(10-20-2017, 02:02 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 01:41 PM)Roavin Wrote: I honestly don't care about a presumptive CoA's legislative agenda. They don't need the CoA job to do any of that, and I want to know if we can finally have a CoA that can function.

We all decide what issues to take into account when casting our votes. My concerns are just as valid as yours, and I have a right to ask about them. I'm sure you didn't mean to dismiss my views, but it definitely felt that way.

--

@Belschaft: I'm referring to Coalition v. Milograd and Roavin v. Cormac. In the interest of accuracy, while the latter is still ongoing, my argument took into account the fact that other criminal changes tended to be dismissed, so this is as far as the process has gone since 2013.

As you are hopefully now aware - as I informed you of such yesterday via PM - Roavin v. Cormac has not been handled in the manner required by the Court Procedures Act - something none of us had managed to notice (we should all be embarrassed, myself included); as such, I'm not sure how you can possibly consider it to be an example of the Court working.