(03-26-2015, 05:06 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I'd just like to point out that the precedent you mentioned in your first post Uni is a slightly different situation. TUSR just didn't follow the requirements for a COI at all, rather than leaving one item out. The COI mentioned can be found here for reference:

http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1298.html

Not saying it is better or worse, it is probably not a fair comparison though, which the justices on this case (I will not be one of them) may not have been aware of.

I was aware there was a difference, but the point I was trying to make is CoI's are a big deal. They have to be filed properly - candidates can lose their candidacy over it. I brought it up solely because I knew there'd be people who'd try to argue CoIs are just a little inconsequential bit of red tape. On the contrary, it's how we inform voters of our past history - it's potentially the most important disclaimer that a candidate makes. 

Quote:I challenge Unibot, who is the accuser and bares the burden of proof, to prove that I have otherwise thought these two entities were one in the same, and thus intentionally was trying to askew my CoI, rather than firmly believing that they were two separate things, with any inaccuracies, which I still maintain I am correct by-the-by, being accidental rather than purposeful.

This is entirely disingenuous - as history has shown, The Empire is just The Empire (!!!). There was no "Empire of The East Pacific". It was The Empire - they referred to themselves as The Empire then and refer to themselves as The Empire now.  You only tried to make this distinction because it sounds better to say "I was a former citizen of The East Pacific" than it does, "I was a former member of The Empire" - you still needed to disclose the latter, however.