|
|
Post by Humpheria on Apr 21, 2015 2:18:38 GMT
My apologies, I did not see that previous post.
Further, do you believe that since all nations that maintain citizenship are required to join the WA, that the WA's policies warrant a certain degree of jurisdiction over the rulings of our courts? For example, the recent WA Resolution #323 "No Penalty Without Law"?
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328 
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Apr 21, 2015 2:20:38 GMT
Well the law states that no government in NGA shall be formed while the CFN government still exists, in addition to formally sanctioning it as a museum and locking the region...to be under the Legislative Branch's eye.
So if someone acquired ownership of the region...it should have been approved by the NGA's watch dog...the Legislative Branch.
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Apr 21, 2015 2:27:06 GMT
My apologies, I did not see that previous post. Further, do you believe that since all nations that maintain citizenship are required to join the WA, that the WA's policies warrant a certain degree of jurisdiction over the rulings of our courts? For example, the recent WA Resolution #323 "No Penalty Without Law"? Well, the practical reason for having citizens join the WA is to increase regional power via using citizen's membership to an increase in the number of WA endorsements the Chancellor holds...which furthers the prestige of our region. The actual laws passed by the WA are indeed honorable but the fact is we can, as a region, choose to uphold them or not. Meaning as long as the judge upholds regional law, he or she, may choose to follow WA legal precedents. So to answer your question, the extent to which WA resolutions affect rulings is relative to the judge. I personally have not used them becasue our system is based on RL principles which work and that the general public has consensus on.(consensus on our precedents) |
|
|
|
Post by Humpheria on Apr 21, 2015 2:31:56 GMT
I am not asking for your personal opinion here, sir. "it should have been approved by the NGA's watch dog"
If it does not state it in the Law Code, it is not illegal, correct?
I am not asking if we have to enact a law exactly like it. I am asking if since all citizens are required to join and thus are required to uphold its rulings (regardless of the reasoning for joining), should it not be held as a legal precedence. If all citizens are required to uphold and abide by its ruling, why should it not hold sway in this government?
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Apr 21, 2015 2:42:20 GMT
I am not asking for your personal opinion here, sir. "it should have been approved by the NGA's watch dog" If it does not state it in the Law Code, it is not illegal, correct? I am not asking if we have to enact a law exactly like it. I am asking if since all citizens are required to join and thus are required to uphold its rulings (regardless of the reasoning for joining), should it not be held as a legal precedence. If all citizens are required to uphold and abide by its ruling, why should it not hold sway in this government? In the NGA De-Comm Act it does not state that ownership of the museum is illegal No. But, laws have indirect applications not just direct ones. The NGA Act tells us that there should be no form of government here. And that the Parliament is the watch dog. Now having said that, it now depends on what you mean by ownership. If someone owns that region, it implies that said person governs or is in somehow control of the region. And if someones then governs or is in control it means that the Legislative Branch is not the one who is governing which is prohibited by this law. Should it be held as Legal Precedence? Well, citizens are not required to uphold WA rulings. The reason for joining makes the requirement to uphold the ruling optional. A citizen may choose for him or herself, the reason does matter. Again said reason being only for those measures I've already stated. So, no, WA rulings do not hold sway in our government...it's optional. |
|
|
|
Post by Humpheria on Apr 21, 2015 2:47:47 GMT
You are correct that it is up to interpretation. But, I am not here to discuss your interpretation. I am here to discuss your knowledge of fact, not interpretation.
You seem to misunderstand how the WA works. All citizens are, in fact, required to uphold WA rulings as expressed by the charter of the World Assembly. All member nations (ie all CFN citizens) are obligated to adhere to their policies. So, if our government has made it the policy of forcibly subjecting all who wish to be a member of said government to this institution and, in turn, its policies (regardless of the reasoning to do so), how would it not hold legal precedent. Citing existing legal documents or rulings to back up your statement, of course.
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Apr 21, 2015 2:54:12 GMT
Look Counselor, I've already commented on the issue with the WA, you have my answer.
If you wish to continue on this line of questioning I invoke my Third Right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Humpheria on Apr 21, 2015 2:59:00 GMT
Fine, as it appears that the witness has misunderstood and refuses to answer my real question, I will drop it.
Moving on, is there any legal precedence to the Second charge. Wherein, my client was accused of puppetry simply by political association to nations assumed as puppets?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mons Igneus on Apr 21, 2015 2:59:10 GMT
If it does not state it in the Law Code, it is not illegal, correct? Just for future reference, Counselor, please try to avoid framing questions in this manner, ie, providing an answer and asking for verification afterwards. it is more acceptable to ask something along the lines of "Is it illegal if it is not mentioned in the law code?" and let the witness provide his own answer. First time I've seen you do it, not a big deal, especially with an experienced and knowledgeable witness like Ruclax, but I just wanted to warn you to avoid it in the future, as it can be considered as leading a witness. |
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Apr 21, 2015 3:10:11 GMT
Fine, as it appears that the witness has misunderstood and refuses to answer my real question, I will drop it. Moving on, is there any legal precedence to the Second charge. Wherein, my client was accused of puppetry simply by political association to nations assumed as puppets? Well having a simple political association with other citizens is not a crime. If the prosecution simply assumed that your client, because of political association with other citizens, was committing puppetry then that charge would not be valid, unless the Attorney-General had probable cause to suspect as much. |
|
|
|
Post by Humpheria on Apr 21, 2015 3:11:47 GMT
Thank you.
Now, on to the first charge, do you believe, with all evidence provided, that Unfallious was properly informed of the offense by the offended party pursuant to the Communications Code?
|
|
Ruclax
Court Administrator
Posts: 328
WA Member: Yes
CFN Political Party: Liberal Party
|
Post by Ruclax on Apr 21, 2015 3:22:14 GMT
From the evidence, Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Humpheria on Apr 21, 2015 3:27:26 GMT
Thank you very much.
Your Honor, I have no further questions. I apologize for my apparent frustration and absence. I am currently taking the hardest test of my life at 11:30 at night on a school night. No one is happy when they volunteer to write a 700 word essay. The Court has my apologies.
I have no further need of the witness and would like to request that the Court adjourn so that I go to sleep before 3AM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mons Igneus on Apr 21, 2015 3:35:55 GMT
Very well, court adjourned. Ruclax, thank you for your testimony. Humpheria, Thank you for your attendance and for being flexible enough to call your witness at such short notice, and good luck on your test. The court will reconvene at this time tomorrow for the cross examination, and maybe the examination of the prosecution;'s first witness. All parties should be in attendance, but please tell me as soon as possible if you are unable to attend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mons Igneus on May 8, 2015 22:34:13 GMT
Hello everyone. It is common knowledge that this case has dragged on for an unsatisfactorily long amount of time. I believe I have seen all the evidence that would have bearing on the verdict, and therefore, I am ready to make a decision. Please stand by for my ruling on this case.
|
|
