| Request for Review |
Your Honor,
On February 1st, 2018 the Legislator Committee carried out a revocation of my legislator status and cited the use of multiple accounts as the reasoning for the revocation. The removal of my legislator status by the Legislative Committee in and of itself is legal, but the law does not clarify what constitutes bad behavior. Bad behavior is the only reason a legislator status can be removed from an individual, other than standard eligibility requirements, as per section 3 of the Legislator Committee Act. Also, in my opinion, the Legislator Committee did not properly investigate this before coming to a conclusion. I want to clear a few things up as well: 1. I was notified of an impending investigation but was not formally questioned by anyone. 2. No member of the Legislator Committee ever contacted me for testimony or explanation. 3. The person behind the Lavoret account was my girlfriend, and I introduced her to NationStates. This included registering and posting on the forums under my IP. This was a "mutual activity" that we did together. 4. I do realize that founding a second account, even if it wasn't mine, is against forum rules, but was unaware of this at the time of creation. 5. Why would I create a new account two years into my NationStates career and then make it very similar to my original, to then have it go inactive only a few months later? Also, why would I make the account so similar to the original if I intended to be able to vote extra times? 6. This is the only region I have, and will ever belong to. Why would I try to break the rules, and potentially threaten regional security in the process? If the court deems that there is sufficient evidence of bad behavior to warrant the revocation of my legislator status; I formally ask this honorable Court that they review the removal of my legislator status. I thank the court for its time, and I hope this can be resolved in a speedy manner. -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 Honour,
I would like to state the following for the record. The evidence involved in this case deals solely with confidential and personal information, both of the submitter and others. As a result the Legislator Committee is unable to provide its evidence in any public venue, nor can it provide parts of its evidence to the submitter. Given the inherently confidential nature of all evidence for these investigations, and the lack of any specification in law for a judicial appeal of these decisions, I would also argue that it is not within the court's authority to hear these cases.
Your Honor, I would like to point out that when Griffindor states "Bad behavior is the only reason a legislator status can be removed from an individual, other than standard eligibility requirements, as per section 3 of the Legislator Committee Act," this does not take into account that one of the eligibility requirements is "c. are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities", and therefore the decision should not be reviewed only on any evidence fn bad behaviour, as Griffindor states, but also on any evidence of membership with multiple identities.
Your Honor,
in response to Farengeto's amicus brief, I would like to note the following: First, nowhere is it said that the court may not deal with confidential information. I posit that the court is permitted to receive and analyze evidence in private, i.e. evidence of a confidential or private nature, which I will show by contradiction: Suppose the court were not able to receive or analyze evidence in private. Suppose then also the court were to review an action by the Cabinet, which is its right (and even duty) as per III.6 of the Charter. The Cabinet could then simply declare the evidence needed to review the action as confidential, as per 1.3.c of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the Court could not fulfill its Charter-granted right of reviewing and, if necessary, striking down an action; furthermore, this is obviously absurd and therefore violates the golden rule of statutory interpretation. Therefore, it is shown that the court may receive evidence of a confidential nature. Second, Farengeto notes a "lack of any specification in law for a judicial appeal of these decisions". That is false — the aforementioned III.6 of the Charter grants the Court the blanket power to "strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter". The right or freedom in question is contained in the Charter, in IV.5, being the freedom to attain legislator status through application. Furthermore, even if III.6 were to not apply here, the Legal Question procedure as per 3.1 of the Court Procedure Act grants the court to decide what is prohibited by law. Specifically in this case, through this mechanism the court may decide whether the Legislator Committee was prohibited from stripping the petitioner of Legislator status on the basis of the evidence presented. Finally, if everything that the court may review were to require explicit judicial appeal mechanisms to be built into the law, that would also be obviously absurd and, once again, violate the golden rule of statutory interpretation. Finally, my concerns above are only for the process and to argue for the sanctity and sovereignty of the court. In no way should this brief be viewed as an intent to petition for or against justiciability or for or against a final ruling on this case if deemed justiciable; this brief only argues against Farengeto's specific reasonings for injusticiability. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
Your honor,
While the honorable Chair of the Assembly is correct in that one may not attain legislator status if they are attempting to do so with more than one nation (Legislator Committee Act (LCA) 2.1.c) what she fails to recognize is quite simple. Nowhere in the LCA does it say one may be stripped of their status for not complying with the application rules. The LCA does state that to remain a legislator it requires "active membership and good behaviour." (3.1) and that one must not have been absent for "more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two votes occurred."(3.3). Seeing as how Griffin was in compliance with voting and thus was an active member, the only grounds the Legislator Committee legally could have removed him would be for bad behavior. If, and only if, Griffindor13 was applying for legislator status he could have been denied for applying with multiple accounts however that is not the case. He was a legislator removed for bad behavior plain and simple. I wish to make it clear this is not a petition for or against the acceptance of the request by the court, I am simply seeing to ensure we do not seek to broaden the scope of this beyond what it should be. I thank the Court for it's time. Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
![[Image: BYEo2lg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BYEo2lg.png) Statement of Disclosure I have deemed it appropriate, following consultation with the Pool of Justices, to inform Griffindor13 and the Legislator Committee that, in my capacity as Security Councillor, I was privy to the evidence and discussion that led to the revocation of his legislator status, which is the subject of this Review Request. I limited my participation to certain technical comments related to my role as a Forum Administrator, and did not provide any opinions or advice regarding the merits of the evidence or the sanction to be imposed.
While I believe that I was properly removed from the discussion, and therefore have no disqualifying conflict of interest, I provide this notice in case Griffindor13 or the Legislator Committee feel differently, and would prefer to request that I recuse from the determination of justiciability and possible ruling of his Review Request. If such a request was made, I would comply and allow the next available Pool Justice to preside over all stages of this case. Kris Kringle Permanent 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
Determination of Justiciability Whereas Griffindor13 has appealed the revocation of his legislator status on 01 February 2018 through the following request:
I formally ask this honorable Court that they review the removal of my legislator status.
Whereas this Court is empowered by Article III, Section 6 of the Charter to review the legality of actions by other government institutions and overturn those actions found in contravention of the freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.
It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:
Kris Kringle Permanent 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
I would like to make myself available to the Court, as the originating investigator of the misconduct.
Apologies your honour,
I've been busy during the past week, and this case had slipped my notice. I would therefore like to request an extension.
An extension is granted, and the Court will expect the evidence and all other information required to be delivered on March 07.
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |