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).

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

(This post was last modified: 12-29-2018, 08:44 AM by Beepee.)

Reply

Dear Chairs, separate from this discussion, I think it's worth moving forward with this. Given the drift in this thread, how can we best do so?

You: “To the contrary, the Court struck down the proscription of EWS because the publically made allegations were not substantiated by the evidence presented. “


Kris: “There's also the whole issue with Evidence E, which you keep portraying as the defining piece of evidence in the Court's ruling, when it was simply one of five such pieces. ... I know you guys think that the EWS ruling has some kind of precedential value, and that it outright dismissed Evidence E, but for the nth time, it doesn't and it didn't.”

Have a chat?

Adding to this: Have a chat and report back here, please. It's imperative to know what the court actually thinks so we know how to move forward.

(This post was last modified: 12-30-2018, 02:34 AM by Roavin.)

Reply

Dear Chairs, separate from this discussion, I think it's worth moving forward with this. Given the drift in this thread, how can we best do so?

There are a number of Chairs o.0

To clarify, that particular amendment and the discussion surrounding it can be found in a separate thread, Amendment to Article VIII of the Charter (High Court's mandate).

Amendment to Article VIII of the Charter (High Court's mandate)

4. The High Court has the power to declare any general law or, regulation, Cabinet directive, Chair determination, and Local Council law or regulation, or any other official act of government, in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law.

This thread (which I shall now rename accordingly as well as update the OP) is centred on the following amendment to Article 4 of the Proscription Act.

Amendment to Article 4 of the Proscription Act (Judicial Review)

4. Judicial Review

(1) Individuals, regions or organizations subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.

(2) Individuals subject to a proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of their membership in that region or organization in the High Court.

(3) For the purposes above, the individual or an individual representing the region or organization must be granted adequate permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.

Reply

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.

Reply

[Note: Due to the recent Repeal and Replace of the Proscription Act, the proposed amendment detailed in the Opening Post of this debate thread is no longer relevant. This discussion should be considered closed.]

Reply