Search results

The Court ruled on this trial.

As a note I no longer have access to that area of the forums.

:agree:

The new Court overruled that precedent with their most recent ruling.

The 10 month requirement allows for someone to run in a Special Election where the term would be 2 months or less and still be eligible for two terms of their own.

Voted privately

This ruling changes the election drastically. Thus may have prompted other people to run.

What exactly does this mean fir the current election?

I believe you are correct. May be due to me writing that very early today.

I hate term limits to begin with but IMO they work here. I think limiting it to eight months would harm the process. Four months is the equivalent of one term.

This gives permission for the AG to deny moving a case to trial. It also adds a method for the plaintiff to appeal the decision. [me]notes that this took him a whopping 2 minutes to write. It has been bitched about since the Court made the ruling in September.

Congrats and good luck.

It isn't exactly the content in the post. It is the fact that after repeatedly asking and telling him to drop this he keeps it up. This is a trend with him and it has come to the point where he has ran out of chances with this. In all honest he has been at this point quite some time now but...

In full agreement.

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r on the Minor Error Clause Opinion drafted by Hileville, joined by Sanctaria and Gaspo The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r. The Court took into consideration...

fixed that in the actual draft. I was just a bit tired when I did that. :P

Voted via PM.

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r Stark on the Minor Error Clause Opinion drafted by Hileville, joined by Sanctaria and Gaspo The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r. The Court took into...

Our decision will be delivered today.

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Cormac Stark on Vice Delegate Succession Opinion drafted by Sancatria, joined by Hileville The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Cormac Stark. The Court took into consideration the...

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Cormac Stark on Vice Delegate Succession Opinion drafted by Sancatria, joined by Hileville The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Cormac Stark. The Court took into consideration the...

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Cormac Stark on Vice Delegate Succession Opinion drafted by Sancatria, joined by Hileville and Gaspo The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Cormac Stark. The Court took into consideration...

The Court has drafted a ruling on this matter and it will be delivered soon.

I have been getting the same thing. I think this is more of a ZB thing as I have noticed across several ZB forums.

I agree with Sanc.

Due to the ongoing elections it is the belief of the Court that an agreement will not be reached on this matter prior to the end of the therm. Therefore we will not be discussing this review and will allow the next Court to come to a decision on this matter.

I withdraw my second due to the proposed amendment.

It was approved by a mod already. Unless I am missing a post somewhere.

Also when a mod completes what has been asked can you post that you have done so?