| 3.3 of the Charter |
We have experienced within last two weeks a genuine attempt, by an outside force, to alter who holds the Delegate seat. I'm reasonably confident in the intelligence gathered thus far to say some outside force violated our sovereignty. We're under explicit diplomatic attack by two GCRs, Lazarus and Balder. The leader of another, Osiris, has made barely veiled jokes about attacking us, as well. However, due to an irresponsible level of rote legalism with very little basis in pragmatism, it's somehow a controversy for ROs to act in a timely fashion to preserve TSP's sovereignty.
Because of that, I fully support repealing Article III, Section 3 of the Charter. This debate isn't going to wrap up anytime soon-- in all likelihood, we'll end up with a total revamp of the system, rather than a simple amendment to preempt a destabilizing High Court decision. (Considering what I experienced with Kris during the last CRS investigation, his beliefs in what's required under "due process" are totally out of whack and he doesn't particularly care about the consequences of that, so I'm under no illusion that TPS's ability to protect itself wouldn't be severely curtailed if he got to deliver a court opinion on this topic.) Repeal allows the CRS and the Delegate to act reasonably and quickly, pending an Assembly rewrite.
Ye of little faith.
I'm in the Court to rule based on what the law, precedent and common sense dictate, not to impose my personal opinions. I may believe one thing, I may have argued for that thing, but my beliefs are completely irrelevant to the legal question process. Unless you have a time machine and already know how I will rule -because I still have to fully consider the matter-, I have no idea why you can be so confident that I will rule a certain way. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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
Because I've seen you say exactly what you think due process requires, and it's totally unmoored from what the game requires.
This isn't some all or nothing dichotomy here. I do want increased measures to responsibly enforce security. I don't want drastic and unaccountable reactionary measures, enacted as though the Coalition might forever disappear tomorrow.
(08-11-2017, 08:01 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Because I've seen you say exactly what you think due process requires, and it's totally unmoored from what the game requires. I have been asked to rule on the definition of 'member', not on the definition of 'due process'. In any case, as I said, my ruling is based on what the law, precedent and common sense say, not what my personal feelings might be. My job is to interpret the Charter and laws of the South Pacific, not the feelings of Kris Kringle.
If you are concerned that I might miss an important argument or feel that a particular viewpoint needs to be shared, I would encourage you to submit an amicus brief. I read them all, and plan to give them careful consideration. -- I checked again, and you might have been referring to a hypothetical legal question about 'due process'. My answer remains the same: my job is to rule based on what those three components say, and my thoughts (which you took out of context) about the application of due process are irrelevant at the time of drafting a ruling. Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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
I think we should repeal the law because literally
Any GCR can ban whoever they want except us and TNP.
We need this provision in there, yes it needs revision, but removing it isn't the answer.
(08-05-2017, 10:38 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:Quote:3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law, which is defined as a fair trial by the legitimate court system, or during a legally enacted State of Emergency. Members may request an appeal if they believe they were ejected/banned by mistake. How about this? I wasn't exactly sure what was wanted.. but I think this helps a bit.. feel free to take a hammer to it.. -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
(08-11-2017, 11:37 PM)Griffindor13 Wrote: We need this provision in there, yes it needs revision, but removing it isn't the answer. No, Griffin — we have a barely functioning judicial system as is. And @Tim — this is pressing. Historically, the region had read "due process" in the way that Griffindor has just suggested and, since our judiciary barely works, someone would literally be able to tard into the delegate seat and we still wouldn't have a working trial for it. The Assembly and several of its members are showing itself to be ineffective, at best, for actually dealing with problems. If we don't want to repeal something that is being stretched to absurdity, I welcome someone to offer a realistic proposal that allows us to protect the region. Otherwise, anything that allows us to eject and/or ban someone from the region clearly conflicts with the article I'm seeking to repeal.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Defining due process as a trial and only a trial is the exact opposite of what's needed.
How about this:
Quote:3. No member, who had joined the region in good faith, may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law. This should give us the ability to boot people who has come to cause trouble while protecting everyone else. Thoughts?
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |