| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2202.HQ] Residency Requirement for Local Council Elections |
Should it please the court, I will be acting as Max's representative in this matter in my capacity as his legal guardian. I wish to note that I am not making this case out of personal interest, but solely to represent the rights and interest of my ward.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2202.HQ] RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS SUBMISSION 02 MAR 2022 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2202.HQ REFERENCE NAME Residency Requirement for Local Council Elections QUESTION By which unit of time ought residency to be measured for the purposes of meeting the candidate eligibility requirements of The Local Council Elections Act Amendment of 2022? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than 04 Mar 2022 10:00 UTC, but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2202.HQ.NR | Issued 02 Mar 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honour,
This morning when eating his Royal Canin Puppy Mix my client felt a calling to serve the Coalition of the South Pacific by standing for the ongoing Local Council Elections. Barking for my attention, he expressed his wishes via the medium of tail wagging and thus, in order to understand the plausibility of his aim, we alighted upon The Local Council Elections Act Amendment of 2022 whereupon we encountered a singularly peculiar issue. The Local Council Elections Act Amendment of 2022 reads as follows: Quote:"(1) Candidates must be members of the South Pacific with a Residency of at least 120 by the beginning of the nominations period."The Act makes no proscription regarding a unit of Residency, expressing only a scale; as the concept of Residency is chronological in nature, and thus unlikely to be a dimensionless quantity this is clearly an area where the statue lacks much needed specificity. Without a unit by which Residency ought to be measured, it is impossible for any candidate, of any genus, to know whether they are eligible to stand under the act. Therefore, the court's decision on this matter is vital, lest nations be left unclear as to whether they must hold a residency of 120 zeptoseconds, 120 eons, or any such quantity in between. My canine client therefore requests, via the medium of barks and polite woofing, alongside the occasional awoo, that the court treat this matter with the utmost haste by hearing this case in full before the nominations period closes on March 4th.
Your honour,
I believe it's clear that this law refers to the Residency statistic in the game, which refers to how long a nation has been in their current region in days. An example can be found here. Considering this applies only to Local Council elections, a position which specifically relates to the in-game region, this is by far the most likely meaning of the law, and it is in my opinion that it would be absurd for any other unit to be what is meant as even without the residency statistic the unit of days would be the most sensible one to use. This is also, I believe, the definition that has been in use until now, so I do not see any reason to doubt it in the first place. ![[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.703640759.6162/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg)
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2202.HQ] RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS SUBMISSION 02 MAR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 MAR 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is not found justiciable. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR AN IN-CHAMBERS OPINION Interested parties may request the Chief Justice to provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination no later than 13 Mar 2022 10:00 UTC. It is so ordered.
2202.HQ.DJ | Issued 05 Mar 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I wish to request, on behalf of my client, the Chief Justice provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2202.HQ] RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS SUBMISSION 02 MAR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 MAR 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to explain the reasons for the dismissal of this case, the Court explains as follows: Petitioner asked the Court to determine the unit of time should the Residency requirement within the Local Council Elections Act be measured. The fact of the matter is that there can be little doubt that Residency is an in-game metric used to measure the number of days that a nation has resided in a given region; for example, at the time of writing Petitioner has a Residency of 20.991. While certainly a more contrived interpretation might suggest that Residency could refer to different units of time, the fact that the word begins with a capital, along with the fact that it is part of a law that deals with the election of officials via the use of in-game mechanisms, leaves little in the way of uncertainty or contradictions of law, two factors that form the cornerstone of any legal question. For the reasons exposed above, the question is deemed not justiciable. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] The Republic of Max the Dog | Trend (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/nation=max_...ensusid=80. 2202.HQ.IO | Issued 12 Mar 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |