Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures

Domais The Domster! Joined:       Sep 2020 Posts:       235 Threads:       9 Rep:       34 Credits: 0¢ #9 05-31-2022, 01:05 PM HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF   ARGUMENT Your Honor, The 2017 ruling is different as, in that case, something that should have happened did not happen. In that case, the court simply said that until that thing happens, nothing changes. That is not the case here, as that thing did happen; it was just erroneous. That case is also limited to just citizenship loss. Therefore, that ruling is not precedence in this case. There is clear law that states that my reading is correct in this case. From multiple articles of the Charter to constitutional law, agreeing with the petitioner in this manner would be a rewrite of the Charter, not a mere interpretation. Therefore, if the 2017 ruling is the controlling precedent, in this case, that precedent is so morbidly wrong that stare decisis cannot possibly prevail.   Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific (This post was last modified: 05-31-2022, 01:08 PM by Domais.) Reply   • Reply

Messages In This Thread

[2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures - by sandaoguo - 05-27-2022, 07:19 PM Notice of Reception - by Kris Kringle - 05-27-2022, 09:13 PM Determination of Justiciability - by Kris Kringle - 05-28-2022, 11:30 AM RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures - by Domais - 05-28-2022, 05:37 PM Summary Order - by Kris Kringle - 05-28-2022, 06:12 PM RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures - by Pronoun - 05-29-2022, 03:24 PM RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures - by Kris Kringle - 05-29-2022, 05:25 PM RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures - by anjo - 05-30-2022, 05:56 AM RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures - by Domais - 05-31-2022, 01:05 PM Opinion - by Kris Kringle - 06-09-2022, 10:39 PM

Users browsing this thread:

1 Guest(s)