Search results

Can the following be implemented: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9049939/post-10404618 Thank you.

The Court, by unanimous consent of its Justices, has altered the Court Procedures. Added to the Procedures is the following clause— This clause will be clause 7 of section 2 of chapter 1.

Voting is over, then. I shall make an announcement later today.

I guess we need to do some formal vote. Voting period is 48 hours or when all Justices shall have voted, whichever is earlier. At vote is the motion to add clause 7 of section 2 of chapter 1, which will read: I vote Aye.

I was thinking of appointing at the start of each term, with the benefit of not adding extra chaos to court trials with new clerk appointments. Though I would be fine with the other option as well. This may work nicely with the bar exam, where anyone that's passed the bar exam can apply for...

> The Moderating Justice will endeavor to ensure all necessary court documents and processes are provided and completed by all parties prior to ending a trial. If any party has presented incomplete evidence or has neglected a necessary step in the trial process, the Moderating Justice may extend...

Delegate: 1. Nimarya 2. Robespierre 3. 2 and 2 is Fish Would you like to reopen nominations? No Vice Delegate: Cretox State Would you like to reopen nominations? No Speaker: East Isles Would you like to reopen nominations? No

I have previously publicly discussed this idea. Essentially, the court would appoint one or more clerks – probably starting with one – that would have the following tasks and responsibilities: * Allowed access to private justice spaces. * Helps with the drafting process. * Is allowed to present...

Would this work?

Alright. So from what I gather, the preference is a modification making explicit the Court’s power to make changes to the schedule at any time if it sees so necessary. I’ll get out an exact text tomorrow.

I propose to add a clause like the one below to Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Court Procedures: This should fix the whole “They’re guilty but they forgot to send this specific piece of evidence so never mind” thing.

1

I dislike the death penalty, so I'm For.

Dreadton has proposed to me developing a bar exam. It would be a four part test, the basic outline of which is described here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1scR2qTawvA9E1K8mLFiiWwmpeKloka3OZbdFP41tzh0/edit?usp=sharing It might be wort using when we put out a call for THOs/attorneys, which...

sign me up

AGAINST :mad:

Posted. * Messages unrelated to the R4R removed. pete#7777 is saintpeter, CJ; Ghost#8872 is Pallaith, J; LD#2860 is Lady Raven Wing, J.

The Court declines to review the matter presented to it. The following is an explanation why (which shall not be considered binding precedent): The powers of the Court are clearly enumerated in Article 4(1) of the Constitution: “The Court will try all criminal cases and review the...

I added a footnote. What do you think?

I will note your disagreement with A if you wish so.

FYI: I have been selected as Chief Justice. Could I be marked as such? (Also, I don't know if that's already the case, but could I be granted mod perms in the Private Justice Archive, so I can declassify threads?)

I agree that adding context to the rejection would be good. Something like:

I agree. I would reject question ii per 4(1) of the Constitution. I would reject question i, because while the law specifies the purpose of the administrator check ("verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty"), it does not specify the exact procedure for...

Announcement: I have been selected as Chief Justice by the Court.

Thank you both. I'll put out an announcement.

I'm somewhat torn on whether reviewing administrator actions is at all within the boundaries of the powers granted to the Court by the Constitution: This concerns in part an administrator policy (i.e., refusing corporate addresses) and an administrator action (i.e., the specific refusal in...

Given that final decisions must receive the approval of at least a majority of justices, there should be collaboration between the Justices dealing with a case (including R4Rs). In the status quo, you'll often see that the Moderating Justice authors the opinion on their own, and then makes...

And there we are. . . As a new Court, we'll need to select a Chief Justice per the Legal Code: I'd be interested in taking on that job, but I'm also interested who else may want to. So, let's see!

The newly-elected Court have taken their oaths of office. Could they be masked as such? Thanks! :)

1