Search results

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @The IC 1101 Empire On The Regional Ban of Siberia Union Opinion drafted by Justice @Lord Dominator, joined by Chief Justice @Attempted Socialism and Justice @Pallaith The Court took into consideration the...

Looks good to me Helps that it is pretty open and shut :p

The conclusion bit may not be needed and is certainly not at all well written, but I was running out of writing steam at that point so I have that. Links and whatnot to prior rulings, NS rules, and our laws are left out of this draft for my ease of ability in making it.

Standing: The petitioner is a nation ejected and banned, and as such is entitled to judicial review of the same pursuant to Article 8 of the Bill of Rights. Facts of the Case: The petitioner by their own admittance a message on the RMB that appeared to contain personal details such as addresses...

For clarity, you do mean that the LWU embassy closure was what you were warning of? And further, blackmail in the manner alleged by the same, or?

Yes, I just might not have one until Friday

Sounds like we’re in agreement on the basics of this at least - couple good points I do agree to include as a base that you raised Pallaith

I did close the time for briefs (late, apologies). I don’t think I have anything to add to the above outside of making is more official reading, but do you have any thoughts @Pallaith?

The deadline for briefs has passed, and the Court will now deliberate.

I would agree

The deadline for briefs for this case is the 4th

Oh no, perfectly fine - I was planning on doing it today anyways

Ope sorry, was at work and missed that

I highly doubt it will be an issue, nor do I think it’s something that needs to be recused for (at least on practical grounds).

Given 7.3.19 of the LC I don’t believe we strictly have a choice in whether to take it (or that’s at least the standard I’m used to). I am willing to serve as Moderating if neither of you wish to.

Vargha Financial Times Government Self-Dealing in Alveris Opinion September 29th 2011 Our neighbor to the northwest is known for their controlling government and suppression of any economic freedom deemed to be potentially "destabilizing." They claim stability and embrace a fear-driven economy...

I remain quite willing to keep serving as the Bar guy as put - I don't however have a preference right now as to which of you serves as CJ.

Aye

I, Lord Dominator, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Justice, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal...

I pledge to be a wise and fair judge, befitting the voting unanimity that elected me :p

Liberal, progressive Nothing in particular I like the work

I am once again asking for your votes in being elected Justice. I have served multiple terms, served on every other side of a trial, and been involved in numerous R4Rs. Questions welcome

Sure, I'll accept my nominations

The pinned one is indeed the wrong link, the whole idea of the new one was to have every ruling with a separate post rather than the horrible many in one post that it was in the old one.

^

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...