I'll throw out a brief.

I'd suggest this question is dismissed with the utmost prejudice. At this point, it's clear to see that Unibot is not interested in the integrity of the Conflict of Interest statement, but rather interested in finding a way to remove Wolf the seat in favor of GR.

Further, if Wolf's candidacy would be voided by the lack of disclosure, it would first need to be decided if he held the seat. If, in fact, he is the rightful owner (as I assume to be the case), then we would need a special election and not a default to the second place candidate. That has never been how TSP has run elections and it would be inappropriate to start now.

(04-07-2015, 12:46 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I'd suggest this question is dismissed with the utmost prejudice. At this point, it's clear to see that Unibot is not interested in the integrity of the Conflict of Interest statement, but rather interested in finding a way to remove Wolf the seat in favor of GR.

Thank you for your words of support and sane insight on the situation, Tsu.

On a side note, I would ask of the Court to please consider addressing this legal question before ruling on Unibot's COI question as it directly relates to the COI law that Unibot is currently citing.

I thank the High Court for their time and consideration.

Since we are now well into a new special election, and both Glen and I had to submit new CoI's, isn't this question now more or less pointless?

I mean, that is until Unibot finds some other minor detail in my conflict of interest disclosure to start "Evil Wolf's CoI III" over.

Perhaps I used the wrong job title or spelt "Defense" in the American way instead of the British way of "Defence"?

Not necessarily; if your candidacy was never valid in the General Election then this Special Election could be forfeited because the winner had been Glen-Rhodes to begin with.

Keep dreaming, Unibot.

The Court has unanimously agreed to dismiss this Legal Question due to the ruling on HCLQ1511

I am locking this thread.