Search results

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...

Against

I prefer my own in a structural sense would be the best way to put it - and more precisely, in general length. Certainly I have no general opposition to your version of jurisdiction except strictly I do’t think we need the degree of detail why.

@Vivanco, @St George my condensed version of much the same - with the notable exception that it lacks any language on the nature of crimes that may take place on our territory, but aren't committed by residents. I feel like it would be best to leave that to itself in a hypothetical future...

Apologies, I also meant to draft a thing - in particular because I think it can be much shorter/denser: Standing The petitioner is the legally selected Court Petitioner, and as such has universal standing. Questions of Review Jurisdiction As a legally submitted request for review without...

Okay, thinking some more I broadly agree with your opinion, although I think there is probably a better (and also more consistent with the past) way to structure the ruling, in particular to delineate the differences between crimes.

I’m still thinking on the rest, but would agree that 4 should be removed - it is the default state of affairs anyway, there’s no need to repeat it.

Apologies, yes - I remain alright with issuing an expanded ruling of sorts (on the jurisdictional lines in brief) without overturning.

Apparently so. Well, I have to be wrong sometimes :p

Okay, so having read all the stuff and the ruling in question, I am not seeing anything in particular to overturn whatever we think of Zyvet's brief - the first paragraph is entirely reasonable in the general sense & the second is odd, but dealing with a subject matter that has yet to actually...

That is fine

I don’t have any particular inclination (and in fact would view my other position as Bar Commissioner to perhaps be too many legal positions in one) to being CJ, but do not have any other objection to serving, nor particularly any objection to you serving @Attempted Socialism.

Apologies, I should have some within the next couple of days, I just have had spotty internet.

At present, no

Most certainly, and I imagine it will be dropped regardles.