Motion to Recall Abbey and Punkd

Funkadelia

Funkadelia

TNPer
TNP Nation
Funkadelia Island
I, as a concerned citizen of The North Pacific, request a recall of these two officials separately. In their recent decision, they have obliterated the liberties of the people to run in an election, unless they are in the (not legally defined) nomination area. This is a massive travesty in the realm of TNP civil liberties and must be changed. The only way I can see that through, through Punkd's own words, is by a recall. Unless we get a law that defines such things, or the court changes their foolish, baseless decision, this recall is the only manner of recourse we have as members of The North Pacific.
 
I guess item 5 of the Bill of Rights is basically superfluous because it doesn't matter if the citizen "requests" the recall, there isn't anything a common citizen can do about malfeasance in office.
 
OK, now that it's in the right place, I'll outline a bit of procedure, since this is the first time the Citizens' Lobby has ever been used.

1) Funkadelia has requested the recall of two government officials. As a non-RA member, he does not have the power to make motions, so RA members must do so for him for this matter to proceed to a vote.

2) Motions and seconds may be made in this thread. There is no need for a second thread to be opened in the main RA forum.

3)The two recalls are separate matters. They must be moved separately, seconded separately, and they will be voted on separately if they get that far. (EDIT: However, they do NOT require seperate threads. Both can be discussed, moved, and seconded in this thread.)

I can answer minor questions about process via PM or IRC - let's try and keep this thread on the topic of the recalls themselves.
 
And, in a totally legal manner, I will take this time to post an exchange that occurred in the public forum #TNP

(21:37:42) punkd: This X is for Y only
(21:37:52) Astarial: Only one fridge has beer
(21:37:55) COE: They usually constrain it to the nomination thread, but this time, ommitted that rule
(21:37:56) Romanoffia: The ultimate protest vote: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8093797&t=7051909
Funkadelia(21:37:57) Astarial: There is a difference between the fridges!
(21:38:00) Astarial: A big one!
(21:38:09) Romanoffia: I have a big fridge.
(21:38:11) punkd: Only X has Y...somewhat different than their statement
(21:38:19) Astarial: Again, no, it's the SCOPE
(21:38:20) Astarial: OF THE ONLY
(21:38:22) Astarial: FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
(21:38:23) Funkadelia: The EC said "This X is for Y only", it should have been "Y's can only be in X."
(21:38:31) punkd: This X is for Y only...pretty clear.
(21:38:36) Astarial: Yes, it is
(21:38:41) Astarial: and you cannot understand it correctly.
(21:38:48) Karpathos: LOL
(21:38:52) Romanoffia: punkdOnly X has Y...somewhat different than their statement <<<<<< Funny you should say that considering you stated in one court thread that common sense has nothing to do with the law.
(21:38:53) punkd: I understand fine.
(21:38:59) Karpathos: Elu, busy with all those Voting Booth posts?
(21:39:00) Funkadelia: Obviously you don't
(21:39:00) Astarial: This X is for Y only is *different* from Only this X is for Y.
Click to expand...


Need I say more about the competence of the court in rendering any decision?
 
[me]rolls eyes.

If you had any concerns about any of the Justice's competence, why didn't you stand for justice when you had the chance?

Or is this 'the court is clearly incompetent' coming from the fact that they made a decision you disagree, in which case it's just attempted intimidation of the court.
 
madjack:
madjack rolls eyes.

If you had any concerns about any of the Justice's competence, why didn't you stand for justice when you had the chance?

Or is this 'the court is clearly incompetent' coming from the fact that they made a decision you disagree, in which case it's just attempted intimidation of the court.
Click to expand...
*rolls eyes at madjac k*

I have been a Court Justice in TNP. I know what being a Court Justice means. I know how decisions are made, or at least supposed to be.

And in my expert opinion as a former Court Justice, making decisions based upon unwritten 'rules' in such a way as to have the effect of contradicting Constitution and Legal Code is just a bad show. Remember, the specific details of a given law or article of the Constitution is designed precisely to remove such arbitrary discretion from the hands of a Judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top