| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [1912] Identity Theft and Concealed Identities |
In light of this ruling, and to get beyond the specific of this case, I'd like to ask a legal question regarding the identity theft statute:
Quote:(2) Identity fraud shall be defined as a deception made of one's self, or knowingly abetting in another's claims to a false identity, wherein this fraud threatens the security of The South Pacific, or circumvents the laws and legal processes of The South Pacific. Would negative campaigning under an assumed identity would be considered "identity fraud"?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
High Court of the South Pacific Notice of Reception | 1912.NR This submission has been received and has been assigned the following naming information:
Docket File Number: 1912 Reference Name: Identity Theft and Concealed Identities Question: Would negative campaigning under an assumed identity would be considered "identity fraud"? The submitted and interested third parties are invited to explain the necessity of a ruling in this matter while the Court considers its justiciability. Brief Amicus Curiae on the eventual preferred outcome of this case are not required at this time. 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
Thanks, your honor.
In light of this question from Concrete Slab v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy questions whether or not negative campaigning is a security issues. As Concrete Slab responded, and I would agree, the crux of the matter isn't the negative campaigning, but rather that by doing it under a different identity, which can be seen as circumventing the electoral process of the region, since the candidate is able to deflect the unseemly effects of the campaigning. Seeing that the court ruled on the narrow scope that there is not proof that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy committed identity fraud, I would appreciate clarification on the legal question at play.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
If I may ask, rather than asking an entirely separate legal question, perhaps what you actually want is an explanation from the Court on why it determined that there was no probable cause to proceed with Concrete Slab v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy? If so, all you need to do is have Concrete Slab make such a request in the other case's thread no later than March 18.
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
(03-16-2019, 08:54 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If I may ask, rather than asking an entirely separate legal question, perhaps what you actually want is an explanation from the Court on why it determined that there was no probable cause to proceed with Concrete Slab v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy? If so, all you need to do is have Concrete Slab make such a request in the other case's thread no later than March 18. My assumption is that you didn't find probable cause because there was no clear link between New Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the nations Concrete Slab was accusing of negative campaigning. If that isn't the case, feel free to clarify; that is why I initially asked this question within the other thread. Otherwise, I'm interested in the hypothetical case where a link between the candidate and the alias can be made.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
That would not be an accurate assumption. If Concrete Slab, or someone so authorised by him, were to ask for a more detailed explanation in the relevant thread, the Court would be happy to oblige.
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
(03-16-2019, 09:49 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: That would not be an accurate assumption. If Concrete Slab, or someone so authorised by him, were to ask for a more detailed explanation in the relevant thread, the Court would be happy to oblige. I'm asking a question of broader implication than that case, regardless. Given that, I don't think it's appropriate for the Court's ruling to hinge on whether or not Concrete Slab decides to ask the question.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 3 users Like Tsunamy's post:• Imperial Frost Federation, The Sakhalinsk Empire, Volaworand
![[Image: BYEo2lg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BYEo2lg.png) Determination of Justiciability Identity Theft and Concealed Identities | 1912.DJ Whereas Tsunamy has petitioned this Court to interpret the law with the following question:
Would negative campaigning under an assumed identity would be considered "identity fraud"?
Whereas this Court has reviewed the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.
It is resolved with respect to these legal questions as follows:
Kris Kringle Chief Justice 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
(03-16-2019, 08:54 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If I may ask, rather than asking an entirely separate legal question, perhaps what you actually want is an explanation from the Court on why it determined that there was no probable cause to proceed with Concrete Slab v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy? If so, all you need to do is have Concrete Slab make such a request in the other case's thread no later than March 18. It's hard for us to guess without reasons released, we really don't know if that was case. And not being the question originator or complaintaint, we have no standing to ask for reasons. That's a whole separate issue: Court cases are completely unappealable if the case originator doesn't ask for reasons to be released. The only options concerned citizens have is to bring new legal questions or new complaints to try and discern what the Court's reasoning was in those situations. Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services
That is evidently not true, since determinations clearly say that anyone can secure permission from the submitter to ask for clarification.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |