Search results

All good, I would just suggest the prior ruling about Discord logs, since that’s a bit of the basis for Discord/etc being included ultimately, be added to the intro bit eith the others https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9195825/2#post-10495188

As a note, the LC bit I refer to is " "1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code." So I would also suggest the removal of the "regardless of residency" bit, since we have rather clear lines on that...

For clarity, I meant the Europeia example as an instance where our laws (on Treason, which can apply to attacks on other regions with treaties) would work out as I followed your proposal. I do see your point about "well actuallys" on whether they committed a crime without any presence, I just...

The first bit is purely wording naturally - I think a more generic wording on the admin part + adding VD/etc note would do it. On the second, I would prefer that at least at present crimes by non-residents not on TNP property remain not crimes in the sense that the VD/security apparatus exist...

Looks pretty good I think - I think an equivalent note in what is properly section 5 that the VD check & related security tools may be the appropriate path for crimes there as such (although I’m not completely sold on the idea that we should extend jurisdiction as such). Also, I feel as if...

Against

I prefer my own in a structural sense would be the best way to put it - and more precisely, in general length. Certainly I have no general opposition to your version of jurisdiction except strictly I do’t think we need the degree of detail why.

@Vivanco, @St George my condensed version of much the same - with the notable exception that it lacks any language on the nature of crimes that may take place on our territory, but aren't committed by residents. I feel like it would be best to leave that to itself in a hypothetical future...

Apologies, I also meant to draft a thing - in particular because I think it can be much shorter/denser: Standing The petitioner is the legally selected Court Petitioner, and as such has universal standing. Questions of Review Jurisdiction As a legally submitted request for review without...

Okay, thinking some more I broadly agree with your opinion, although I think there is probably a better (and also more consistent with the past) way to structure the ruling, in particular to delineate the differences between crimes.

I’m still thinking on the rest, but would agree that 4 should be removed - it is the default state of affairs anyway, there’s no need to repeat it.

Apologies, yes - I remain alright with issuing an expanded ruling of sorts (on the jurisdictional lines in brief) without overturning.

Apparently so. Well, I have to be wrong sometimes :p

Okay, so having read all the stuff and the ruling in question, I am not seeing anything in particular to overturn whatever we think of Zyvet's brief - the first paragraph is entirely reasonable in the general sense & the second is odd, but dealing with a subject matter that has yet to actually...

That is fine

I don’t have any particular inclination (and in fact would view my other position as Bar Commissioner to perhaps be too many legal positions in one) to being CJ, but do not have any other objection to serving, nor particularly any objection to you serving @Attempted Socialism.

Apologies, I should have some within the next couple of days, I just have had spotty internet.

At present, no

Most certainly, and I imagine it will be dropped regardles.

I don’t really give a hoot, if you want it that’s cool

@Attempted Socialism I am fine with lengthening the period per Dreadton’s request, I also would suggest we appoint MJ as the THO - both because he’s very likely to win, and because I find it amusing to do so in that manner.

@Attempted Socialism allowance of briefs is to my mind fine, the principal reason for waiting being the necessity of having 3 & allowing the new third to participate how they want.

Given that Dreadon’s resignation drops us to two, I believe we need to (per Constitution defining the Court as having 3 and also general good practice) have the R4R run at least until sometime after the special election finishes.

Sounds good to me

Against - useless proposal in itself

For

Agains, feels both too weak in clauses and insufficient for the task at hand

Agains, given the lack of coverage for mutual-defense treaties apparently

For - looks quite good to me, covers all the important bases that I can think of

For