination of the issues Article 5, Section 5 sought to remedy, and the progress of debate regarding its possible amendment, which lead the Court to believe that the intent was to avoid conflicts of interest arising from the execution of duties for two regions or organisations with competing interests.

---

There is probably no higher honour for a citizen than to participate in elections. Be that as a voter or as a candidate, it is a fundamental right and privilege for the people to have a voice in how their government is composed, and what policies their representatives pursue. This legal question asks for clarification on a fundamental aspect of how elections are run, requesting that the Court clarify the extent to which conflict of interest laws apply, therefore providing predictable rules for how future elections should be conducted.

I
Legislative and Judicial Precedent

While the region has long debated the merits of allowing foreigners to hold government offices, only recently has the Assembly come to a relative agreement on what kind of restrictions should be imposed, particularly how far-reaching they should be. This offers an opportunity to evaluate the mindset of legislators, and also affords the Court opportunities to set precedent on the legal interpretation of such legislation.

A. Legislative Precedent

Article 5, Section 5 of the Elections Act bars the Delegate and anyone in the Cabinet from holding “any equivalent offices in a foreign region or organisation”. This provision, henceforth referred to as the Equivalent Offices Clause, was first suggested by Belschaft earlier this year as part of a broader discussion on the separation of powers.

In a thread titled Separation of Powers, Belschaft called for the reincorporation of language that kept the same individuals from holding multiple offices within the government, and additionally added language that kept anyone serving as “Delegate, Prime Minister, Chair of the Assembly, Permanent Justice, Local Council Member, or Cabinet Minister” from holding equivalent offices abroad.

Belschaft indicated that the goal of this provision was to avoid conflicts of interest. As the debate focused on this particular provision, much attention was devoted to discussing how much of an equivalency there should be for the restriction to apply. A few issues raised where the possibility that the Chair of the Assembly might be exempted from the ban and the suggestion that Deputies should not be covered by it. This bill received significant support, and with some edits by Sandaoguo, it was soon motioned to a vote and passed in the Assembly by an overwhelming margin of 22-3.

While this law added the Equivalent Offices Clause, it did not quell discussions about a more comprehensive ban on foreign offices. In May 2017, Tsunamy started a discussion on Conflict of Interest Disclosures, which devolved into a discussion on the possibility of legislating an outright ban on holding any foreign offices. There were diverging opinions regarding this, with Cormac being a forceful voice in favour of the aforementioned blanket ban.

In the context of this discussion, Seraph proposed an amendment that added more specific language to the Equivalent Offices Clause, as can be seen below:

(5) No person holding a Cabinet office, the office of the Delegate or the office of the Chair of the Assembly may hold any office in any foreign region or organisation deemed equivalent by the Election Commission for those campaigning for positions during elections and by the High Court for those already in office in the South Pacific. The following guidelines should be adhered to:
a. The office of Delegate shall be considered equivalent to any WA delegate position or any position which constitutes a ‘Head of State’, but not ‘Head of Government’ role.
b. The office of Prime Minister shall be considered equivalent to any position, elected or appointed, which constitutes a ‘Head of Government’ role;
c. The office of Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be considered equivalent to any position, elected or appointed, which serves as the principal role for deciding Foreign Affairs policy;
d. The office of Minister of Regional Affairs shall be considered equivalent to any position, elected or appointed, which serves as the principal role for managing any of the following: regional journalism, integration of new players, cultural events and roleplaying;
e. The office of Minister of Military Affairs shall be considered equivalent to any position, elected or appointed, which serves as the principal role for managing military gameplay.
f. The office of Chair of the Assembly shall be considered equivalent to any position, elected or appointed, which serves as the moderator and/or administrator of the legislature.

This discussion eventually stalled and no bill was voted on, but for the immediate aftermath of its submission, the above bill received relative acceptance from a number of legislators, just as it was criticised by Sandaoguo for being redundant. While, as the lack of a vote may indicate, the above descriptions are not the law of the land, the limited acceptance they received could provide some early clues as to the regional sentiment regarding the interpretation of the Equivalent Offices Clause.

Belschaft was asked to provide private testimony regarding his opinion on the Equivalent Offices Clause, given his role in its original inception. He indicated that it would make sense to interpret the Equivalent Offices Clause in such a way that duties and responsibilities exercised would be considered for the purpose of evaluating equivalency, since the actual exercise of responsibilities would constitute the exact kind of conflict of interest that the Equivalent Offices Clause seeks to avoid, regardless of the degree of recognition that the particular office might have, or any other competing office that might instead be recognised.

B. Judicial Precedent

In spite of how fundamental this clause is to the eligibility of candidates, there has been little judicial precedent for it. Only one case pertains to the Equivalent Offices Clause, that being a legal question submitted by Roavin on May 2017. While that does not offer a wide array of judicial writing from which precedent can be obtained, the particular precedent that does exist is key to the way in which the present question is to be answered, and the context through which this decision should be interpreted.

Roavin asked the following question:

If a member of the South Pacific holds the position of “First Warden” [of the Order of the Grey Wardens], which of the four cabinet offices in the South Pacific (Prime Minister, Minister of Regional Affairs, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Military Affairs) are they permitted to hold without resigning their position in that military organization?

Justice Farengeto deemed this question non-justiciable, ruling that it was a political question, therefore outside the purview of the Court. While he did not offer a detailed examination into why he considered the question political, there are some important matters that should be taken into account, since they are applicable to this case. These considerations will be explained in the following chapter.

II
Considerations

A. Limitations due to Judicial Precedent

There is precedent that excessively specific questions regarding the Equivalent Offices Clause are not justiciable. It is the intention of the Court to follow that precedent, and consequently any answer to the present question will not consider the specific issue of Aumelodia.

While rolandarmstrong has repeatedly mentioned the case of Aumelodia and Lazarus, during the initial submission of the question, the justification for its justiciability and in a subsequent amicus curiae brief, it would run contrary to precedent to address the compliance of Aumelodia with the Equivalent Offices Clause, a situation that would be essentially the same as that of Roavin as First Warden.

Instead, the Court intends to look at the broader context of the question, while still answering the same. In deciding whether the word “Delegate” means the nation holding the World Assembly Delegate or the nation recognised by the Coalition as the legitimate Delegate, the Court is also determining the standard that should be used to interpret the Equivalent Offices Clause, and while such a determination may shed some light on the issue of Aumelodia, it will not have this specific situation, nor any specific situation, as its primary motivator. Insofar as the Court intends to rule on general matters of the law, the precedent set by Justice Farengeto remains such.

B. Implications for Foreign Policy

It does not escape this Court that the present decision runs the risk of intruding into the setting of foreign policy, which is and should remain under the purview of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This decision does not intend to usurp into those functions, and instead seeks to clarify a related, but ultimately separate, matter.

This decision will not address the specific issue of Aumelodia, as was indicated above, and by extension the Court will not pass judgement on the merits of recognising any regime that might be claiming sovereignty over Lazarus. In that sense, it is important to understand that, should this decision seem to favour either the Undead Dominion or the Celestial Union, it should not in any way be taken as such.

Just as the Court holds the sole power to interpret the law, it has the responsibility of addressing the facts as they are, without the benefit of taking policy stances into consideration. While the South Pacific, as a matter of policy, does not recognise the Undead Dominion, its existence and its physical control over Lazarus are undeniable. Such an admission does not, however, imply any support from this Court towards said regime, just as mentioning the stated regional policy does not imply any support for the Celestial Union.

III
Opinion of the Court

The Court was asked to rule on a specific case, but in compliance with precedent, it is instead ruling on the underlying issue. It is worth taking a closer look at the Equivalent Offices Clause, which says that “no person holding a Cabinet office or the office of the Delegate may hold any equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation”. In order to properly interpret this provision, there are two important considerations.

One consideration is that of intent. What problem did the Equivalent Offices Clause seek to remedy? What kind of solution did the Assembly have in mind when it amended the Elections Act?

Based on its above examination of the legislative history, the Court can ascertain that the Assembly sought to decrease the risk of conflicts of interest by avoiding situations where an individual might pursue the competing interests of two regions, one being the South Pacific, thereby throwing into question the loyalties of its government officials. As for the kind of solution that was implemented, an important clue is the progression of the debate over the months, culminating in the bill by Seraph, which while never voted on, represents yet another step in the history of the Equivalent Offices Clause. This bill took care in explaining the kind of duties that could cause conflicts, as opposed to competing suggestions that the title of the office was enough to pass judgements on equivalency.

This leads to the possible interpretation that the Equivalent Offices Clause should be subjected to a test of what exact duties the office involves, when judging whether any foreign office is equivalent to one in the South Pacific. It may sound obvious, but based on the exchanges seen in the discussion for Seraph’s bill, there are discrepancies on how equivalency is to be determined, or how limited such determination should be. Under the proposed test, equivalency would apply if the position in question shared core duties and responsibilities with its proposed counterpart in the South Pacific, or if it was executed on a regular basis in such a way that the office would be, even if not legally so, functionally equivalent to its South Pacifican counterpart.

Another consideration is that of the definition of “foreign region or organisation”, a key portion of the Equivalent Offices Clause. Would regions or organisations to whom recognition has been explicitly denied fall under the purview of the Equivalent Offices Clause? Would their existence be enough to cause conflicts of interest?

Based on the testimony provided by Belschaft, and the interest of the Court in working with reality as it exists, it would be reasonable to understand that a lack of recognition does not by itself negate the reality of existence, nor does it suddenly negate the real work that officials within said unrecognised organisation might be carrying out. Indeed, one needs to look no further than the South Pacific to understand that, even as some governments recognised the South Pacific Socialist Republic, the Coalition never ceased to exist, nor were the duties performed by its officials any less real.

Consequently, the Court must interpret “foreign region or organisation” as applying in all cases to regions, and the governments that exert effective control over them, but also to organisations that, while without control over a specific region, might have offices with real duties, since the execution of said duties could cause the very conflicts of interest that the Equivalent Offices Clause seeks to avoid.

When the Equivalent Offices Clause keeps the Delegate from holding an “equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation”, it keeps them from holding an actual delegacy in another region, but also from holding any office whose duties are equivalent in their nature to the duties assigned to the Delegate of the South Pacific. In that sense, recognition on the part of the Cabinet is inconsequential, since the test is whether the individual has a conflict of interest, that being not only the holding of an office, which is, after all, merely a title, but also the assignation and execution, however dedicated or otherwise, of equivalent duties within the context of said government office.

It is so ordered.

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

(This post was last modified: 11-12-2017, 01:01 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

Well done, like usual!

Signed,

Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific
King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance
Citizen of The East Pacific

Former Positions:

Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA
Talon of Firehehlm
Munifiex of The Roman Empire

Reply