[2403.HR] Review of the Rejection of Siberian Districts' Citizenship Application

[HumanSanity]

Your honors,

I am requesting the recusal of Justice Belschaft from this case pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Judicial Act.

@coco

(3) Any member of the South Pacific may request the recusal of the assigned justice at any time, which will be reviewed by the High Court. If granted, the High Court will assign another justice.

Justice Belschaft’s assignment to this case has always been suspect, given the role that he played in the 2016 coup. The potential security risks of Siberian Districts’ conduct during that coup is a central question in that case. However, I chose not to request Belschaft’s recusal previously, given the history of constructive engagement and service he has had to the High Court.

Circumstances have changed because of Belschaft’s recent comments on ProfessorHenn’s proposed [2411.AB] Resolution to Restore Regional Accountability.

While Belschaft is entitled to share his thoughts as a legislator in the Assembly on any question, including this one, two specific parts of what Belschaft publicly stated render him unsuitable to hear this case.

First, Belschaft clearly frames the Assembly resolution, which he states opposition to, as in opposition to a potential direction of ruling the High Court could pursue. (A premise which, I will note, is not an inherent “given” and seems legally debatable.) I will quote Legislator Belschaft directly, with emphasis added:

@Belschaft

His assertion is currently subject to a case in the High Court, which may or may not sustain it but acting as if this is fact is grossly premature.

More broadly, this is very clearly written with reference to an active Court case and on the basis of seeking to invalidate a potential ruling if the Court finds in a manner that the authors don’t agree with. The problem with that is the Court can’t do it’s job if people try to amend the law under review during a case, as it throws the whole matter into confusion. And in this case - and I cannot emphasise this enough - the Court has not actually issued a ruling and no one (outside of Griffindor and myself) knows what the ruling is going to be. It’s still being drafted.

Second, Belschaft clearly states that one of the arguments made by Kris Kringle in an amicus brief in this very Court case has “no legal basis whatsoever”. Quoting again, with emphasis added.

@Belschaft

To start with, Kris’ recent assertion that the Assembly Resolution to Restore the Coalition of the South Pacific was repealed is just that - an assertion - with no legal basis whatsoever.

A Justice cannot impartially rule in a case where they have already spoken in the Assembly on the outcome of one of the legal points raised. This is especially the case when they not only cast doubt on a possible legal interpretation but state emphatically that the legal interpretation is “with no legal basis whatsoever”.

If Justice Belschaft cannot separate his preconceived opinions about Siberian Districts, the 2016 Cabinet Coup, the subsequent amnesty vote and its legal validity, and current legislative debates, then it is unacceptable for him to be a presiding Justice in this case.