Messages In This Thread

***Kris Kringle*** · 09-15-2017, 11:51 PM

The Court thanks the members who submitted amicus curiae briefs and invites them to clarify their views regarding the following:

(09-12-2017, 12:09 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Precedent and best-practice indicates that the loss of Legislator status occurs when the Chair certifies such and effects the change

(09-12-2017, 03:51 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I would also like to point to the precedent set forth in HCLQ1509 (http://tspforums.xyz/thread-2003-post-57...l#pid57901), that citizenship could not be considered removed automatically absent an explicit provision for the automatic removal. While the Charter is different from the one at the time, the basic logic still applies: there is no provision for the automatic removal of legislator status, and so one remains a legislator until the masking is removed by the Chair.

In particular, the Court has the following questions:

To Belschaft: Should your above quote be interpreted to mean that, if a Chair certifies a loss of status but has not actually removed the legislator mask, any votes cast between the former and the latter should be taken as valid?
To Sandaoguo: HCLQ1509 was decided at a time when citizenship carried considerable rights and privileges in the region. Since legislative status operates under different circumstances, do you believe this impacts in any way the applicability of HCLQ1509 to this case?

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