Force Union Forum

Court System => Cases => Courtroom => Settled Cases => Topic started by: Bennisia on July 07, 2020, 01:02:26 pm

Title: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Bennisia on July 07, 2020, 01:02:26 pm
I, Bennisia, on behalf of the people of the Union of Force hereby request that the Founder appoint a team of Special Justices and bring the following charges against the Court:

5.1. Malfeasance shall be defined as wrongdoing or misconduct by a government official.

The Court has accepted the case 'Force v. Bennisia' despite it clearly being related to internal party elections. This is ignorant of the Constitution and current laws that state clearly that the internal workings of political parties are independent and not answerable to regional law. It clearly shows a failure of the Court to act constitutionally; Had they actually obeyed the law the case 'Force vs. Bennisia' would not have been accepted. Please see 'Force vs. Sumeka' for further details.
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Lashnakia on July 07, 2020, 01:14:07 pm
‘The Court has accepted the case 'Force v. Bennisia' despite it clearly being related to internal party elections. This is ignorant of the Constitution and current laws that state clearly that the internal workings of political parties are independent and not answerable to regional law. It clearly shows a failure of the Court to act constitutionally; Had they actually obeyed the law the case 'Force vs. Bennisia' would not have been accepted. Please see 'Force vs. Sumeka' for further details.’

Let’s go through this, shall we:


>>> Article 3: Parties in regional elections
1. A candidate should clarify in their candidacy announcement for any office what party they are affiliated with, or if they are independent.
2. Parties may decide independently how they choose candidates for election.

You are technically correct, parties do choose independently. However, that is House Law, which constitutional law is technically above. So, let’s look at the constitution.

‘4. Voting Fraud

4.1. Attempting to or successfully undermining the validity of an election through the creation of multiple accounts.
4.2. Attempting to or successfully undermining the validity of an election, referendum, or vote of any other kind by bringing in nations to vote for one or more specific candidates or ideas.
4.3. Attempting to or successfully undermining the validity of an election by means of something other than that mentioned in §I.4.1 and §I.4.2.’

Your voter fraud falls into 4.3. It states nowhere parties are exempt, you are undermining the validity of an election in some fashion.

Constitutional law is above House Law. Therefore, you have no case.

Obviously I am not a court member and therefore exert no influence on the case, but I have the right to free speech.
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Bennisia on July 07, 2020, 01:30:06 pm
again, nobody has called on you to give evidence so just like, go away
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Lashnakia on July 07, 2020, 02:18:58 pm
again, nobody has called on you to give evidence so just like, go away

I have the right to free speech.
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Renegalle on July 08, 2020, 10:26:57 pm
Under the provisions of §F.3.1. of the Constitution, I hereby appoint the following as Special Justices to serve in the absence of the indicted Justices from this case:

Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm 1234567890-
Heonix
Marmotville
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: diabeetuss on July 08, 2020, 10:35:46 pm
 8)
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Former Rt Hon Heonix on July 09, 2020, 12:16:03 am
Under the provisions of §F.3.1. of the Constitution, I hereby appoint the following as Special Justices to serve in the absence of the indicted Justices from this case:

Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm 1234567890-
Heonix
Marmotville

Dear god help me
Title: Re: Force vs. The High Court
Post by: Renegalle on July 09, 2020, 08:58:15 pm
On behalf of the Special Justices, I would like to inform the plaintiff that this case has been unanimously rejected and will not go to trial.

Case closed.