Your Honours,

I, Whole India, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true, to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered.

Nation: Whole India

Reference Name: Whole India vs Ministry of Regional Affairs

Description: Your Honour,

The past case was dismissed, but I would now explain all the evidence here and please make sure the justice is delivered. 
Now I would like to explain every evidence, I have. 

Evidence

Now this Evidence proves that Whole India was accepted as a Fellow by the then Minister Qvait. 


This evidence clearly means that Whole India was suspended 'for the time begin' and Whole India was allowed to do 'small contributions'. Now your Honour the High court can find an OOC [Out - Of - Character] debate in the Legislator - lounge.


Penguin said 'when it is time for you to know - you will know' and hence she kicked me from the server. Which was completely done on my OOC opinion which is not correct. 


In this evidence she accepts that she kicked me. And it is from the main server itself. 

The Moderation Policy 's General Guideline's IC/OOC section says "The idea of there being different “realms” of behavior is strange and some people have difficulty understanding it. “IC” stands for “in-character” and refers to behavior expressed in the game itself— debating laws, criticizing political campaigns, etc. “OOC” is “out-of-character” and is basically when we’re talking about the actual people behind the nations names and Discord handles." So Your Honour I would like to conclude that Madam Penguins mixed OOC opinion in IC and kicked me from the server which is unconstitutional. If she had some problem with my OOC opinion she should have asked the Moderation Team. Hence I plead the High Court to give this TSP citizen the justice. Your Honour my nation was kicked second time in a row from the server.

Question: N/A

(This post was last modified: 09-18-2020, 01:21 PM by Kris Kringle. Edit Reason: [Chief Justice Edit] Updated the title of the thread with the DFN. )

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2008] WHOLE INDIA V. PENGUINPIES SUBMISSION 18 SEPTEMBER 2020 Notice is given that this question has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET FILE NUMBER 2008 REFERENCE NAME Whole India v. PenguinPies CHARGE Corruption The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter over the next 24 hours. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2008.NR | Issued 18 September 2020

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

Reply

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court,
I would ask the Court rule this to be out of order and nonjusticiable as no evidence presented here comes close to the standard of Corruption set out in the Criminal Code, Article 1, Section 7. Additonaly, I would submit it may be in order for the Court to consider proceedings against Whole India for Vexatious Charges as defined by Article 1, Section 12 of the Criminal Code.
Thank you.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2008] WHOLE INDIA V. PENGUINPIES SUBMISSION 18 SEPTEMBER 2020 | PROBABLE CAUSE 18 SEPTEMBER 2020 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: FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE This case is not found to have probable cause. 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 finding no later than 7 calendar days from now. It is so ordered. 2008.PC | Issued 18 September 2020

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

Reply