+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Government District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: High Court (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: [LQ] [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities (/thread-6986.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Roavin - 03-21-2019
It is not hard to imagine situations where the petitioner is satisfied with the ruling as-is while a materially interested party is not. Since this is a matter of court policy and not law, the court can reconsider this at any time.
RE: [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Volaworand - 03-21-2019
(03-21-2019, 10:28 AM)Roavin Wrote: It is not hard to imagine situations where the petitioner is satisfied with the ruling as-is while a materially interested party is not. Since this is a matter of court policy and not law, the court can reconsider this at any time.
For example, The recently declined Legal Question about the clauses and enforcement of a RMB etiquette guideline, partially authored by myself as one of three Local Councilors, where I do not have standing to ask for reasons as to the non-justiciability of the case? Oh and I would ask the question originator to ask for reasons, but low and behold, they've blocked me from sending them telegrams, leading to my own complaint to the court, which was dismissed, and I am awaiting the release of reasons on that separate matter.
I would note the current LC now has to write a new gameside election law, following the gameside rejecting the application of the Forumside Elections Act, and that the case that gave rise to this legal question specificly relates to gameside election issues, so I certainly hope whatever the court deceides on this question, that Tsu will ask for reasons, as this will guide the writing of a new gameside elections act.
I can only hope Tsu does ask for reasons, otherwise the LC is left completely in the dark trying to guess what the courts determine is and is not allowable. We don't have standing to directly request the Courts reasons.
RE: [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Belschaft - 03-21-2019
I agree that this policy likely needs revision, and Kris and myself will discuss that.
RE: [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Volaworand - 03-21-2019
(03-21-2019, 12:32 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I agree that this policy likely needs revision, and Kris and myself will discuss that.
I appreciate any consideration of it, and apologize to the Court for taking this thread off on a tangent.
Needless to say, I'm keenly interested in this question and how it relates to the scope of Conflict of Interest Disclosures required in the Elections Act, which will aid us in gameside crafting our own version of the act going forward.
[1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Kris Kringle - 03-21-2019
Regardless of the discussion Belschaft refers to, this question is still not justiciable.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
RE: [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Tsunamy - 03-21-2019
I'm not asking for clarification here — because, frankly, I don't care — but I will simply point out that this fiasco illustrates again the faults of the judiciary in this region.
[1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities - Kris Kringle - 03-21-2019
I see no fiasco. You asked a question, it was deemed non-justiciable. There is nothing more to that.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk