| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2103.HQ] Enforceability of Article 2.2 of the Legislator Committee Act |
|
High Court of the South Pacific Case Submission Your Honours,
I, Altmoras, 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. Nation: The Altmoran Islanders Reference Name: Query as to whether or not Section 2.(2) of the Legislator Committee Act actually binds the Legislator Committee Description: I applied to become a legislator over 48 hours ago with no response from the Legislator Committee: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9296.html The Legislator Committee Act clearly states that The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours. I have received no reply in the thread, no private message on this forum, no telegram on my listed main nation or my TSP nation, and no Direct Message on Discord. Those are all the places a reasonable person could have attempted to contact me in order to confirm reception of my application as the The Legislator Committee Act mandates, but I have not received any such contact by the Committee as of the submission of this Legal Question. Quotation of the applicable law. "(2) A member of the Coalition may attain legislator status through an application with the Legislator Committee. The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours. The Committee will determine the eligibility of the applicant, consulting any other institutions of the Coalition as needed to inform its decision, and shall strive to accept or deny each applicant within a week." Given the use of "shall confirm" in place of "attempt to confirm" or "strive to confirm" I interpret that section of constitutional law to be binding on the behavior of the Committee, however the Committee does not seem to share my interpretation. Furthermore the Committee has failed to abide by the 48 hour requirement for so many other potential Legislators like myself that there seems to be a clear pattern of non-compliance with what I personally interpret as a requirement of their duties. This pattern is also why I'm posing this question so soon after the 48 hour period lapsed for my application, I have a reasonable suspicion that the unresponsiveness of the Committee in my case is part of a broader pattern of behavior and is unlikely to be remedied by simply waiting a little longer. Thus the only recourse I believe is available to me and to those in the same situation is to determine what other remedies are available under the laws of the Coalition. Here are some additional examples other than my own of the Legislator Committee failing to confirm reception of an application within 48 hours. Given the sheer number of recent examples I was able to find there may be more, but I believe these should be sufficient to establish why I believe that the Legislator Committee has made a pattern of not confirming reception within 48 hours. https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9279.html https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9271.html https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9266.html https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9265.html https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9291.html https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9233.html https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9219.html If I were a Legislator the remedy I would seek for what I perceive to be gross negligence by the Legislator Committee would be to initiate a recall in the Assembly. However since the issue at hand is the Legislator Committee denying me membership in the Assembly that remedy is not available for me to access. The two questions I have for the court are a) Is "The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours" a binding requirement on the Legislator Committee or not? And b) What remedy can non-Legislators seek if their application receives no response? The Charter states that: "(4) No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law." It also states that "Members of the Executive are required to hold legislator status." which I interpret as meaning that denial of legislator status also constitutes denial of the right to hold office. To my knowledge I am not proscribed or a member of any proscribed regions or organizations, therefore it is my understanding that the pertinent constitutional law capable of prohibiting me from holding office would be the Legislator Committee Act. The Legislator Committee Act states that: "(1) Any member of the Coalition is eligible to attain legislator status if a. the Legislator Committee does not opine that they are seeking membership in bad faith, b. they have a nation in the South Pacific, c. are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities, and d. are not considered by the Council on Regional Security to be a significant risk to regional security." The Legislator Committee has not opined that I am seeking membership in bad faith to my knowledge, https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_..._islanders is in the South Pacific, I am not aware of any belief that I am attempting to join with multiple nations or identities, and the Council on Regional Security has not expressed that I am a significant risk to regional security as far as I know. Furthermore, the Legislator Committee act states that: "(5) Upon acceptance or denial of an application, the Legislator Committee shall post the result (including a sufficient reason in case of a denial) both in response to the application as well as per telegram to the applicant nation." My interpretation of the eligibility requirements in (1) and the "(including a sufficient reason in case of a denial)" phrase in (5) is that the Legislator Committee is required to have an actual reason to deny members of the Coalition legislator status, I was unable to find any other prohibitions against the right to vote and hold office in Constitutional Law. If this is the case then I would pose the additional questions of whether or not the Legislator Committee not responding to an application past the 48 hour and/or weeklong periods specified in the Legislator Committee Act effectively functions as a denial of that application, and if so does that denial violate the Charter rights of the Applicant provided they are eligible? Question: Is "The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours" a binding requirement on the Legislator Committee or not? Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."
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
Your Honours,
It is my belief that clarification on this matter is necessary because of the material impact the current behavior of the Legislator Committee is having on those who seek to become Legislators like myself as well as those who are already Legislators themselves. If the Committee does not respond to an application how is an applicant to know if it has even been noticed? For example, an applicant might reasonably presume after waiting an extended period of time with no response that becoming a Legislator is an unlikely outcome and leave the Coalition for another region where they believe enfranchisement is more likely, something they otherwise would not have done had the committee responded. Regardless of what your determination is, it would be beneficial to have a clear answer as to whether or not the Committee has any obligation to confirm receipt of an application within 48 hours or at all. Potential Legislators like myself might reconsider applying at all if the Committee has the ability to simply ignore our applications indefinitely and if there is no remedy available to us for such an action. Additionally if that part of the Legislator Committee Act is determined to have no binding power, the Assembly may wish to amend the act in order to remove it as it would be vestigial. If it is determined that the Committee is bound to confirm receipt of an application within 48 hours then I and others like me could seek remedies to compel them to uphold their obligation. Furthermore the Assembly could potentially amend the Legislator Committee Act or draft other laws to allow potential legislators clearer avenues to remedy the harm caused to them if the Committee is unwilling or unable to uphold their obligation. Furthermore, and as I indicated in the later parts of my initial filing I believe there are Charter implications at play here as well. If the Committee is empowered or is found to already have the power to constructively deny otherwise eligible legislators though unresponsiveness to their applications then it is my belief that the Committee would also effectively have the power to prevent enfranchisement of any applicant they please without a reason specified in constitutional law. It is my interpretation of the Legislator Committee Act that such a state of affairs was not the intent of the Assembly when they passed the act. As such if the Committee is found to have such a broad and perhaps unintended power the Assembly might seek to amend the act if it does not accurately function in a way they wish it to. Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."
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
Your Honors,
This will be shorter than normally expected. the Legislator Committee Act ("Act") clearly states "The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours", this is a defined requirement under the act. There is no text suggesting that this is not a requirement. As the text says "shall" and not "shall attempt" as in other parts of the Act. It is legal fact that the Charter is above all other laws, with constitutional law second, statutory law and resolutions third, and government actions last (A "government action" is defined as an action pursuant to the power of a government entity that is not specifically approved by the assembly on a vote or given higher authority than statutory law by the Charter or constitutional law. Therefore, all decisions of the Committee are bound by the act and justiciable due to the legal theory of statutory given rights (Defined as legal rights given by statutory laws that overrule government actions.). Furthermore, There is another issue that I would like to inform the Court of this and further give further evidence to the legal question (This is not a formal or informal filing of a legal question.), In the act it states "and shall strive to accept or deny each applicant within a week." I have no received my formal reception notice or application decision, it has been 10 days since the formal filing of my application. This reinforces the finding that the committee is not performing its duties effectively under the Act. due to the act saying "and shall strive to accept or deny each applicant within a week.", the committees duties must be upheld. Furthermore, I have seen cases of applications lasting up to 18 days to be accepted. (Legislator Application (tspforums.xyz)), this is in clear violation of the act, which states "and shall strive to accept or deny each applicant within a week", this request also took more than 6 days for notification. Lastly, all argument made by Altmoras as of the submission of this brief are the same as mine, and all arguments listed here are agreed by myself. Therefore, it is clear that Section 2.2 of the Legislator Committee Act is bound on the Committee. Respectfully submitted, SpaceLost.
As a result of my brief, I hereby file the following motion for temporary injunction against the Legislator Committee:
"The Legislator Committee shall confirm receipt of all applications which have not been accepted or rejected that have not already received receipt within 48 hours of this motion being approved. This motion shall last until all current (defined as pending or not accepted or rejected) applications as of the time of the motion being filed are approved or rejected." This motion being rejected could cause great harm to the parties involved due to their legal rights being taken away, and not giving them the right to participate in voting and as a result, expressing their views in the Assembly as protected by the Charter in crucial or important votes that could happen before their application being accepted and confirmation of consideration being given. This places no undue burden on the Committee, due to it simply being notification of pending applications. Respectfully submitted, SpaceLost.
Your Honours,
I was unable to find a plain roster for the membership of the High Court, but given the chronology of the Oaths of Confidentiality and Impartiality it is my understanding that Roavin is an associate justice of the court. If this is the case then I request his recusal on this matter. Roavin is a member of the Legislator Committee and it would be a conflict of interest for him to rule on his own actions or lack thereof. Benevolent Thomas-Today at 11:15 AM
"I'm not sure if Altmoras has ever been wrong about anything."
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Your Honors,
I rise in respectful objection to the Court's temporary injunction on the Legislator Committee. I believe Justices Griffindor and Belschaft have exceeded the Court's authority in their order. Temporary injunctions are only permissible "if pertinent to the orderly progression of the case or the interest of public peace and order." Neither of commands issued by the Court meet that requirement. The case's progression is not blocked or delayed by the Legislator Committee's lack of speediness in acknowledging receipt of applications or processing them. Temporary injunctions should not be used to effectively pre-grant a petitioner's relief before the Court ever delivers an opinion. They are a limited tool to be used to ensure a case is not blocked by dilatory or disruptive actions on behalf of a respondent, defendant, government body, or observer. The questions of this case are if the Legislator Committee is legally bound to issue an acknowledgment of receipt to an applicant within 48 hours. The Court's temporary injunction has basically side-stepped amicus filings, deliberations, and opinions and has pre-determined that, yes, the Legislator Committee is legally bound and is ordered to comply. That's an impermissible use of a temporary injunction. (There is a serious question raised, too, on whether or not Justices Griffindor and Belschaft have unintentionally pre-determined the outcome of this case given the contents of the order that there is a "legal limit" in regards to the length of time the Legislator Committee takes to both acknowledge an application and issue a decision on it, which are the core questions being posed. I will leave it to the Legislator Committee's legal representative to make that argument in full, if they choose.) Furthermore, the Court's injunction includes an order that the Legislator Committee fully process all pending applications within a week. This is an unconstitutional order. There is no basis in law for it. The Legislator Committee Act doesn't provide any deadlines for approval or denial of an applicant. At most, the law implores the body to "strive to accept or deny an applicant within a week." That's not a hard deadline. Indeed, review of an applicant can involve other government bodies, who require their own sufficient time to consider any issues that arise from an application. The Court's order would impact the Council on Regional Security and the Cabinet, as well, and possibly imperil regional security by requiring a rushed review of all pending applications. I respectfully ask the Court to rescind its temporary injunction as improvidently granted. Thank you. |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |