| Legal Question - Wolf COI |
|
Unibot's question is:
Quote: My question for the court is: does the failure of an improper filing of a Conflict of Interest Disclosure invalidate Evil Wolf's candidacy? And if so, how should this be resolved? Is the election to be restarted, or is Glen-Rhodes, the victor of the election by default? The CoL, the Charter and the Election Act are all silent on what happens with an incomplete COI declaration. All the Act says is "Candidates must file a Conflict of Interest Disclosure at the time of their acceptance of a nomination or self-declaration." I don't see any conflicting legislation per se but there is a massive gap in our legislation. I think this needs referring to the Assembly for consideration and fresh legislation.
This would also relate to Kris' unanswered question about what should be in a COI. I'd suggest we answer the two questions together, perhaps?
Also, I'm not too certain about this, but to declare an incomplete COI may be an act of electoral fraud. Not too sure if this is indeed the case, or if Unibot is just trying to score political points
(03-28-2015, 08:56 AM)Awe Wrote: Also, I'm not too certain about this, but to declare an incomplete COI may be an act of electoral fraud. Not too sure if this is indeed the case, or if Unibot is just trying to score political points Incorrect, electoral fraud was defined to be only vote stacking. Brilliant planning and oversight on that.
Answering the two questions together sounds like a good idea.
Kris's question was: "Must Conflict of Interest Disclosures, as established and described in Article 1, Clause 9 of the Code of Laws, include a list of all past positions held?" Again the law seems silent on the matter. I'd suggest referring both to the Assembly.
Well the other question has been resolved.
They aren't even the same question anyway, since the one regards the nature of CoIs while this now largely deals with whether Wolf's CoI qualifies as complete, which from what I've seen largely comes down to: Does membership in the Empire of The East Pacific qualify as membership in The East Pacific? While they were the de facto government of TEP at the time, this can be considered a question of the legitimacy of the Empire of the East Pacific, and whether it qualifies as the government of the The East Pacific. If we treat this as an issue of government legitimacy there is also the question of whether the court has the ability to determine that, as well as whether personal beliefs (i.e. the individual's personal beliefs on legitimacy) can overrule this for the purpose of CoI declarations.
I'm disappointed that Kris's question has been withdrawn as it was an important one. I'd almost like to post something saying we were debating it because I don't like the idea of it seeming as if the question was just 'lost'.
In respect of Unibot's question, I still support referring to the Assembly as per my previous post.
Me and Awe reached an agreement on the matter earlier, and I'm drafting a response now.
I propose the following:
HCLQ1508
- 30.03.15 -
Petitioner
Unibot
Presiding Justices
Awe, Farengeto, Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
N/A
It's come to my attention that the candidate, "Evil Wolf" did not declare a full Conflict of Interests Disclosure. Here is Evil Wolf's Conflict of Interest Disclosure: [Image: cRsdQNH.png] Quote:9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations, and all current positions held across NationStates. A Conflict of Interest Disclosure must include all past and present involvement in other organisations, not simply regions. Evil Wolf notes he was a 'warlord' in The East Pacific, but not disclose his explicit membership in The Empire or any organisations for that matter (I'm sure there are others). This has consequences for voters because some voters may not have been aware he was a past member of The Empire because the CoI never explictly said he was, nor disclosed his past involvement in organisations. Evil Wolf noted that his alias was 'Condition 13' but did not disclose that he was a past member of The Empire - Condition 13, of course, was his codename in The Empire. My question for the court is: does the failure of an improper filing of a Conflict of Interest Disclosure invalidate Evil Wolf's candidacy? And if so, how should this be resolved? Is the election to be restarted, or is Glen-Rhodes, the victor of the election by default? I would note the precedent of the November 2014 General Elections set when [url=http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1292-post-33558.html#pid33558][/url]EC Gustave Berr removed both Henn and TUSR from running because of TUSR's incomplete CoI. Majority Opinion
Awe, Farengeto, Hopolis
After deliberations, it is the majority opinion of this court that the Conflict of Interest declaration of Wolf should be considered as accurate and complete for the purposes of the March 2014 Cabinet Elections. The dispute arises from the membership of Wolf in the former "Empire of the East Pacific" of 2008, and:
For the purposes of a Conflict of Interest Declaration it is the opinion of the name of the region may be used in reference to either the de facto government of the region (i.e. a government lead by the executive WA), or to any government(s)-in-exile of the region that have been recognized by the Coalition of the South Pacific. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |