Search results

In regards to this, As it currently stands, Falap is not an affected party, per se, and can not file this RFR as such. If the AG's office decides to file an RFR w/r/t standing, we can rule on that and then come back to this.

My apologies for bringing this matter to the public side of the court. I know it's bordering (Ok, well beyond) ludacrous at this point, but we'll be appointing a THO and get this matter settled once and for all.

My posts said that I would be, and am, in favor of opening standing to the broader definition, but that since that clarification wasn't requested of the court, it could not be ruled on in this opinion. That was my last post before the opinion was posted. How was that deceiving?

I'd like my position to be further clarified. My position is that SillyString has standing as a member of the AG's office, and Ruling Index 1 is stricken from the record as it is contrary to the current laws of the region. Only the second half of Ruling Index 17 was non-binding, which I...

Mmm. I guess I should have checked in. It was a late night. Again, I said we couldn't issue a ruling on standing without that being part of the request. I said SillyString had standing, by virtue of the office SillyString works for. I'd like my position to be further clarified. My position is...

Just as a matter of principle here, I'd like to reaffirm that SillyString had standing regardless due to her position, regardless of if she was affected or not. Also, we can't make a ruling on standing, per se, without it being brought forth in an rfr.

I clarified below.

My apologies. I had written a post, and thought I had posted it. I see that didn't happen. This was a busy week so I did not get to check in. It does seem that the language, specifically "suggests" in opinion 1 makes it non-binding. I would still be in favor of just striking out the opinion...

I am in principle in favor of what you said with regards to point one. On point two, Just so I'm clear, you are referring to this: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_7 as Opinion 8, right? What this boils down to is the petitioner is looking to reconcile court rulings and...

My point was that the 2010 decision defines Residency more narrowly than the Constitution. The constitution is plain when it defines Resident. "1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific." I'm in favor of opening standing to the way you've defined it.

An update: We are having discussions, though ISP problems, first with myself, and now Justice Grosseschnauzer have led to delayed response times.

Thank you. I know the feeling. My modem fried up when I had a power outage and subsequent restoration.

We can't use that opinion's definition of Resident as the Constitution, adopted after that ruling, states that "1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific." How do you could take that statement and apply a more narrow definition of resident? Would you care to...

Discussion on this matter is ongoing. I apologize for my delay; A power outage, and the subsequent restoration thereof, ensued in the frying of my modem, and I have now got service back in order. One of us will keep you up to date, however the opinion posted earlier in this thread does not...

I, Severisen, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Chief Justice, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal...

Kialga and I have agreed that I will be serving as the Chief Justice of the court for the remainder of this term. Thanks for your patience.

I will accept.

I apologize for my absence. Last night my power went out, and evidently this fried my modem. I went and got a replacement, but that's acting up as well. I can only stay connected for a minute at a time. I'll get this resolved as quickly as possible.

Grosse, I've had a relatively rough day, so I'm not in a great mood. I'll have the decency and respect for you not to snipe back at you. When I get a chance later on, I'll go through your standing argument. I'd appreciate in the future that you not insinuate that I didn't read something.

Your FA goals mention strengthening the relationships you have with allies. Which allies do you see as your focus? Are there any regions with which TNP has no formal relationship that you'd like to strengthen during your term? I'll think of more questions tomorrow. Thanks for your time.

Then perhaps we ought to withdraw the opinion and deal with the issue of standing first. Though, I should point out that SillyString does have standing because: 37. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court. Unless we interpret that to...

Agreed, which is why I posted such a thing in his request thread.

Thank you all, especially HuAt, who ran a solid campaign. I hope to see you on the bench in the near future.. Now it's time for me to get to work.

We are looking into the matter, but appreciate your patience while the referenced ruling is resolved. When we are able to address the matter, I will take over as moderating justice.

We should decide a new Chief Justice. As I said in my campaign thread, I'm willing to take on this role, despite being new. Thoughts?

So just to be sure, Kialga, you support this decision as is?

I suppose I ought to be masked as a Justice. Oath is here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8187988&t=7019276

I, Severisen, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Justice, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and...

What qualifies as "enough actual debate" in your opinion?

No. Andrew?