Search results

Justice (select 1): Democratic Donkeys Would you like to reopen nominations? No

Can this be put to a vote?

TNP Nation: Ator People Court Justice (Pick 3): Grosseschnauzer, Kiwi, SillyString Would you like to reopen nominations? No Attorney General: Abstain. Would you like to reopen nominations? No

Regarding this: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8147781&t=7190847 I'd prefer to let the Council and BW work this out on their own for now. It doesn't seem to be that the Court needs to get involved at this point.

I can agree.

Fine with me.

I'll vote aye as well.

Alright, I'm fine with the new language. I just prefer not to change things unnecessarily. I'd rather leave this out then. If there's a problem, let's respond to it, but in general our attorneys are smart enough to be able to handle this themselves and I'd rather not over-legislate this. See...

TNP Nation: Ator People Vote: Abstain

Don't get me wrong, I want to see a contempt of Court law, I just don't know if criminal charges without trial or the possibility of appeal is the way to do it.

If the presiding justice can impose a penalty for contempt, isn't that a de facto criminal conviction without due process?

If you want to draft something to that effect I could be convinced. I haven't had a chance to look at the draft rules, unfortunately. I will try to this weekend.

Let's wait until we get a new Justice for the r3n ruling, then. I don't have terribly strong opinions on the issue, but if we can't come to a consensus in this particular instance then is there any harm in waiting? Court business on everything else can proceed (though it will of course be...

With this (http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8143657&t=7200753) we have a vacancy in the Court. As per Chapter 3, Section 3.1 of the TNP Legal Code: I vote for you, SillyString. Presuming you vote for yourself, we can announce the next Chief Justice and continue with the Court's...

Aye.

I'm happy with this.

That's fine, and it's your call, but it's something the Court is going to have to deal with one way or another, if not during our term then during the next. EDIT: To clarify my concerns: removing counsel and proceeding with trial will almost certainly result in a request for review on the...

I agree the defense counsel is disrupting the case and I have no problem with the Court holding them in contempt and at least temporarily removing them from the Courtroom. At this point, though, I'm concerned with the legal consequences of replacing counsel altogether. I just want to make sure...

Looks good.

It's a higgledypiggledy from me then! I'd lean towards anything that gives the will of the RA the benefit of the doubt, though.

It seems to me that this: implies that there's only one way to overturn a previous decision by the RA, and that's by a majority vote of the RA. What am I missing?

Sorry for the delay on my part. This isn't a matter that I'm particularly familiar with, and reading the thread hasn't helped much. Is there a quick explanation for what the situation is? I'll go back and read through the threads over the next couple days as well.

Done, case closed.

Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific [hr] After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Haafingar and Hjaalmarch, the Court rules as follows: Haafingar and Hjaalmarch is found Not Guilty on the charges of Conspiracy and Gross Misconduct. Reasoning: Due to insufficient...

I'm fine with this. Roman?

Could you add the language to the last draft of the verdict, and we can consider it? I'd like to get the opinion out soon though, counsel are getting impatient.

It hasn't; we are actively putting the opinion together now. The Court appreciates your patience.

I was a little concerned about a dismissal being a double jeopardy issue as well. And I'm fine with a not guilty verdict. Roman? EDIT: I've prepared a not guilty verdict as well, if we decide to go that route:

I'm happy to keep it short. How does this look?