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!

Review Request (overturn a decision by a government institution or official) [2209.HR] In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV
#1

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION


I, Belschaft, 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.

REFERENCE NAME
In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV (V.2)

ARGUMENT
Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter states;

"(5) No law may be passed by the Assembly that directly affects the activities of the in-game community without the consent of the in-game community."

Article Thirteen, Clause Two of the Charter states;

"(2) Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also receive the consent of the gameside community before coming into force, where the consent shall not require more than a three-fifths supermajority in a vote. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its structure in the Charter, which must receive the consent of the Assembly before coming into force."

A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils has removed a specific protection in Article 14, Clause Five of the Charter which stated;

"(4) Any and all changes to regional law proposed by a Great Council may be adopted by a three-fifths supermajority of the Assembly, which must be confirmed by a majority vote of the game-side community."

An amendment removing a clause specifically protecting the right of game-side consent is an unambiguous breach of Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter - as it directly affects the activities of the in-game community, specifically the activity of providing consent.

It is a further breach of Article Thirteen, Clause Two of the Charter as the home governance of the gameside community is clearly and directly affected by any amendment which limits - or in more extreme cases removes - the right of consent.

Whilst the Chair is responsible for determining which amendments directly affect the gameside community this determination cannot be arbitrary or contrary to established law and protected rights. It would be unlawful for a Chair to determine that a law dealing solely with internal Assembly procedure requires the agreement of the gameside community; at the same time it is unlawful for a Chair to determine that a law explicitly granting the gameside community community a particular right or power does not effect that very community.

Article Three, Clause Six states;

"(6) The High Court may strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter."

It is my contention that the act of not referring the amendment in question to the gameside community is a clear violation of the right of gameside consent. The Charter provides a simple and clear redress in situations where a right or freedom is violated; for the Court to strike down the general law or action that has caused the violation.

I ask the following;

1. For the Court to review the action of the Chair to not refer A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils to the in-game region for consent and consider whether this action violates the rights protected by Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter.

2. For the Court to issue a temporary injunction preventing the adoption of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils as law and any subsequent vote under it's provisions until this case has been decided.

REQUEST
Does the action of the Chair to not refer A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV to the in-game region for consent violate the rights protected by Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter?


Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
Reply
#2

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2209.HR] IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV
SUBMISSION 02 JUN 2022


Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows:

DOCKET NUMBER
2209.HR

REFERENCE NAME
In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV

APPEAL
Does the action of the Chair to not refer A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV to the in-game region for consent violate the rights protected by Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter?

The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than , but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time.


2209.HR.NR | Issued 02 Jun 2022
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


HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
AMICUS BRIEF


 
ARGUMENT

Your Honor,

This case is of little importance as just a few days ago this Court issued a ruling on the same or almost exact request a few days ago. It found that case to not justiciable on the almost the same question except that the petitioner has limited the scope of their question. That ruling should not be so quickly overturned solely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with that ruling.

The Chair has the power to determine whether or not an amendment affects the gameside community, and cannot be challenged unless that determination is "sufficiently egregious". Since the Court has previously found that a challenge to the Chair, in this case, was not justiciable it follows that said determination was not "sufficiently egregious". Thus, the Chair's determination about the said amendment is legally valid. Since the determination is legally valid how can the amendment legally have an effect on the gameside community? Does it not follow that if the petitioner's claims are heard, it would not be a question solely about a question under the Charter, but rather, the constitutionality of the Charter itself. If the claims of the petitioner are true then the Charter itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, this case is not justiciable.
 


Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
Reply
#4

(06-02-2022, 10:18 PM)Domais Wrote: The Chair has the power to determine whether or not an amendment affects the gameside community, and cannot be challenged unless that determination is "sufficiently egregious". Since the Court has previously found that a challenge to the Chair, in this case, was not justiciable it follows that said determination was not "sufficiently egregious". Thus, the Chair's determination about the said amendment is legally valid. Since the determination is legally valid how can the amendment legally have an effect on the gameside community? Does it not follow that if the petitioner's claims are heard, it would not be a question solely about a question under the Charter, but rather, the constitutionality of the Charter itself. If the claims of the petitioner are true then the Charter itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, this case is not justiciable.

It is worth pointing out that 2208.HQ was dismissed on account of the fact that it asked the Court to determine whether the resolution in question warranted gameside consideration, a function that rests entirely on the Chair of the Assembly. The Court did not pass judgement on whether the Chair's own determination was legally sound, since that is an entirely different question.
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
#5

(06-02-2022, 10:55 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(06-02-2022, 10:18 PM)Domais Wrote: The Chair has the power to determine whether or not an amendment affects the gameside community, and cannot be challenged unless that determination is "sufficiently egregious". Since the Court has previously found that a challenge to the Chair, in this case, was not justiciable it follows that said determination was not "sufficiently egregious". Thus, the Chair's determination about the said amendment is legally valid. Since the determination is legally valid how can the amendment legally have an effect on the gameside community? Does it not follow that if the petitioner's claims are heard, it would not be a question solely about a question under the Charter, but rather, the constitutionality of the Charter itself. If the claims of the petitioner are true then the Charter itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, this case is not justiciable.

It is worth pointing out that 2208.HQ was dismissed on account of the fact that it asked the Court to determine whether the resolution in question warranted gameside consideration, a function that rests entirely on the Chair of the Assembly. The Court did not pass judgement on whether the Chair's own determination was legally sound, since that is an entirely different question.

Your Honor,

The question is still not justiciable because once an amendment is lawfully passed it is a part of the Charter. Moreover, the clause of the bill of rights cannot stop an amendment to the law if this was the case then that would mean that the Charter is unamendable as to certain provisions despite the Charter not saying that. Although I cannot think of another situation on hand ruling in favor of the petitioner sets a precedent that the Charter can not be changed in certain aspects. Which would effectively render certain portions of the Charter unconstitutional (Article XIII). Which is nonsense and cannot be allowed to stand.
Reply
#6

Your Honors,

Domais raises some interesting points in their submission, although some are arguably outside the scope of this case. Those points that are relevant would benefit from full legal argument and the Court's full consideration, so on this basis the case should be found justiciable.

Moreover the Court has already acknowledged in 2208.HQ that it is in principle possible to review a decision of the Chair of the Assembly, in keeping with its general power to strike down unconstitutional actions by instruments of government. With a request to perform such a review submitted in good faith, and a prima facie case of an unconstitutional action (accepting an amendment to the Charter which deprives certain members of the South Pacific certain rights, without first consulting them), the Court should deem the case justiciable.
Reply
#7

Please be advised that I intend to petition for non-justiciability prior to the Saturday deadline. I humbly request that the Court wait until then before issuing a decision to that respect.
Reply
#8


HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
PETITION OF NON-JUSTICIABILITY





Your Honor,

I rise again to petition that this case is non-justiciable by the High Court.

The power of the Court to “declare […] official act of government, in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law” (Article VIII) must be reconciled by specific grants of authority in the Charter to government officials to make sole determinations. In every instance, the Charter specifies that it is the Chair of the Assembly who makes the determination of whether or not a bill passed by the Assembly requires a game-side vote. This is not a mere incidental recommendation, but the written-in-stone will of the of the Charter.

Where the Charter grants specific powers of determination to an official, the Court must defer to that official’s judgment. The power of the Court to void that official’s determination or action ought to be limited to only the clearest cases of egregious violations of the Charter. Otherwise, the assignment of power in the Charter would be rendered as nothing more than at-will delegation, to be usurped by the Court whenever asked.

An officer’s judgment, in this case the Chair’s, will always be subject to disagreement, particularly on politically charged subjects. It’s no secret that the petitioner is not a fan of the idea of holding a Great Council. The petitioner has voted against every resolution and amendment related to convening a Great Council this year. They disagree with arguments that an amendment to how Great Councils are convened are not “directly” related to in-game issues and do not “directly” impact in-game governance. It is legitimate to disagree, but disagreement alone does not constitute the existence of a clear and egregious violation of the Charter.

There are valid arguments to be made that the threshold of “direct” relationship or impact to in-game governance is not met, because convening a Great Council only incidentally implicates the game-side community. (Relatedly, the amended Article XIV, as well as both resolutions related to convening a Great Council this year, provides for expanded participation where non-legislator RMBers can participate.) It’s not a clear-cut issue. Indeed, the Charter accounts for the fact that these issues aren’t clear-cut by the very fact of granting the Chair the responsibility and power to make the judgment on a bill-by-bill basis. The Charter could have alternatively left these determinations up to the Court, by not opting for the context-dependent judgment of the politically accountable Chair.

Because this is not a case of unambiguous and egregious malpractice by the Chair, the Court must defer to Charter’s explicit instruction to allow the Chair to decide if a bill must be voted on by the game-side community. The petitioner has no injury, has a clear bias evident in their voting record, and those theoretically injured are in favor of convening a Great Council and eligible to participate in it. The Chair is politically accountable and where political disagreements are had, those disagreements over the Chair’s judgment should be resolved within the Assembly itself. If there was little question among the Assembly that the Chair clearly and egregious erred, particularly with malice, then I would support the justiciability of the Court to review their actions. This is simply not the scenario with this case.

 
[-] The following 3 users Like sandaoguo's post:
  • BlockBuster2K43, Comfed, philipmacaroni
Reply
#9

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2209.HR] IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV
SUBMISSION 02 JUN 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 05 JUN 2022


Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows:

DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY
This case is found justiciable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2209.HR.NR.

SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE
Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than , and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief.

SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL
Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 10:00 UTC. Any such requests should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse.

RETENTION OF RIGHTS
The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case.

It is so ordered.

2209.HR.DJ | Issued 05 Jun 2022
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
#10

Although I recognize this is not a requirement, I implore the Court explain their reasons for finding this case justiciable.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .