Mall's request

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Is here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7097834/

I would like to return a quick decision on this, given the time sensitivity.

Regarding the "15 days", I think the law is clear that those are supposed to be the 15 days immediately before elections.

Regarding the unfair treatment and prior notice, these all were addressed in this ruling: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8095293&t=7054582

So, I would find that the actions of the EC were not illegal.

Let me know what you think. If one more justice agrees with my interpretation, we will have a majority and I will proceed to return a judgment.
 
I agree with your interpretation of the law: the 15 days in question are the 15 consecutive days prior to the opening of nominations as has always been the practice. The EC is correct in invalidating his candidacy.



It would appear that Mall is trying to use semantics to make an argument in contradiction to the original intent and application of the '15 day' rule of the law pertaining to candidacy:

Mall:
It is obvious to even the most casual observer that I have been an RA member for the fifteen days required before the opening of nominations. Please note that the Constitution does not dictate that they must be the fifteen days immediately preceding the election, and that if this had been the intention it would have been written as such. Ergo the Voting Booth cannot create its own rule regarding RA membership due to the fourth and fifth clause listed above, since such a policy would contradict the first clause listed above. I submit that my fifteen days were completed after I first joined TNP's RA, and those are the fifteen days which TNP requires.
Click to expand...

What Mall is contending is that one only needs a total of 15 days of service in the RA before being eligible to stand for office, and that the law doesn't state specifically that those 15 days must be consecutive and immediately preceding the opening of nominations; and a such, Mall claims that his prior total term of service in the RA is sufficient even if he let his RA membership expire, and; that even though he didn't re-join the RA in the 15 days immediately before the opening of nominations that fact is irrelevant.

Malls argument is specious at best and tortuous in logic and is an attempt to skirt the intent and purpose of the 15 day rule as it has always been applied, intended and practiced. OIW, Mall doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Point being, periods of service are not cumulative because your length of service for the purposes of standing for election is specifically one's most recent term of service.

Mall's contention, applied strictly as he contends would mean that anyone who served in the RA for a period of 15 days, five years ago, could then get RA membership a day before Nominations started and then run for office because they served 15 days five years ago.
 
I have not much more to add. The EC was in its legal power. Also, his argument is wrong:

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.
Click to expand...

This clearly means that it is the 15 days previous to the elections. That's why it says the 15 days, not plainly 15 days.
 
Good to see we are all in agreement. I'll be drafting a ruling to post, mentioning it is unanimous.

I am searching for the previous decision mcm is talking about in the request thread, but I can't seem to find it. If any of you has seen it, can you post it here?
 
I do have to say, R3n, that was the most brilliantly constructed and draughted judicial decision ever done in TNP history! A technical masterpiece that goes above and beyond! :clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top