Search results

Congratulations Picairn and commiserations to the defeated.

I would tend to agree with Pallaith and others that the provisions not yet being used does not of itself mean we should repeal them. I think the question really is whether we can see maintaining a territory at some point in the future or if that would not be something that would be compatible...

For

Against

Against, hippy nonsense

Brief If it pleases the Court, I would submit the following brief. The request challenges the Court's Opinion On Content Ownership and Freedom of Information Requests against the Security Council ("the Official Opinion") on the basis of what is stated to be incompatibility with section 7.4 of...

Brief If it pleases the Court, I would submit the following brief. This request raises two issues in relation to the Court's prior Opinion On Freedom of Information Requests Against the Judiciary ("the Official Opinion"): that the law has been amended such that the statements in it as to what...

My view is that the "and" can be read disjunctively as Attempted Socialism says but if it be that the intention is to redraw the proposal, I will vote against.

With the amended wording of a discretion triggered by the proposer's request, I would support the proposal.

How would you count the below ballots? Please assume that in the three judicial election ballots, the candidates are the same across all three and that there is no candidate called “None”.

Given the lack of further objections to the principle of the Bill, I move to vote.

I would intend to support the Bill as drafted but do want to probe on one point. Namely, whether it might be worth framing the provision to apply if the Commissioner is reconfirmed within one month of when their term would end (or some other period). I don't think we are likely to see any...

For the nominee: do you intend to stand in two or more of the three regularly scheduled elections? EDIT: Pretend you don't see the earlier version of this post that LD actually responded to which shows I copied and pasted it

Congratulations to the new Justices, commiserations to Sybarropesee.

I don’t think it does say exactly the same thing, though I would expect that most scenarios under the current law would have the same result (well, under most scenarios I expect this law to do nothing at all because I expect the Court to choose a Chief Justice). That said, I don’t think the...

Against. Clause 1 too widely drawn, particularly in relation to the second part. The agency created by clause 2 is too great a ceding of power from member states, given the breadth of matters this proposal would affect.

As I was perusing the Legal Code, I noticed that the tie break clause for choosing the Chief Justice seemed a little out of step with the current electoral system. I would propose to amend the clause to just be that the Justice elected first will be Chief (if the Court cannot choose for themselves).

As @Eluvatar on 30 May 2024 ceased to be a citizen, I revoke his bar membership.

Could I and @Lord Dominator be given mod permissions for the bar sub-fora, please?

Against. No quarter for the alien RPers

What if the Delegate were to say that they did not need approval because they were not performing a pre-charge banjection but were exercising their power to regulate the Regional Message Board?

Yes, but what do you mean when you say “the case will also work” under clause 23 or it “may also get involved”? Why do you say it applies to the situation outlined and what effect would you say it has?

Could you further explain what you mean by this?

Might I suggest you consider other parts of the Legal Code which may have relevance, such as Chapter 7, which concerns the executive?

Suppose charges are not brought. The nation asks the Delegate to revoke the ban. The Delegate says “I will not revoke the ban. I did not ban you pending criminal charges, I banned you because I thought you would post on the Regional Message Board in a way that would be against my policy for...

Why do you say section 3.5, clause 28 is the relevant clause given the Delegate’s notice says they were banned because they would violate RMB policy?

Do you want a crack at any of these?

Do you want a crack at any of these?

Could any charge be brought against the Delegate?

Which parts of the Legal Code do you say would let the Delegate ban the nation? Similarly, which parts of the Legal Code do you say create crimes of “false accusation” or “defamation”?