Search results

Awesome! I went through and did a final grammar sweep and I am also good with how it looks. Moderating Justice is good to post the opinion when they are able. Wonderful job everyone!

Alright I made hopefully the final edits to the draft. One more read through and we should be good to go.

Yeah that is mostly what I was implying my reasoning is because Permanence is one of the only examples of case law on good faith. The situation in that case seems very similar to this one with noticeable differences. And with the Court explaining how the nation had acted in good faith for four...

I understand your point of mentioning good faith even if it doesn't necessarily apply. It was argued in a brief after all that alone gives it some room to be considered if only just in short part of the opinion. I edited the draft to say this in the solution section what are you thoughts on this?

I was saying that we should not even consider the actions of LBD because there are none to consider. LBD was last seen online May 16th, and that date has not changed for the entirety of this case so I concluded based on this information that there are no actions to decide keeping valid/striking...

I don’t wholly agree with what the explanation is saying. It brings up good faith as shown in the Permanence ruling and also in the ruling named On the Oath of a Delegate where a Delegate‘a entire term was called into question because of an invalid oath. The Court ruled all of their actions were...

You are correct that is the draft!

I think we've covered all areas we needed to cover to improve the opinion so the draft is good to go.

I am very uncomfortable with what that implies. This case is very specific to a single nation so including others that have faced a similar incident, if others even have, would be venturing way outside the scope of this review.

LD did you have some notes about the Solution section you wanted to share?

The nature of the filer's government position, though I agree it should be taken into account to allow government officials to question their own actions, is not regarded when accounting for standing in a case. Article 4.2 of the Constitution says reviews of laws or government policies and...

Full agree that is good one.

What modifications do you believe need to be made?

I wouldn't call it rejecting citizenship if a citizen does it, would "rescind their citizenship" sound better? That's the only question I have the rest is fairly simple and easy. Good stuff!

I added the provision of the Constitution to the draft. I don't agree that the question of the case includes whether or not the Speaker has to live with a mistake as a factor. Whether or not someone has to live with a mistake is not something that sounds relevant enough to act as a compelling...

I made some more minor edits to the draft. I removed 6.1.10 from the above section as well as the previous court rulings that accounted for good faith. Since they are no longer in the opinion I do not think they need to be mentioned. If common practice has it that they are mentioned regardless...

I made some edits to the draft. First I removed my reasoning to prove standing and made the primary standing in this review the compelling interest of regional security. The line discussing 6.1.10 was removed. The changes from Speaker to Speaker's Office in the Granting Citizenship section have...

I had a feeling some or most of what I wrote either missed the mark or was simply inaccurate. My focus near the end was mostly on finishing the draft. The standing I knew would depend more on the regional interest than the standing because the main reason the question was brought before the...

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific On the Ability of the Speaker to Retract Citizenship Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Kronos, joined by Justice Sil Dorsett and Justice Lord Dominator The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Fregerson. The Court took into...

I do not support this. I do not think a regional bar should be under the Court and I think this for four reasons. First, looking at the provisions like 3.6.37 it would be more favorable to me if members of a bar were able to replace the Examiner on their own rather than rely on the Court to do...

While we wait for the rest of Tlomz's comments I will begin writing a draft opinion covering what we have agreed upon up to now.

252

8

I will rephrase the mentioning of the Speaker in the first quoted paragraph with “Speaker’s Office” for accuracy thanks for catching that.

For my initial thoughts, I agree with the line of thinking submitted in Pallaith's brief. Legal Code 6.1.7 states that the Speaker will reject any application that failed evaluation by Vice Delegate or Administration. The absolute wording brings us to this indisputable fact - if an applicant...

2

7

2

Sorry for the late response I've been moving house over the weekend. The correction has been made.

2