Request for Review: Are SC members government officials

Abstain

Abstain

TNPer
In regards to a recent conversation on IRC I would like to know if members of the Security Council are considered government officials. I can find nothing in the laws that explicitly states one way or another aside from RA Rule 2 which defines its use of holding an office as: "3. "Holding an office" refers to the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the head of a Cabinet office, the Attorney General, and any Court justice, but does not include members of the Security Council."

The only other item I can find pointing one way or another is the recent court ruling on if justices are government officials which states: "To this end, the Court finds that all members that have elected extra-Regional Assembly offices are government officials."

In addition, if they are not found to be government officials would Pasargad's membership be reinstated? For reference Pasargad was recalled under Article 2 of the Constitution "3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.". If SC members are not government officials then would the RA be unable to remove any member of the SC under this clause?

EDIT: Updated Subtitle
 
Abstain - if I may...would you like the Court to define who is and who is not a government official or are you only looking specifically looking at SC members?

The Court had a similar request around Justices. I believe a comprehensive ruling on the matter should help resolve a number of questions. Granted, such an extensive review might prolong the process but I figured I would ask.

...all of this is pending Chief Anumia's acceptance of the review, of course.
 
Considering leaving Abbey to accept reviews resulted in Mall's review sitting around for almost a week, I think we can come to the conclusion that it isn't the best policy.

Review accepted. Since this isn't time sensitive, please accept my apologies in advance if we don't get back to you as quickly as we would otherwise.
 
Since it isn't time sensitive, there'll be a briefing period of 36 hours before the justices discuss.


Edit: make that 60 hours because I'm an idiot.
 
As soon as I have filled THO's, we will begin reviewing this.

EDIT: While the period for briefs has passed, if anyone wishes to submit a brief on this feel free to do so.
 
In practice, the Security Council is a military force. The main obligation is to protect the Delegacy, using influence and high endorsement counts in order to be able to step up quickly and secure the position in times of crisis. The SC neither legislates, adjudicates or sets executive policy. At times, the SC does advise the Delegate on actions to be taken with respect to any threats to the delegacy.

SC members do take the oath required of all government officials. But looking at Article 6, we see:
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
Click to expand...

Membership in the SC has never precluded holding office in either the legislative, executive or judicial branches. Indeed, the SC is chaired by a member of the executive branch, the Vice-Delegate. We have had SC members who become delegate or serve on the bench. If the court determines the SC members are government officials, then Article 6.3 doesn't really say what we want it to mean.
 
Great Bights Mum:
In practice, the Security Council is a military force. The main obligation is to protect the Delegacy, using influence and high endorsement counts in order to be able to step up quickly and secure the position in times of crisis. The SC neither legislates, adjudicates or sets executive policy. At times, the SC does advise the Delegate on actions to be taken with respect to any threats to the delegacy.

SC members do take the oath required of all government officials. But looking at Article 6, we see:
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
Click to expand...

Membership in the SC has never precluded holding office in either the legislative, executive or judicial branches. Indeed, the SC is chaired by a member of the executive branch, the Vice-Delegate. We have had SC members who become delegate or serve on the bench. If the court determines the SC members are government officials, then Article 6.3 doesn't really say what we want it to mean.
Click to expand...
Would it not be possible for SC members to be government officials who are nevertheless not part of either of the three standard branches?
 
RA Rule 2 states
F. As used in this rule:
3. "Holding an office" refers to the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the head of a Cabinet office, the Attorney General, and any Court justice, but does not include members of the Security Council.
Click to expand...

It illustrates that SC members are not considered offices to the same extent that those mentioned are.

Any position that requires posting of an oath of office is an official, by the very definition of an oath of office.

Since the legislature is a branch of the government and the SC is composed of RA members, accountable to the RA, and chaired by a member of the executive, and it has a official seal in the same vein as the other government institutions, it stands to reason the SC is a government institution, and therefore officials of the SC are government officials.

By the same argument, RA members are also government officials, except that their oath is taken in their application thread instead of the oaths of office thread. Although it is not called an oath of office, the RA membership oath is for all intents and purposes an oath of office. The RA members only have the authority to pass legislation because they are acting as a part of the government.

The same argument can be made for NPA members being government officials and their role contrasts with that of other officials.

In conclusion, the government has a variety of officials and the constitution does not exhaustively categorize them.
 
Chasmanthe, am I correctly following your chain of logic into the inexorable conclusion that members of the RA are government officials of the legislative branch, and are thus prohibited from serving in any other branch simultaneously?

If so, that would cause the government itself to cease to function, and I submit that it is therefore an impossible interpretation to take.
 
SillyString:
Chasmanthe, am I correctly following your chain of logic into the inexorable conclusion that members of the RA are government officials of the legislative branch, and are thus prohibited from serving in any other branch simultaneously?

If so, that would cause the government itself to cease to function, and I submit that it is therefore an impossible interpretation to take.
Click to expand...
The point is that RA members are legislative officials to a lesser extent than the deputy speaker is a legislative official.

You are correct that the restriction should not prevent the delegate from being an RA member, indeed, the opposite is a requirement.

Your analogy to a "chain of logic" is quite apt and it demonstrates that there are many roles in TNP and looking at one role while disregarding the others could lead to an error of judgement.

An SC member is little more of a government official than an RA member is. A deputy, one who acts in place of the head of a branch of government or a cabinet office, is a more relevant role to the question of separation of powers than the role of an SC member is.

If you do agree with my logic then hopefully you would agree that the government official distinction cannot be an absolute.
 
Thank you all for your input. Please keep it going.

Just so that it is clear I have added Hileville and Gracius Maximus as Temporary Officers on this. My hope is to have an opinion filed prior to the end of the Special Elections.
 
The point is that RA members are legislative officials to a lesser extent than the deputy speaker is a legislative official.
Click to expand...

What is the legal basis for this claim? No document makes any reference whatsoever to the idea that there are greater and lesser government officials - you seem to have fabricated it from whole cloth.

You are correct that the restriction should not prevent the delegate from being an RA member, indeed, the opposite is a requirement.
Click to expand...

Yes, the delegate is required to be a member of the RA, and crossover between officials of the legislative and executive branches is prohibited. One is therefore forced to see RA members as not officials, for there is no gray area in the wording.

Your analogy to a "chain of logic" is quite apt and it demonstrates that there are many roles in TNP and looking at one role while disregarding the others could lead to an error of judgement.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand what this means.

If you do agree with my logic then hopefully you would agree that the government official distinction cannot be an absolute.
Click to expand...

I find your logic to be completely untenable. If RA members are government officials then the entirety of TNP enters a dire constitutional crisis and ceases to function. No reasonable interpretation of law can possibly allow that to occur, and there must therefore be another interpretation.

The court cannot redeem your argument by also adopting your notion of a spectrum of officiality, as that is an invention without legal basis.

It is therefore necessary to discard the argument that officialdom may be determined by the posting of an oath, any oath.
 
The point is that RA members are legislative officials to a lesser extent than the deputy speaker is a legislative official.
Click to expand...
What is the legal basis for this claim? No document makes any reference whatsoever to the idea that there are greater and lesser government officials - you seem to have fabricated it from whole cloth.
Click to expand...
Actually I fabricated it from a hyperactive ball of wool. It's within the spirit of the law not the letter.

You are correct that the restriction should not prevent the delegate from being an RA member, indeed, the opposite is a requirement.
Click to expand...
Yes, the delegate is required to be a member of the RA, and crossover between officials of the legislative and executive branches is prohibited. One is therefore forced to see RA members as not officials, for there is no gray area in the wording.
Click to expand...
There must be a gray area otherwise the number (and category) of officials could have been trivially enumerated at any time. I think we currently have two deputy ministers of defense.

Your analogy to a "chain of logic" is quite apt and it demonstrates that there are many roles in TNP and looking at one role while disregarding the others could lead to an error of judgement.
Click to expand...
I don't even understand what this means.
Click to expand...
If the court concludes the SC are government officials then it could prevent them from joining the executive council, whilst others who are equally government officials are not prevented, or on the other hand, are prevented when they are not equally government officials. I was merely alluding to the interconnectedness of things via a 'chain of logic' which is what you said.

If you do agree with my logic then hopefully you would agree that the government official distinction cannot be an absolute.
Click to expand...
I find your logic to be completely untenable. If RA members are government officials then the entirety of TNP enters a dire constitutional crisis and ceases to function. No reasonable interpretation of law can possibly allow that to occur, and there must therefore be another interpretation.
Click to expand...
I agree that would be a misinterpretation of the law. But if the court were to rule that people are not government officials, I think it should still reconcile that with the fact they so happen to swear an oath and exercise the powers of the government in a transparent, democratic, and accountable way.

The court cannot redeem your argument by also adopting your notion of a spectrum of officiality, as that is an invention without legal basis.It is therefore necessary to discard the argument that officialdom may be determined by the posting of an oath, any oath.
Click to expand...
Unless the court finds a legal basis for it. The SC, RA, NPA, and other entities do exercise governmental authority in the name of The North Pacific, albeit in an extremely limited sense, and could, by some stretch of the imagination, legally be understood to be democratic and accountable positions.

All that being said, I would not be surprised or disturbed if the court agrees with you in this matter.
 
The term "Government Official" is broad in and of itself. In the broad sense it could mean anyone who is elected to office, appointed to the cabinet, or, for that matter, serves in the Regional Assembly. By extension, since the government is the people, so to speak, anyone who is in the region might be tortuously considered a 'government official'.

If we look at the term 'official' as one who holds office, then, is not being a member of the RA an 'office'?

This presents a need to define in more clarity, or even change the term 'Government Official'.

We have to look at it in a sense of Separation of Powers between the different branches of Government.

The Security Council is a 'quasi-military' organization that is self governing for the most part (and there are certain checks and balances to moderate it's actions). It exists for the sole purpose of regional security and acts only in the event that there is a legitimate threat to the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and even in instances where the Delegate becomes a threat to the region. It is not technically an Executive Function, and not entirely a Military Function (which technically by logic would fall under the Executive Branch).

If 'official' means specifically a member of a given branch of government, elected or not, (Executive, Judicial, Representative) then, it would preclude a member of the RA (Representative Branch) from serving as Delegate (Executive). In other words, we have a unique situation in The North Pacific.

Should someone who is a Judge be in the Cabinet? No.

Should the Delegate be member of the Court? Obviously, no.

Should the Delegate be a member of the Security Council? Probably not as that would defeat the purpose of the Security Council. Thus, we have a strange situation in checks and balances but an effective one when the SC is charged with the specific purpose of preserving control and security of the region to the legitimate government. As GBM said, in so many words, the Security Council (in yo-so-many words) is just a bunch of influential nations with a substantial number of endorsements that exists, apolitically, to prevent rogues, usurpers and invaders from gaining control. The SC is charged with maintaining, regaining and restoring the legitimate government in the event of a catastrophic situation.

I would define a 'government official' as someone elected by the RA to a specific branch of government to serve in an administrative capacity. The SC is not 'administrative' in nature. The Cabinet is, and I would not like to see a justice of the court serve on the cabinet as a matter of separation of powers. An AG, yes, but not a judge..
 
The justices are currently discussing a draft and a decision should be made prior to the close of the Special election.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Abstain on the definition of Government Officials​

Opinion drafted by Punk D, joined by Gracius Maximus & Hileville​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Abstain.
The inquiry asks the Court to determine whether the following positions are government officials as defined by The North Pacific Law:
  • Delegate
  • Vice-Delegate
  • Speaker
  • Justices and temporary hearing officers
  • Security Council
  • Ministers
  • Dep. Ministers/AG’s
  • Elections Commissioners
  • Attorney General
Having made this determination, the court is then asked to determine the Constitutionality of former Security Council member Pasargad’s removal from office under the guidelines outlined under Article 2 of the Constitution.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant parts of the Legal Code of the North Pacific and past rulings on the subject:
Legal Code Section 3, 4, and 6
Legal Code Section 3.1.8 If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.

Legal Code 4.1.1 All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
[snip]
Legal Code 4.1.2 All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections or appointments, as is appropriate for the office in question.
[snip]
Legal Code 4.2.6 "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No one who may be a candidate in an election may serve as an Election Commissioner during it.

Legal Code 6.3.17 The Delegate and appointed government officials will be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.

Bill of Rights Numbers 4, 5, and 8 -
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.

Constitution Articles 2, 4, 5, and 6
Article 2 -3The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
Article 4-4 The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.

Article 5-4 The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.

Article 6-1 All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.
Article 6-2 All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
Ruling on Justices as Government officials
ruling on justices as government officials
Ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners
Ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners
The Court opines the following:
Opinion Part 1 - With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.
Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.

Opinion Part 2 - With respect to Security Council members, the court opines that members thereof are government officials as defined by TNP law and also subject to recall
Article 5-4 charges the Security Council with “monitor[ing] the region’s security and report on it to the public”. Additionally, members of the Security Council are approved by the entire Regional Assembly (Article 5-2) which signifies that the office of Security Council is not merely a designation resulting from length of service, having a nation within TNP, or the like but a position that must be approved by the RA with specific duties performed therein. Therefore, the Court finds that Security Council members are government officials because they are approved by the Regional Assembly, are tasked with monitoring the region's security, and also form a line of succession in an event the delegate and Vice-Delegate positions are vacated.

In Opinion Part 1, the Court found that government officials are subject to the recall provisions described within the Bill of Rights and having concluded that Security Council members are also government officials, the Court finds that Security Council members are also subject to the recall process and upholds any prior, present, or future recall votes administered in accordance with relevant recall guidelines and laws.

Opinion Part 3 – With respect to Election Commissioners, the Court opines that members thereof are government officials and charges all future appointees to take the oath of office taken by all government officials
The Court previously stated:
[T]he Court finds that requiring Candidates to post their declaration in a thread designated for such a purpose is a reasonable manifestation of the Election Commissioners' ability to oversee an election.
Click to expand...
In its decision, the Court interpreted the “supervise” provision of the Legal Code (Section 4.2.6) endowed the Election Commissioners with the power to designate where nominations could be legally received. This court affirms the Election Commissioners’ authority in this respect and also opines that such authority establishes the members thereof as government officials.
In Opinion Part 1, the Court found that government officials are subject to the recall provisions described within the Bill of Rights and having concluded that Election Commissioners are also government officials, the Court finds that Election Commissioners are also subject to the recall process and upholds any prior, present, or future recall votes administered in accordance with relevant recall guidelines and laws.
Additionally, the Court found that no records existed with the forum thread for oaths of office (Link) for Election Commissioners. The Court believes this to be a gross oversight and charges all future commissioners to state the oath in accordance with Legal Code Section 4.1.
Opinion Part 4 – With respect to Justices and Temporary Hearing Officers, the Court affirms its previous ruling on Justices that members thereof are government officials]
This Court affirms the previous ruling on Justices Link. Given the authority that is given to Temporary Hearing Officers to perform the duties of a Justice, the Court opines that Temporary Hearing officers are also government officials.
In Opinion Part 1, the Court found that government officials are subject to the recall provisions described within the Bill of Rights and having concluded that Temporary Hearing Officers are also government officials, the Court finds that Temporary Hearing Officers are also subject to the recall process and upholds any prior, present, or future recall votes administered in accordance with relevant recall guidelines and laws.

NOTE: The court also discussed whether to include a ruling on whether or not Security Council members can run for office if they are government officials. In this ruling, the Court did not make a determination on that point since it was not specifically asked to address that point. However, the Court does recommend that someone put forth a request for review so that the Court can resolve that issue based upon the ruling issued today.
It should be noted that this court believes that Security Council members, while government officials, are able to hold office within one of the three other branches. Again, this court did not rule on this matter but does believe a ruling on this matter should be made and strongly urges a citizen, RA member or, other affected party to put forth a review request to resolve this matter.
Click to expand...
 
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Can the court cite chapter and verse for the bolded part? :eyebrow:
 
SillyString:
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Can the court cite chapter and verse for the bolded part? :eyebrow:
Click to expand...
I'll save you guys some time. It's not there.
 
So basically these offices are the only government officials, and no other offices will ever be government officials. Does this mean we will have to file a review with the court every and any time that we would like to make a new office?

Also, does this mean that we can have as many deputies as we want? Because, you know, a Deputy Delegate would be neat.
 
SillyString:
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Can the court cite chapter and verse for the bolded part? :eyebrow:
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the operative word there is applicable.

If it is in the Constitution and Legal Code then it is applicable.

I do not believe anyone said anything about the creation of offices requiring further Court interpretation or that deputy appointments are arbitrary.

But, just in case it might be viewed as such:

5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive offices may be regulated by law.
 
Executive officers != deputy executive officers.

EDIT: Also, the word "deputy" does not appear in our constitution or legal code anywhere.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Executive officers != deputy executive officers.

EDIT: Also, the word "deputy" does not appear in our constitution or legal code anywhere.
Click to expand...
An executive office can include deputies.

No part of your comment or the others makes any relevant sense in relation to the Court's ruling. The absence of a word does not automatically imply its lack of existence.
 
Allow me to quote from the ruling:
punk d:
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code <snip> The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.
Click to expand...
For clarification:
1. Does that include Executive Officers/Ministers appointed by the delegate?
2. Does that include Deputy Ministers?
3. Does that include Deputy Attorneys General?
4. Does that include the Deputy Speaker?
5. Does that include any other officers that do not have any specific powers outlined by the Constitution or Legal Code, which may be appointed/made up in the future?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Allow me to quote from the ruling:
punk d:
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code <snip> The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.
Click to expand...
For clarification:
1. Does that include Executive Officers/Ministers appointed by the delegate?
2. Does that include Deputy Ministers?
3. Does that include Deputy Attorneys General?
4. Does that include the Deputy Speaker?
5. Does that include any other officers that do not have any specific powers outlined by the Constitution or Legal Code, which may be appointed/made up in the future?
Click to expand...
6. Does that include Deputy Deputies?
7. How far down the rabbit hole of deputy appointments can we go?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Allow me to quote from the ruling:
punk d:
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code <snip> The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision.
Click to expand...
For clarification:
1. Does that include Executive Officers/Ministers appointed by the delegate?
2. Does that include Deputy Ministers?
3. Does that include Deputy Attorneys General?
4. Does that include the Deputy Speaker?
5. Does that include any other officers that do not have any specific powers outlined by the Constitution or Legal Code, which may be appointed/made up in the future?
Click to expand...
Allow me to quote from the ruling:

Opinion Part 1 - With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals
Click to expand...

Bold mine.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Funkadelia:
So does this mean that there should, legally, be no Deputies? And deputies currently assigned actually have no legal power?
Click to expand...
Please explain the logic behind this summation.
Click to expand...
Deputies are not outlined anywhere in the Constitution or Legal Code, and the ruling relies on the definition of "deputy."
 
There are a number of points in this ruling that I thought folks might need clarification on, but deputies weren't one of them. I think GM is handling the responses just fine.
 
I'm just puzzled at the apparent contradiction that the ruling defines government officials as those who are given powers by the legal code and constitution, but then lists several offices that are not mentioned in those documents.
 
Interesting.

Deputy, the word, is not listed within any text of our laws. Yet their present is everywhere in the practice of our laws as officials, taking oaths, and exercising power.

COE - does your puzzlement extend to the point at which you would like this Court to rule upon the constitutionality of deputies?

Or...as the Court has done here, are you satisfied that officeholders (those that are elected) are free to execute their duties as they see fit which includes the appointment of deputies. Our ruling ensures that the government cannot appoint deputies, or whatever they wish to be called, and those deputies not be bound by the same statutes that govern the actual officeholders.
 
punk d:
Interesting.

Deputy, the word, is not listed within any text of our laws. Yet their present is everywhere in the practice of our laws as officials, taking oaths, and exercising power.

COE - does your puzzlement extend to the point at which you would like this Court to rule upon the constitutionality of deputies?
Click to expand...
This court already has, by listing them as government officials.

punk d:
Our ruling ensures that the government cannot appoint deputies, or whatever they wish to be called, and those deputies not be bound by the same statutes that govern the actual officeholders.
Click to expand...
That seems like the *opposite* of what the ruling says. Would you mind answering my numbered list of questions, so I can figure out exactly what the hell is going on?

EDIT: Asta managed to clarify your ridiculous syntax for me, so now I understand that you aren't saying that deputies aren't government officials. >_< I would still like to see yes/no answers to my questions.
 
COE the ruling answers your questions. GM even cited the bold section that answers it as well.

What more clarification do you need?
 
I asked the questions because I didn't understand the specific effects of the ruling. GM responded by quoting the ruling, which I already read. What more clarification do I want? I want you to please answer my questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top