| Compliance with the Sunshine Act |
Compliance with the Sunshine Act
I believe it's time that we came into compliance with the Sunshine Act. Section 2 says that Court discussions must be disclosed no later than 6 months after each case has concluded. We have years of discussions that need to be disclosed, so we might as well start working on that. I've taken the liberty of starting a review of discussion threads. In this spreadsheet you will find a list of discussion threads, a description of their content, their posting date and a link to each of them, along with my personal recommendation (disclose, disclose with redactions, withhold). My personal recommendation, as can be seen in the spreadsheet, is that we vote to disclose the first 18 threads, which correspond to discussions from 2014. These are five years old, refer to cases long resolved, and would in no way endanger the privacy of Court discussions. 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 haven’t had a chance to review everything yet, but is that the right approach? Surely we should operate from a position of releasing everything, and only holding back a thread if there’s good reason?
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Well, yes, that’s what we’re doing. I haven’t said anything about the rest of the threads simply because I haven’t yet had a chance to review their contents.
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 have finished reviewing the rest of the threads. There are 2 threads that I recommend we withhold, since they haven't reached the 6-month mark yet. Otherwise, I'm comfortable with releasing everything.
Thoughts? 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 haven’t had chance to review everything properly, but can see no reason not to release everything up to the change over to the current court system in 2018. If we do that as “batch one” we can do the rest later.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Basically everything until you and Glen joined the Court?
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
Yeah - no reason why cases from a previous court system should remain private.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
That’s fine with me. I do remember that the Sunshine Act requires disclosure of threads older than 6 months, so I think some from the current Court would need to be disclosed?
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
Have had a look through the threads - there’s no reason any of those shouldn’t be public.
Should we consider examining our Discord logs - both the Court one and personal chat ones - due to the amount of court Bussiness we do there? Most discussion of cases does happen on Discord. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Ah, I was wondering if you’d think of that issue. I do think we should look into that, and paste here on the forum content relating to justiciability decisions and ruling discussions.
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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |