Your honour,

With all due respect, CRS member Tusnamy's logic here seems strange. He is correct in that the SPA was amended to "conflict" with the earlier CRS decree; that was the entire point of amending the SPA, as the Assembly disproved of how the CRS has acted. He is also correct in that the the earlier CRS decree does conform to the amended law; that is why petitioner waited three weeks before filing suit, to give the CRS the chance to come into compliance with the law.

Whilst the CRS's decree was legal when issued, the SPA was amended because the Assembly felt that it should not have been. The CRS has every opportunity to argue against this change in the law, and made use of that opportunity. The CRS was not successful, and the law was changed, and the CRS must now follow the new law.

This is hardly strained logic. The change in law was pushed to conflict with and essentially force the CRS into acting retroactively. Had the clause been part of the original law and powers given to the CRS, the decree would have certainly been worded differently.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The Court would like to remind again that this Legal Question can not and will not any specific invokations of the Security Powers Act, nor is what constitutes a violation of Article 1.9 within the scope of this Question. Continued discussion on the former will result in moderation actions.

Reply

HCLQ 1707 has been dismissed due to the repeal of the relevant sections of law.

Reply