Search results

In the matter of The North Pacific v. KEKISTON, GrandEngland, the indictment is accepted by the Court. The Court is now in session. @Attempted Socialism will serve as Moderating Justice, @Simone will serve as Standby Hearing Officer. @Lord Dominator serves as Temporary Hearing Officer in place...

We don't have to accept the treason charge, we can reject it for substantive reasons (which a lack of a prima facie case would be). But I would prefer to leave it up to a prosecutor to drop the charge if the prosecution can't show actions towards the plot.

St George presented an indictment. https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6989211/8#post-10604428 I'm not sure what to think... It feels like shooting sparrows with cannons, but the evidence presented is prima facie credible enough to support the charge.

Yep, have access. Thanks.

Please mask Lord Dominator as THO per their oath: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7019276/43#post-10604477

The Indictment has been received by the Court and is under consideration. Per 3.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures, I hereby order the preservation of evidence.

@Eluvatar given the appointment of LD as THO and the indictment submitted by St George, I'm going to need access to the Chambers.

Dear Citizens. In the current Court term we have been discussing various options to improve the Court as such. One of the simpler ideas is a public list of available THOs, where interested and available citizens can sign up. The Court has often employed an informal shortlist of candidates...

The Court has selected @Lord Dominator as Temporary Hearing Officer in Pallaith's place. Lord Dominator, please take your oath.

LD is willing and available. Will appoint if you can give the green light.

I am good with Dreadton and Gorundu, but I will ask LD first.

We have to appoint a THO. My inclination is to ask Lord Dominator or Sanctaria. How do you feel, @Eluvatar ?

So, with us being (almost) done with the R4Rs, I'd like to get back to this. A publicly available list of people who are willing and able to stand by as THOs is within our power and doesn't seem controversial. I would post a public notice that we solicit feedback on it, but otherwise move to...

The Court, spearheaded by Justice Pallaith, has amended the Court Rulings Index to list pertinent information in a clearer and more readily accessible manner. The new Index gives a brief overview on the results of the cases alongside any subsequent changes in status. As a part of that work, some...

I think Pallaith got the things I had noticed. At least they're correct now. So I sign on as-is.

Still on board.

Like Pallaith I am on board on the substance. I don't think a general comment on specificity does a lot here, though. Not against it, but if we want to make a difference for future Courts I think it should go in some general guide for the Court. There are a few minor things (grammar and...

Yep. I am still good to sign on to it.

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @TlomzKrano on Defunct Rulings and the Reconsideration of Candidate Eligibility in Reopened Nomination Periods Opinion drafted by Chief Justice @Attempted Socialism, joined by Justices @Pallaith and @Eluvatar...

Just so there's no miscommunication, I'm reposting the draft as it currently stands. Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on Defunct Rulings and the Reconsideration of Candidate Eligibility in Reopened Nomination Periods Opinion...

No, it is a three part test. 1) was the ruling correct at the time? 2) were changes made to the legislation underlying that ruling? 3) did those changes address the ruling in part or in full? If the answers to the first two are yes, but the third is "not at all", we get to something like the...

Do you have suggestions? I can just excise the inserted line but I would prefer to have some line that elaborates on what we think when we say innocuous. That some minor changes simply aren't worth a R4R, because the change isn't actually changing the legal foundation of a ruling.

Maybe it was unclearly phrased, but I added language to that effect in the first draft and it is still there. My comment was towards Elu's about whether the line can be misunderstood by the casual observer.

The changes I can spot (Last line about strikeouts, the reference to an appeal) are fine by me. If you made other edits they are either purely to readability or I missed them. The line about e.g. numbering being innocuous is meant to signal that we know that some changes are irrelevant in legal...

Against. States deciding a minimum wage is a liberal feel-good policy to deaden worker power, taking it away the unions and co-opting progressive energy in favour of the existing system of exploitation.

I don't want to downplay the toxic nature of the fight over the recall, and part of that has definitely been calling out groups or specific people for their votes in various ways. That has been rather disheartening to watch. However, I don't think that this is a solution, for a few reasons...

@Eluvatar have you had a chance to read the draft, as edited by Pallaith above?

Re-read it just now, I can sign on as-is.

We discussed this at length on Discord, and I think you catched the various views quite nicely. I can sign on to the ruling, but I'd like a few days to read it back leisurely for minor things in the language.

I can sign on to that.