Users browsing this thread:

**Amerion** · 03-25-2019, 06:33 AM

It looks perfectly reasonable to me.

**Belschaft** · 03-25-2019, 11:14 AM

As I’ve stated elsewhere, the problem was that the LC Election Law did not require people to disclose their identities. Had this proposed amendment been the case at the time then what NHC did would still have been legal.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

New Haudenosaunee Confederacy · 03-25-2019, 02:55 PM

This is about the court case?
I'm blind af.

Quote:the LC Election Law did not require people to disclose their identities

I thought it did?

how am i even still a legislator at this point...?

**Belschaft** · 03-25-2019, 03:06 PM

No, it did not; only positions they held in other regions.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2019, 03:06 PM by Belschaft.)

***Tsunamy*** · 03-25-2019, 03:43 PM

(03-25-2019, 11:14 AM)Belschaft Wrote: As I’ve stated elsewhere, the problem was that the LC Election Law did not require people to disclose their identities. Had this proposed amendment been the case at the time then what NHC did would still have been legal.

Agreed — as I've said elsewhere my concern is largely tangential to this case.

I'd encourage the LC to either write more substantial election laws and/or determine to meet the same laws as the forum side.

This change is meant to ensure that the electoral process is seen as part of our legal system when it comes to identity fraud.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 03-25-2019, 07:25 PM

The Election process, in so much as it is legislated, is 100% part of our legal system. The Court cannot and should not rule on what is ethical though, only what is law.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 03-25-2019, 09:56 PM

To the best of my knowledge no one asked the court to rule on ethics, but only on matters of law.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Phanama · 03-26-2019, 12:27 PM

(03-21-2019, 05:10 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: All: I'd like to propose the following change to Article 1 Section 2 of our criminal code.

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, including the electoral process and campaigns.

I think the reasonings here are pretty clear.

Full support

Phanama
Roleplayer

**Amerion** · 03-27-2019, 01:05 AM

In accordance with the Law Standards Act, I request that the bill in the OP be reformatted:

Quote:
Criminal Code
An act laying out crimes against the Coalition and their punishments

1. Crimes

...

(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, including the electoral process and campaigns.