+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Judicial District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-49.html)
+------ Forum: Conference Room (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-272.html)
+------ Thread: LQ - Escade's Residence Question (/thread-2230.html)
LQ - Escade's Residence Question - Hileville - 04-15-2015
http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-2294.html
Given that the Court has already ruled on this I don't believe we should take any action here. I suggest we ask if she still has a question and if not close the thread.
RE: LQ - Escade's Residence Question - TAC Saxton - 04-15-2015
Agreed.
RE: LQ - Escade's Residence Question - TAC Saxton - 04-17-2015
Given the update to the question, I do not believe the law allows a criminal to be charged in absentia. I think Escade may be right that fleeing the region allows one to avoid criminal charges.
RE: LQ - Escade's Residence Question - Hileville - 04-17-2015
Yeah. That is an issue in the law.
RE: LQ - Escade's Residence Question - Farengeto - 04-17-2015
It's an issue in the law, but it's not our power to rule on what it should be, only as it is.
I say we dismiss it as the issue has been previously ruled on.
RE: LQ - Escade's Residence Question - TAC Saxton - 04-17-2015
The Assembly would probably be better suited to that issue. Agree to dismiss.