Injunction to halt elections

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
May it please the court that the current Elections be enjoined and stopped immediately and that the current justices recuse themselves on this matter and replaced by 'reserve' justices.

This request for an injunction is based upon a poorly written and entirely self-contradicting decision (please see: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8093775&t=7053327 in which said decision says that elections 'should' continue which means that the election was indeed halted, which, it clearly was not.

This is prima facia evidence that said election is invalid because the fact that the elections 'should' continue clearly and logically means that they were already enjoined and halted. Since no such halting as indicated by this court's decision as to be extant, said election is invalid due to disruption of 'traditional' procedure and protocol.

Therefore, said elections should be immediately enjoined and the process be restarted from the nomination period and begun again.

R
 
When I have slept, had a lesson and (hopefully) had power restored to my house it will be looked at.
 
[addendum]

Also, it might be noted, that the five (5) hour period for arguments in this case is unusually short and the whole thing was carried out quite our of standing rules for the Court, and therefore constitutes 'denial of due process' under the Courts own rules and 'traditions' as demonstrated by previous similar hearings.

And, as such, the Elections should be enjoined, vacated and re-convened at the earliest possible time lacking a proper appeal of this matter.
 
[Addendum]

Evidence of Judicial Incompetence:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8093882&t=7054479

Also, evidence of the fact that at least one EC member was not exercising 'due diligence' in the exercise of duty (Irc #TNP public channel -

#tnp Welcome to The North Pacific IRC | No advertising in this channel | The forum is http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/ | FB: http://on.fb.me/xMGxYi | Do not post logs of private conversations without permission | This channel is public | Channel Record: 45 | Quote of the Month: [23:09] <@COE> My channel now, b*****s
Click to expand...
:

[21:12] LordRavenclawSo as far as I'm concerned, people can throw whatever they like at me, all I have done is agree to is manage the elections and spent far too much time of my own drafting and properly editing an elections thread whilst under the poorly conceived notion that I'd be doing a valuble service to a region I was planning to relocate to once my time in Osiris draws to a close.
Click to expand...

Clearly, this individual didn't give a damn about the matter, the election nor Constitution and Law.
 
Addressing this bit by bit:

May it please the court that the current Elections be enjoined and stopped immediately and that the current justices recuse themselves on this matter and replaced by 'reserve' justices.

This request for an injunction is based upon a poorly written and entirely self-contradicting decision (please see: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8093775&t=7053327 in which said decision says that elections 'should' continue which means that the election was indeed halted, which, it clearly was not.

This is prima facia evidence that said election is invalid because the fact that the elections 'should' continue clearly and logically means that they were already enjoined and halted. Since no such halting as indicated by this court's decision as to be extant, said election is invalid due to disruption of 'traditional' procedure and protocol.

Therefore, said elections should be immediately enjoined and the process be restarted from the nomination period and begun again.

R
Click to expand...
Saying that elections "should" continue in no way implies that they have to be stopped. You can say "you should continue walking" without stopped walking originally - it is simply a statement, in this case, that things should continue as they are, in this case, due to this ruling.

[addendum]

Also, it might be noted, that the five (5) hour period for arguments in this case is unusually short and the whole thing was carried out quite our of standing rules for the Court, and therefore constitutes 'denial of due process' under the Courts own rules and 'traditions' as demonstrated by previous similar hearings.

And, as such, the Elections should be enjoined, vacated and re-convened at the earliest possible time lacking a proper appeal of this matter.
Click to expand...
The 5 hour period for briefings (not arguments) was required to ensure that the Court could issue a ruling speedily. You'll note that the Court rules quite explicitly state " The typical period for submission of briefs shall be 60 hours, but this may be extended or lowered at the discretion of a Justice." Had I followed this time specified, the period for briefs would have closed about 24 hours before elections were due to finish, which was clearly unacceptable. The short period was chosen in order to get the ruling done as quickly as possible, and as a Justice, I used the discretion within the Court Rules in order to ensure that we could operate properly. The short briefing period has meant that this discussion regarding the ruling is able to happen.

Finally, an EC expressing exasperation on IRC doesn't at all mean they won't do their job properly.

So - request denied.
 
'Tis also moot at this point in re to my request. Thank you for you time and consideration on this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top