Search results

I resign my citizenship.

Court Justice: 1. < Pallaith > 2. < Lord Dominator > 3. < Attempted Socialism > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Court Justice: < St George > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Application for Admission to the Bar Applicant name: The Church of Satan Part One: Experience as a Justice or counsel 1. Have you served as a Justice (including as a Temporary Hearing Officer)? <Yes|No> (if No, move to question 5) Not in this region. Several years ago, I served as Judicial...

I don't even know why this is a thing. This is a waste of the Assembly's time.

I'm not saying The North Pacific should be letting them become citizens. In the matter of Venico's citizenship application being rejected, I supported the decision (note that I said as much in the thread about it.) I am just stating that not allowing residents to attend cultural events where...

And yet some of them had aligned themselves with The North Pacific as well. Doesn't that count for something?

Because the assumption that everyone in it is the same way is a terrible way of thinking. It's a fearmongering tactic used to dupe people via an extreme form of patriotism. It should be approached sensibly in order to ensure that justice isn't obscured by militarism.

Who's to say one is automatically a bad faith individual? Are they guilty by association? In my experience, that point of view is always flawed, and never 100% correct 100% of the time. And sure, Venico's was reasonable, but they're not all Venico. They're not all "out to get you" like some...

It's a slight exaggeration, but the notion isn't exactly inaccurate. And something tells me the executive intends to legislate around the ruling as much as they can get away with, for the sanctions only. I disagree with the sanctions on general principle, because I've been on the receiving end...

It certainly seems to be the kind of atmosphere the executive is attempting to create, by infringing on fundamental, unalienable rights in order to combat an enemy that could be anywhere at any time. Associating with them in any way calls one's loyalty to the state into question, and meeting...

What's unreasonable about it? Should The North Pacific really be a place where treason and your loyalty are defined by who's at the same party as you? That doesn't sound democratic at all.

Since there was no North Pacific case law that defined the freedom of assembly, there was nothing else I could base it on.

I'm merely suggesting that some of TNP's Bill of Rights borrows from or is influenced by, America's constitution. It certainly seems apparent in the wording of some areas, especially with regard to articles 2, 7, 9, and 11. So it isn't unreasonable to interpret some of it in the same manner.

I mean, it wasn't rewritten. The North Pacific's court merely reiterated what American history and judicial precedent have affirmed after the decline of McCarthyism in The Second Red Scare during the Cold War.

At the very least, even if the most broad interpretation isn't used, the fact that remains that the sanctions violate the Bill of Rights freedom of assembly, until such a time that the Bill of Rights is amended to include an exceptionary suspension of said right.

Because there are no codified limits to the Freedom of Assembly, the broadest interpretation is the only interpretation that could be construed as having any legal backing.

The Bill of Rights Freedom of Assembly is undoubtedly derived from the American Constitution's First Amendment. Freedom of Assembly is defined as: Noun. The right to hold a public meeting without the government interfering. Legally speaking (in the context of the American Constitution,) it...

Determining the definition of a treaty is a big bag of worms that I am simply too tired to comment on at the moment. As to the sanctions, it seems to me far simpler (and far more brief.) I would indeed count the sanctions, in the context of North Pacific citizens, as violations of our right to...

Against (non-WA) Declarations had already become ridiculous, but this is the pinnacle of that ridiculousness. So much that I cannot condone it. :P

Because I know I'm not the only one here that plays, and after four years of playing the game, I only discovered yesterday that, to my surprise and utter excitement, THERE IS A SHUTTLE RACE TRACK in the game! You don't know this, but for me, I have two great passions in Star Trek Online: Ground...

Welp, I'll just have to wait until the next one. Well-played. ^_^

Court Justice: 1. < The Church of Satan > 2. < Dreadton > 3. < Lord Dominator > 4. < Abstain > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Because while some information from intelligence operations could be revealed through a FOIA request, they'd be declassified and revealed anyways in (if I remember correctly) one year. However, the exemption for ongoing operations, and exemptions in cases where revealing the information would be...

Yes, but we (or at least I) were speaking about it in the context of its use regarding intelligence operations. I'm well aware that the current form of the legal code offers other exemptions, for different kinds of information and situations. I was referring to the language of the Legal Code...

Most definitely. I feel like a review of rulings should take place annually (perhaps bi-annually,) since the region's laws change over time, so we can make sure The Court's rulings remain both up-to-date and relevant.

I made my statement well aware of precisely that information. I would go so far as to say that since such operations are annually declassified, it renders much of the language almost superfluous, albeit still valuable and sensible in its current form.

Tough question! And a good one too. I would have to say, without a doubt, it is On the Constitutionality of the Intelligence Exception to the Freedom of Information Act. The Court's willingness to recognize that a government hiding information from the very people which they derive their...

I have no interest at present to serve as a prosecutor. In the future, it is entirely possible that I might wish to pursue a career as a prosecutor. I'd be lying if I said I haven't considered it.

Judge Constance Harm, from The Simpsons, because she's hard on crime. Yeah, she can be quite outrageous about it, but in general, her tough approach on crime makes for a good episode. :P