We keep assuming that the Code of Laws requires past positions to be disclosed, but if you read the relevant text, there is a clear distinction between "past and present involvement" and "all current positions". It makes perfect sense to assume that 'past involvement' refers only to regions in which one has been involved and nothing more, because there is also a mention to positions, and only current ones are required.

Here is Article 1, Clause 9 of the Code of Laws, with the relevant portions highlighted:

9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations, and all current positions held across NationStates.

I am operating under the premise that the court will stand behind their own CJ's interpretation of the law as implemented in the elections. You very well could be correct, however.

Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.

Reply

That application wasn't consistent, HEM. I didn't list every single position I had ever held. I just mentioned the groups and regions I had been part of.

Reply