| [LEGAL QUESTION] Election of the Local Council |
|
Thats very insulting Kris. Shows a lack of respect for the judiciary and I think we are done here. No one on this thread has called into question your motives and you shouldnt be calling on ours. If you dont believe in our abilities vote for someone else.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
Respect is earned through trust, not blindly given. I do not think Kris is disrespecting the High Court by asking for a review of the process by which this legal question was handled. Rather, he is hoping that the High Court will be transparent and open, explaining to the citizenry how they reached their opinion, who wrote it, and other procedural things.
I echo his request for the threads to be released to the public. However, I trust the High Court to review for itself that all proper procedure was followed, and if that is not the case, that they take the proper remedies for any mistakes. The responses by Chief Justice TAC and Justice Apad to the request fuels concern that perhaps there is merit to Kris' worry that the case and appeal were handled improperly. If all procedures were followed just fine, and the case and appeal were handled normally, then there's no issue and the High Court can satisfy the concern by reviewing itself and saying so.
Well, since the Sunshine Provision doesn't apply to the Court, me and Apad have agreed to deny the request.
If you had a problem with any other part of the verdict (you know, THE PART THAT ACTUALLY ASSERTS LEGAL POWER) I could understand, but this is just plain ridiculous. I'd sooner void/amend the whole dang recommendation at this point, if that were possible (which I'm not sure of.)
I then ask that the Court conduct a full review of the judicial procedure and ascertain whether such procedure was followed during the discussion on the original and appealed rulings. I request that it be verified that:
A. The Court limited itself to answering the original question submitted and refrained from answering unrelated issues. B. That when recommendations were issued, they were of a legal and completely objective nature. C. That both the original and appeal rulings were made exclusively based on legal considerations and not on political or other concers. D. That the Appellate Justice was not involved in the discussion on the original ruling or otherwise compromised his objectivity on the matter. E. That the Appellate Justice gave due consideration to all briefs amicus curiae submitted in favour and against the appeal to the original ruling. I respectfully request that the Court verify the above points. 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 (07-31-2015, 01:20 AM)TAC Saxton Wrote: Well, since the Sunshine Provision doesn't apply to the Court, me and Apad have agreed to deny the request. I believe that was done once under my term as Justice, about the Chair of the Assembly question, so I suppose there is nothing preventing you from striking down prior opinions, but I can't ascertain how this would reflect upon the Judiciary. :/
Well, since this can't be contested any further, there's no reason to keep this circus running. I'm locking this thread and goingnto sleep.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |