Search results

But Cormac, the integrity of the Court is at risk by the pattern of behavior of the other two remaining justices, and the only way to clear the air long term is for that thread to be released.

Hmmm, I am not the one who brought it into open chambers.

The remaining two justices could choose to amend or waive the rules. But I doubt it, because it would expose their shortcomings. Which is why it needs to be released a.s.a.p. before the next election. So the voters have a better appreciation of what I have been going through in dealing with...

Since the thread would back up what I've been having to contend with, my integrity demands that it be disclosed. I'm far more concerned with making clear that the problems here are not coming from me. It probably needs to be public before the next judicial election so if either of them stands...

Now that Bootsie has acknowledge they had misspoken in the request, it makes things consistent. It might be useful for the Speaker or the RA to adopt a rule outlining this so that there's less chance of confusion in the future. In the meantime I'm going to place the bullet points in the ACP...

First that is not what you said in the private discussion thread, in fact, you stated total agreement with part 1 of the opinion dealing with standing, more than once. At no time during that discussion did you ever state that you did not feel standing was an issue. And I will repeat that...

The problem for me is that Severisen affirmatively stated more than once that he agreed with Part 1 of the Opinion. He never raised this position once we began to discuss it. The only thing he stated that he differed with me as to part two was on the exact description of the remedy. My...

Except that is not what you said about standing in the discussions prior to the posting, and in fact you confirmed more than once that you fully agreed with part 1 of the opinion. Justice Kiagla also realized after his post on part 2 that given his position that Silly String failed to show a...

That is not what you've said previously. And Justice Kiagla agreed that he really couldn't take a position on part 2 of the opinion given what he.said about part one. And you leave me totally baffled inasmuch as you said you agreed to part 1. I'm getting really frustrated with y'all's constant...

And I'm not convinced at all that what you proffered is the minimum necessary to fix the immediate issue. Like the massive set of changes that were pushed to fix a minor issue on Vice Delegate succession which dealt with many things other than that topic, your proposal mostly deals with things...

I and FEC are trying to sort out why residents would need security checks as opposed to citizens. I looked at the current text of the Constitution and the Legal Code and could not fine any mention of it. Also, wouldn't those removed as citizens be remasked simply as s residents, assuming their...

IIRC, all of the original text is unchanged (except to correct typos); some things were added, but nothing was removed. My most recent post outlined what was added.

I do not speak for Chief Justice Severisen, but now that the Court has officially addressed the "standing" question with respect to requests for review, I would expect this proceeding will proceed in short order.

Bootsie, you may also want to consider the fact that NS itself has very much the same policy as is followed by the Admin team here. You are not the first to represent this type of situation; we have experienced this going back a decade, and given our obligation as admin to enforce the "one...

I promised to offer an alternative to this proposal today, and I am pleased to now offer it. It has only two, count them, two changes, that are necessary to allow the suspension of SC members who fall out of compliance with the activity requirements. The proposal includes one change in the...

I will guarantee you that when the working thread is ultimately released, you wil better see what I am talking about. No. And no. We determined that Opinion One, and only Opinion One, was a nonbinding statement that did not have any attributes of a binding court decision (in the language...

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Request for Review filed by Silly String on behalf of the Attorney General on the Court's Ruling issued on September 15, 2012 (Ruling Index Number 1) The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by Silly String...

[Appendix] A. Bill of Rights, Clause 9 B. Legal Code, Section 6.7, Clauses 36 to 45, and in particular, Clause 37 C. Court Rules, Chapter 2 D. Court Rules, Chapter 4 E. Court Rulings (the numbers refer to the opinion numbers in the indexed list of decisions as maintained in the legal...

Moved the one note to the end of the opinion, as it just notes we know of the Voting Rights Act as to the definition of citizen and resident, and that supersedes the 2010 opinion. (Just noting that will reduce any more comments on that finding about the 2010 Opinion.) Also fixed a couple of...

Yes, it's 41 (and 42). I was hardly awake when I typed that earlier. (I was up until 3 am with uploading files and Microsoft choosing then to update Windows (18 of them!). I'll wait about two more hours, then copy and paste those two posts into the public thread.

Sometimes, RL schedules of three different people in three different situations don't mesh well. In any event, I currently anticipate that the decision and opinion in this proceeding will be posted in about six hours.

I have updated posts 40 and 41 41 and 42 to reflect all of the discussion and to include the summary in post 48. I've also switched to the use of "rescinded" as to Opinion 1 which I think is a verb that the Chief and I can agree covers both of our positions about Opinion 1 and noting that it...

Let's leave it as is, as this was a request for review, and we had to deal with standing. I have problems with that ambiguous clause in the Legal Code, because it is not clear what the R.A. was doing. It makes more sense as to participation than initial standing, which is where Kialga felt...

I did not say that only the Legal Code would need amendment, but the amendment to the Constitution needed is far less than you think. Just give me a couple of days to clear some RL and Court things out of the way, and I'll be in a position to draft something that will fix the problem, I've been...

I will put the paragraph and a couple of refinements in the summary of our actual holdings into the two part post of the opinion late tonight or first thing tomorrow my local time after I'm up and get online. (I'm -6 UTC time zone wise.) I'll give both of you a chance for any last minute...

If there weren't already an exception in article 7 with respect to the SC , that would be a different question. But the adding inactivity to the suspension grounds is far less of a permanent change than what you are proposing, especially as your proposal involves a major change in the way people...

I much rather go for the concept of suspending SC members except for the reasons already specified in the regional security law for removals. I don't like the idea conceptually of the SC being reduced to a nominating body rather than an independent body that approves the application of new...

I'm trying to figure out how to reflect this statement when your position on part 1 means Silly String did not have standing to get to the merits. In judicial terms, the position you take on part 1 made it unnecessary for you to reach the merits in part 2. Let me think a bit on how to reflect...

I hope I am fairly noting what each of your positions are. This would be placed immediately after the listing of the provisions of the Governing Documents, Court Rules and prior opinions, at the beginning of the text of the Opinion. Please let me know if this fairly summaries your position(s)...

Let me work up a paragraph for the beginning of the Opinion to summarize both your views as to relates to the most recent draft in this thread, and unless something's terribly off, we have to go with what we've done. (I will be essentially paraphrasing what each of you has said, but cast in a...