or Create an account
  The South Pacific Hall of Historical Records Archives Fudgetopia Hall of Government Assembly of the South Pacific [DISCUSSION] Amendment to Article 4 of the Proscription Act (Judicial Review)

We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

[DISCUSSION] Amendment to Article 4 of the Proscription Act (Judicial Review)
  • Offline sandaoguo
    Bane of TSP
  • *******
  • Joined:       Mar 2014
    Posts:       5,128
    Threads:       405
    Rep:       1,152
    Credits: 2,947,200¢
#44
12-31-2018, 09:42 AM

(12-29-2018, 08:30 AM)Beepee Wrote: I'm sorry could someone help I thought item e and evidence e were different....

In my reading of Evidence block a. It actually has the evidence (that they didn't just talk they actively sought allies) to do item e (i.e. the 5th item on the proscription).

This is correct. When people talk about “Evidence E,” they’re referring to the chat log that was presented to the Assembly last week. It formed the basis of several claims in the proscriptions of Souls, McMannia, and HYDRA/TRI.


Messages In This Thread
RE: [DISCUSSION] Judicial Review of Regional Prosciptions - by sandaoguo - 12-31-2018, 09:42 AM



Users browsing this thread:
4 Guest(s)



  The South Pacific Hall of Historical Records Archives Fudgetopia Hall of Government Assembly of the South Pacific [DISCUSSION] Amendment to Article 4 of the Proscription Act (Judicial Review)


Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .