Search results

I hate to add to the recursive nature of that logic, but if I'm not a RA member the vote itself invalid(since I'm the one who proposed it as a member of the RA). So I would then be a member of the RA again. I think you're overthinking this.

Just to note, I'm fairly certain this vote can be held without the ruling. If the Court rules it is needed, it'll be completed and if not... well it can be ignored/discarded.

Just to note, clause 8 was only recently added to the legal code. It does not apply to this case as all of the pertinent events in it were prior to clause 8's existence. That said I of course wouldn't mind a speedy decision here. I would note of course that the court can just as easily rule...

The point of this vote would be to stop people from snidely commenting that I don't belong here as comes up every once in a while. I do not believe this vote is needed, but some do, and I would really prefer it be settled. If the RA votes to overturn the whole point is moot.

If we're going to argue that... then the term "security threat" pretty much indicates a temporary state of rejection. Circumstances create security threats... it's not a constant effect for the rest of someone's life. There is essentially no difference between the RA overturning it later and...

Actually, as I see it, a new security check was made. And given that the law says the Speaker must accept applications with a passed security check that pass other criteria, I am certainly not in the RA illegally. However, the other vote to sustain my rejection is still on record, despite it...

So first of all I'm incredibly aware at the recursive nature of this request. Still. There have been a number of conversations I've held in the last few months about "how I went about" getting back into the RA. Section 2.8 of the legal code outlines a method to overturn previous rejections. I...

I'd say it at least falls afoul of your oath to the RA though. "responsible action as a member of her society" specifically. That said, I doubt I could get a conviction on such a count, but I think charges could certainly be supported. And I think the idea is just far far too risky. If a...

I've pledged to not move my WA into the region if elected. I really think if I win you have other problems to worry about.

I have no opinion on that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJRs1PslPrQ Have you ever wanted a vice delegate who doesn't do a damn thing? Have you ever wanted a vice delegate who doesn't make anyone angry by exercising the power of their office? Have you ever wanted a vice delegate who refuses to commit a WA nation to the...

I also hereby declare my own candidacy for vice delegate.

I nominate Mall for delegate, Abacathea for Vice Delegate and PaulWallLibertarian42 for speaker.

i like turtles

Full support. ;)

Yeah no. I'm voting for Mall. I think his candidacy is a lot more viable than Flem gives it credit for being.

13 years of hard labor.

As does the prosecution.

As a note to the presiding justice, and with no disrespect intended towards the defense, but the prosecution does not, having read the defense's arguments, believe a rebuttal is necessary. The prosecution believes its own previous arguments are sufficient to prove its case. The prosecution...

The defendant took two oaths to this region. In exhibits C and G he promised both responsible action as a member of TNP's society and pledged to serve the region's security interests. Furthermore, he pledged his loyalty to The North Pacific's government. Let's examine the charge of Gross...

The prosecution would like to note that its arguments are forthcoming(or posted already), and that the defense is allowed multiple opportunities for arguments. It may simple argue against the charges already presented, against the testimony or even the evidence itself. The defense has failed to...

Boy would THAT be hilarious and troublesome.

I've known Mall for a couple years. As soon as I saw he was going to be the defense counsel... I knew we'd have a fun time. Glad it's been as entertaining for the rest of y'all as it is for us.

I would also like to point out section 4.11 of the General Evidentiary Rules, specifically: "Other types of acceptable evidence include, but are not necessarily limited to, documentary evidence such as screenshots, chat logs, telegrams, forum posts, and other documents. Unless specifically...

The defense is of the opinion that the rules of evidentiary procedure are absolutes, while the language clearly states that the presiding justice has leeway in regards to accepting or discarding evidence they believe to be fraudulent or authentic. The law clearly backs up the prosecutions...

The prosecution remains steadfast by it's previous opinion: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8136812&t=7174682 However that is all the Defense and Prosecution have at this moment, opinions. The Prosecution would of course note that none of the Defense's exhibits contain that which it...

I'd also ask that if the defense is allowed to extend their time for objecting to my evidence, that I be allowed to amend the evidence as needed. The prosecution does not believe the evidence requires further authentication, but can make an effort to provide it if it is required.

Except the are timestamped and dated at the level to which they are required. The court's evidentiary rules are about ensuring the pieces are legitimate, and give the Justice the leeway they need to determine if evidence has been fabricated. The language is here: "Such material will include the...

The prosecution objects to the fabrications presented by the Defense as Exhibits A-B and E as irrelevant to the case at hand, as well as objecting to Exhibits A-B as being testimony by the defense counsel, rather than evidence.

The Prosecution hereby submits the following evidence as prosecution exhibit F Prosecution Exhibit F - Message from Haafingar and Hjaalmarch to Ator People