Petition to The Court

Cathyy

Cathyy

TNPer
I notice, with some dismay, that the Cabinet are currently holding a vote to seek referendum in the RA as to whether my citizenship should be stripped from me.

I note that this action has been instigated by Mr Sniffles whose recent attempt to remove my citizenship via The Court has been rejected.

I believe this is a malicious attempt to remove me from citizenship status without good cause and based on personal vendetta.

I request that The Court therefore rules that any such vote would be in breach of the Constitution unless my nation has been ejected from the region following either trial or SC mandate - confirmed by Referendum.

I further request that should any such action be allowed to prevail that my rights to bring a case against The Delegate, already instigated be maintained.
 
The cabinet vote is to allow a referendum on whether to eject you, which is allowed by the same rules you trumpeted as cause for impeaching FEC. Please read more carefully before you go about.

And your case against the delegate will go on whether you are here or not.
 
I await the Court's consideration of this matter and thank them for their attention to this matter.

I would however also point out that the case made in Cabinet appears to be based on the situation which prevails when there is no Prime Minister - ie that the Cabinet may collectively act.

I believe we do have a Prime Minister who has taken the oath of that office and therefore according to the Constitution, it would fall to the Prime Minister, not the Cabinet to make such a request of the RA.
 
I'm well aware the PM is away. However, the part of the Constitution quoted to justify a collective Cabinet decision is this:

During the interim period between the creation of the vacancy in the office of Prime Minister and the confirmation and installation of a successor to the office of Prime Minister, the Cabinet shall collectively have the authority to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office
Click to expand...

I'm aware of no such vacancy in the office of Prime Minister.
 
I do not see the point, nor the reference to your constitution supporting this to be valid. I know I am not a citizen, though I do have a nation in TNP, but I would like my say.

If, and this is made with no accusation of intent, the general idea is to remove Cathyy from the forum, in the belief that she is a trouble or an inconvenience; from the small number of posts I've seen her made, she has been wise, eloquent and in keeping with rules, not to mention very civil towards you all. If she goes, I would still continue this in her place, not as a vendetta but because it is what is right, by my mind, by Cathyy's mind and by your constitution.

Wars in Nationstates do not mean you should hate the other person, hold in your anger, lest you forget we are playing a game. Invasions and internal politics make it interesting, anger doesn't.

If you did not mean anything remotely similar by this, by all means ignore it. It also goes out to anyone who has flamed/flamebaited/accused Cath of anything, and I would point out that the Lexiconian citizens have been asked to remain civil on our, and your forum if they have signed up.

Thank you for putting up with, and reading, my long-winded and maybe even pointless post, we'll see....
 
Oh yeah. Definitely pointless.

EDIT -

She is not an annoyance or anything like that. Honest and constructive dissent is part of what makes us, us. But her recent actions go beyond respectfull dissent; her goal is the overthrow of our democratically elected government, she has declared war on not only our delegate but the entire region, she has stated again and again her wish to install a government radically different and without the very laws which have protected her so far. She flouts and abuses our laws and ideals for her own venal intent to once again rule this region with an iron fist. If she wished to continue to try and compromise and change our region through discussion as she has done before then she'd be more than welcome, but to resort to war is not acceptable!

To wage a campaign on the destruction of our way of life and to demand to watch and laugh as a resident here is the issue.
 
Cathyy delivered the Declaration of War message. She didn't declare war on you; the Lexicon declared war on you. For all that you know, Cathyy may have been a voice against the decision - we operate on a voting system amongst the High Council and Founders and that, comes to a majority vote.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that she definitely voted against, I dont' know which way she leans but it shouldn't matter. She isn't waging war by spamming or posting hateful messages. She spends a lot of time writing to change here. She's not shouting on every thread "start a revolution".

Wanting to overthrow a government is fine. After all, surely if you are trying to get voted in as Delegate, you are opposing the other party and trying to get rid of them. Cathyy has kept to your laws in her proceedings.

And tell me, where is the line between destroying a way of life and reforming a way of life? Do you know who Cathyy would prefer as Delegate? What she would prefer as constitution? Unless you do, surely this claim has no evidence to back it up.

I am happy to see how this goes, however, I will not allow Cathyy's character to be called into question - I'm not a mindless worshipper of Cathyy, she knows that if I disagreed with her, I'd say. We are agreed on this point.

She may wish to stay and talk civilly to you - though not many people would with the amount she puts up with. Her choice, surely. If I am wrong, please correct me.
 
When a region to which you have citizenship delcares war on TNP, that individual is, by definition, a 'hostile' alien and potential enemy combatant. If that individual also holds citizenship with TNP, well, I'll leave that to the legal beagles.

R
 
I'm not saying that Cathyy isn't a, rather important, part of the Lexicon. She is. She also held positions of power here, in TNP. The name of the nation she has escapes me but it's still here from the days when she was at the top.

But, surely, by that meaning, if two countries declare war upon each other, you would kill everyone in the country - after all, they are all involved and are all as guilty as their government for not overthrowing the decision.

But then again, we can't protest the government and try to get rid of them, as, by your rules, that is an offense. Surely you need to think this over...




BTW. This is in no way saying that I do not support the war, I am a Lexiconian first and foremost.
 
While I can understand the reasoning being used to make the petition in the Cabinet I must disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution taking place by some.

For reference:
www.dictionary.com:
va·can·cy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vkn-s)
n. pl. va·can·cies
The condition of being vacant or unoccupied.
An empty or unoccupied space.
A position, office, or place of accommodation that is unfilled or unoccupied.
Emptiness of mind; inanity.
A crystal defect caused by the absence of an atom, ion, or molecule in a crystal lattice.
Archaic. A period of leisure; idleness.
Click to expand...

Since I can not address the issue with the Cabinet directly since I do not have posting privileges there (yet) I would like to post my thoughts on this action here.

This has no bearing on my opinion on the action one way or the other but it is unconstitutional for the vote to take place at all, in my opinion, since the absence of the Prime Minister in regards to vacation time is not the same things as a vacancy in the position and the time period between such vacancy and a replacement taking the role.
 
The Court takes notice of the Petition, and, as I am the only Justice without an active case, I will dispose of it directly.

In the meantime, I am closing this thread. Discussions may take place elsewhere.
 
Cathyy:
I notice, with some dismay, that the Cabinet are currently holding a vote to seek referendum in the RA as to whether my citizenship should be stripped from me.

I note that this action has been instigated by Mr Sniffles whose recent attempt to remove my citizenship via The Court has been rejected.

I believe this is a malicious attempt to remove me from citizenship status without good cause and based on personal vendetta.

I request that The Court therefore rules that any such vote would be in breach of the Constitution unless my nation has been ejected from the region following either trial or SC mandate - confirmed by Referendum.

I further request that should any such action be allowed to prevail that my rights to bring a case against The Delegate, already instigated be maintained.
Click to expand...
At the request of the petitioning party, the Court has reviewed the thread in question. It is the opinion of the Court that the Cabinet, in this case, does not have authority to initiate any such vote. There is a clear difference between a vacancy in the Office of Prime Minister, and a temporary (RL) absence of the person discharging that role. In this case, the Prime Ministry cannot be said to be vacant, and, as such, the Cabinet does not have leave to act in its stead.

In addition, due to the volatile nature of the thread in question, the Court is issuing the following order -

ENTERED THIS ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND SIX,

Before the Court of the North Pacific, Chief Justice Byardkuria Presiding


Effective immediately, the thread located at http://z13.invisionfree.invalid/TNP/index.php?showtopic=1558 , hereafter referred to as Thread, is to be closed.  Any creation or  reintroduction of a thread substantially identical to the Thread shall be deemed a willful disobeyance of an order of the Court, and subject to penalty.

Signed,

Byardkuria
Chief Justice of the North Pacific
Click to expand...

A copy of the previous order has been served to all Global Moderators and Administrators for immediate discharge.

With reference to the maintenance of the right of a nation to bring charges against the Delegate, it is the duty of the Court to remind the petitioner that, upon indictment of the Delegate by a grand jury, The North Pacific will serve as the plaintiff. As such, the Court cannot guarantee to any particular nation that they will or will not belong to that particular group at the time of formal proceedings. However, until such time as an indictment is delivered, the complainant shall be permitted to continue participation in the case under the circumstances; i.e. the procedure of the matter without the direct participation of the Ministry of Justice.


ENTERED THIS ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND SIX

Byardkuria
Chief Justice of the North Pacific
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top