| Pending Cases |
During the course of updating ORCS I noticed that there are 11 cases that, for one reason or another, were never fully solved. I'd like us to take a look at these cases and see what would be the best course of action for them:
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 had noticed that myself when looking through ORCS; I will read up on them more in-depth in short term. My first thought is most, if not all, of these cases, could be dismissed since they are so dated.
Since I was not around for several of these cases (or not actively involved in them), I don't know much of the background behind the cases originating, and how they were resolved out of court. Perhaps you could fill me/us in, Kris? -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
1203.MC - A Mean Old Man v. Antariel
The case thread is unavailable right now, but from what I remember the case was discussed at length but simply never considered. I would initially suggest dismissing it due to lack of probable cause, but we should wait until we can properly examine the thread. 1204.MC - Milograd v. Johnson The case thread is unavailable right now, but from what I remember the case was discussed at length but simply never considered. I would initially suggest dismissing it due to lack of probable cause, but we should wait until we can properly examine the thread. 1518.HQ - Access to the courts by non citizens This is a question about the access structure of the Registered mask and whether it has a right to post on the Court forum. I don't think this is justiciable due to the fact that this is mainly a technical issue and that members have other ways to contact the Court, so no right is being denied. Besides, the law has changed since then, so we probably couldn't even decide fairly. 1523.HQ - Executive Action Challenge This is a question on the legality of executive orders that seek to halt the certification of election results. I don't think this is justiciable due to the fact that the law has changed since then, so we probably couldn't even decide fairly. 1601.HQ - Administrators and Citizeship Removals This is a question on the ability of administrators to remove citizenship. I don't think this is justiciable due to the fact that the law has changed since then (citizenship isn't even a thing anymore), so we probably couldn't even decide fairly. 1602.HQ - On the legality of Hileville and the Cabinet's actions of 21 January This case had 4 questions. Then-Permanent Justice Farengeto recused from the fourth one and no judge was ever designated to hear it. The pending question asks if Hileville and the Cabinet violated the Regional Officers Act by seeking to remove powers from Tsunamy, Sandaoguo, Kringalia, and Farengeto. I do think this is a case worth hearing, not least of all to set the precedent that legally dubious actions on the part of government officials should not be left unaddressed. 1604.HQ - On the State of Emergency This question asks if the CSS had the legal ability to declare a state of emergency. I don't think this is justiciable because the CSS didn't actually do anything with the state of emergency that it couldn't have done without it, so there were no consequences that would merit reviving the case after all this time. 1606.HA - Appeal of [1605.HQ] On Candidate Eligibility Belschaft appealed the initial decision on case 1605.HQ alleging judicial misconduct, saying that Farengeto was biased when issuing the original decision. I think the case was fairly decided and Farengeto's decision was a very common sense interpretation of the law, so I see no reason to admit the appeal. 1712.HQ - Citizen Participation in Election Campaigns This question asks if citizens have a right to post campaign threads in the Election Central before the election formally begins. I don't think there is much merit in this question: yes, anyone can post whatever they want, but forum administration (or in this case the EC) also has a right to determine where and when campaigns can be posted to ensure that the election is conducted in an orderly manner. There might be a case if prospective candidates were being completely prevented from posting campaigns anywhere else on the forum, but that wasn't the case. 1807.HR - Appeal: Legislator application Malayan Singapura wanted to appeal the rejection of their legislator application, but the Court first opted to consider if they had the legal ability to consider such appeals. It was ultimately decided that the underlying law (the Legislator Committee Act) was unconstitutional but no explicit answer was given to Malayan Singapura. I would suggest simply dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the Court had no power to consider such appeals at the time of submission, plus the submitter has already left the region. 1810.HC - New Haudenosaunee Confederacy v. Auphelia This is part of the Local Council case series. A prior similar case had been submitted and ruled as lacking probable case, I see no reason to rule this one any differently. 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
Thanks for the background.
I think it would be best (as I said above) to dismiss most, if not all, of these cases. Perhaps we could randomize these cases (update them to the modern laws/disputes if needed) and turn them into mock cases? -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
I personally think we should just dismiss or drop all of them, as sufficient time has passed and the law and circumstances have changed. Making work for ourselves where we don't need to is a fools errand.
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)
Besides that, If we did take these cases, you and Kris could recuse on several of them since you guys are either the subject of the case (Bel) or providing amicus briefs and insight (Kris).
A considerable burden on me and Roa would be placed which would be unnecessary.. 
-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
That would be 3-0 in favour of dismissing most cases and 2-1 in favour of dismissing 1602.HQ. Does anyone have any further 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
Unless they were ever formally accepted by the Court (and I don't think any are), all of those cases from the jurisdiction of the previous Charter (which means up to and including 1606.HA) are not justiciable anyway because the relevant laws have substantially (fundamentally, even) changed since then and JA 4.1 no longer applies. This includes 1602.HQ - Kris, while I certainly understand your desire to wrap that one up properly, I think it not only fails the JA 4.1 test with the rest, putting that ruling out 5 years later would unduly open wounds that are best left stitched up.
1712.HQ: That one is interesting and I do think it's justiciable, as there is precedent in our laws for viewing permissions (see Criminal Code 1.3, Political Parties Act 3.3, Proscription Act 4.4). 1807.HR: I agree with Kris on this one - dismiss it. 1810.HC: That one does require a determination of justiciability. The previous case was found to be lacking probable cause, but explicitly states that it "does not preclude the future filing of charges with additional evidence", which NHC then more or less did. Whether that then constitutes probable cause ... probably not, but it's worth looking. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(02-21-2021, 09:08 PM)Roavin Wrote: This includes 1602.HQ - Kris, while I certainly understand your desire to wrap that one up properly, I think it not only fails the JA 4.1 test with the rest, putting that ruling out 5 years later would unduly open wounds that are best left stitched up. I remain steadfast in my conviction that the whole event was never properly addressed, so I'm afraid I'll keep my vote in favour of solving 1602.HQ. Besides, the whole case was already deemed justiciable anyway. (02-21-2021, 09:08 PM)Roavin Wrote: 1712.HQ: That one is interesting and I do think it's justiciable, as there is precedent in our laws for viewing permissions (see Criminal Code 1.3, Political Parties Act 3.3, Proscription Act 4.4). I'm not sure it's justiciable, but I'm open to further arguments to the contrary. If anything it would be nice to address at least some of those cases, if the issue and the law allow it. (02-21-2021, 09:08 PM)Roavin Wrote: 1810.HC: That one does require a determination of justiciability. The previous case was found to be lacking probable cause, but explicitly states that it "does not preclude the future filing of charges with additional evidence", which NHC then more or less did. Whether that then constitutes probable cause ... probably not, but it's worth looking. I recommended dismissing because I don't see any new and compelling arguments compared to the first case, but I'm open to any arguments that I might have missed. It's entirely possible that I could've missed something important. 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 take it there are no further comments and we can proceed to a vote?
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) |