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!

[APPEAL] Proscription of the Ragerian Imperium
#1

Greetings to the High Court,

Given that the Proscription Act vests "individuals subject to a proscription" with the authority to "challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court," (this is in accordance with (1) of 4) I wish to challenge the proscription that is legally barring me from maintaining a nation in the South Pacific due to my membership in the Ragerian Imperium. 

For reference (as the Prime Minister chose to post the proscription in a rather inconvenient place), the proscription of the Ragerian Imperium could be found here, and reads as follows:
Quote:Finally, the region The Ragerian Imperium shall be considered regionally proscribed. This region is a merger of several regions including the aforementioned H Y D R A and had included McMannia in a high-level leadership position up until very recently; this continuity may, on its own, qualify for a determination of hostility equal to that of H Y D R A. Furthermore, on July 26, 2018, Emperor Vulturret openly admitted on the NationStates Gameplay forum that they had considered, if not outright ordered, intelligence missions into the South Pacific, constituting hostility missions as per Section 3 (espionage).

First, this statement fails greatly in meeting the following requirement: "(2) A proscription must be issued publicly, and be accompanied with a report detailing the hostile acts. All extant proscriptions must be publicly visible at all times." The above small amount of text can hardly be described as a "detail(ed) report." If this constitutes detailed, I'm not sure why I ever write more than one paragraph for anything. 

Second, I disagree that "Emperor Vulturret openly admitted on the NationStates Gameplay forum that they had considered, if not outright ordered intelligence missions into the South Pacific, constituting hostility missions as per Section 3 (espionage)." The statement in question that I made in no way constituted hostility. This is a clear-cut fact. I never admitted that "they" (being TRI) engaged in any operation against the South Pacific or even intended to. Any allegation that I did such is demonstrably false.

Third, I do not believe that "this continuity may, on its own, qualify for a determination of hostility equal to that of H Y D R A" is a correct statement. Although H Y D R A willingly ceded to the Ragerian Imperium, they are still two separate entities. The leadership changes from H Y D R A to the current TRI leadership have been immense, with Admiral McMannia no longer serving in the Armada.

In closing, I believe the Cabinet fails to meet its requirement to provide a "report detailing" the "hostile actions" committed by TRI, as it is legally required to do so. It doesn't detail any actions, rather it references a post I made in which I did not do what the Cabinet claims (and indeed I have never edited the post recently). Further, all the allegations made in the proscription are false and can be proven such. With this in mind, I ask the Court to consider my appeal of the proscription that prevents me from engaging in the South Pacific.

Thank you.
Vulturret
Emperor of The Ragerian Imperium
Reply
#2

[Image: BYEo2lg.png]

Determination of Justiciability

Whereas Vulturret has appealed his proscription from the region by virtue of the proscription of The Ragerian Imperium, done on 27 October 2018, through the following request:

Whereas this Court is empowered by Article IV of the Proscription Act to review the validity of determinations of hostility and overturn those found in contravention of the Proscription Act.

It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:
  1. It is not deemed justiciable.
  2. The Court may provide an opinion on its reasons for issuing this determination, at the request of the petitioner, or any party so authorised by him.
It is so ordered.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice
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
#3

Indeed, in accordance with (2) of your statement, I'd like a justification if you are willing to provide one, thanks.
Vulturret
Emperor of The Ragerian Imperium
Reply
#4

[Image: BYEo2lg.png]

Opinion of Non Justiciability

It is a rare occasion when the Court refuses to hear an appeal. Under ordinary circumstances, an individual against whom government action was taken may appeal it, and the Court would determine if the action was lawful. That, however, relies on the appeal itself being allowed by the law. If such a provision did not exist, then the Court would have no choice but to deem the appeal non justiciable, since the individual would lack standing. Such was the case in the appeal presented by Vulturret on the decision by the Cabinet to proscribe The Ragerian Imperium.

In deciding if the appeal was justiciable, the Court referred to Article 4 of the Proscription Act, which outlines the conditions under which proscriptions may be challenged. Section 1 refers to individual proscriptions, and was most recently invoked in Review of the Proscription of Ever Wandering Souls [HCRR1803]. This was not applicable to this case, however, since Vulturret was appealing the proscription of a region, rather than a proscription to his own person. This is an important distinction to be drawn: Vulturret was not proscribed by the Cabinet on an individual level, it was The Ragerian Imperium the entity that was proscribed. In view of that, an appeal under Section 1 was not a viable course of action.

This left Section 2, which allows individuals to contest "the issuing authority's determination of their membership" in a proscribed region or organisation. This assumes that an individual has been found to be a member of a proscribed entity, and is contesting that finding before the Court, in an attempt to avoid their expulsion from the South Pacific. This alternative allows an individual to avoid falling under a proscription, but does not overturn the proscription itself, which is what Vulturret sought.

In truth, the Court cannot say with full certainty that the Proscription Act allows for the appeal of regional proscriptions in the same way as individual proscriptions may be appealed. That does not mean that a legal challenge on this initial interpretation could not be considered, or that the Assembly could not pass clarifying language. This simply means that, under an initial reading of the Proscription Act, held to a different standard than that of a ruling to a fully argued and considered legal question, regional proscriptions lack a clear and unambiguous path towards being challenged.

In view of these reasons, namely the fact that the Proscription Act does not clearly allow individuals to contest the proscription of a region or organisation, the Court made the determination that the appeal by Vulturret on the proscription of The Ragerian Imperium is not justiciable, and therefore should not receive further judicial consideration.

Kris Kringle
Chief Justice
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
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kris Kringle's post:
  • Rebeltopia
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .