Messages In This Thread

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-12-2022, 12:07 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2202.HQ] RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS
SUBMISSION 02 MAR 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 MAR 2022

Whereas this Court has been asked to explain the reasons for the dismissal of this case, the Court explains as follows:

Petitioner asked the Court to determine the unit of time should the Residency requirement within the Local Council Elections Act be measured. The fact of the matter is that there can be little doubt that Residency is an in-game metric used to measure the number of days that a nation has resided in a given region; for example, at the time of writing Petitioner has a Residency of 20.99¹. While certainly a more contrived interpretation might suggest that Residency could refer to different units of time, the fact that the word begins with a capital, along with the fact that it is part of a law that deals with the election of officials via the use of in-game mechanisms, leaves little in the way of uncertainty or contradictions of law, two factors that form the cornerstone of any legal question.

For the reasons exposed above, the question is deemed not justiciable.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] The Republic of Max the Dog | Trend (2022). Retrieved from https://www.nationstates.net/nation=max_...ensusid=80.

2202.HQ.IO | Issued 12 Mar 2022

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

(This post was last modified: 03-12-2022, 12:08 PM by Kris Kringle.)