1
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. Sumeka
« Last post by Tigslarlowducken on Today at 05:25:02 pm »Case dismissed.
Recent Posts
2
Pending Cases / Re: Force v. Bennisia
« Last post by Tigslarlowducken on Today at 05:24:42 pm »JURY FOR FORCE v. BENNISIA:
- Trisword
- Chundukeratopia
- Lenovochan
3
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. Sumeka
« Last post by Lashnakia on Today at 02:19:25 pm »nobody called you to give evidence you can't just run into court and start mouthing off so just shush lol.
I have the right to free speech, read the constitution.
4
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. The High Court
« Last post by Lashnakia on Today at 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.
5
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. The High Court
« Last post by Bennisia on Today at 01:30:06 pm »again, nobody has called on you to give evidence so just like, go away
6
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. Sumeka
« Last post by Bennisia on Today at 01:29:42 pm »nobody called you to give evidence you can't just run into court and start mouthing off so just shush lol.
7
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. Sumeka
« Last post by Lashnakia on Today at 01:24:37 pm »1. There is evidence that is not false, which we have possession of.
2. Let’s go through this, shall we:
3. >>> Article 3: Parties in regional elections
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. ‘4. Voting Fraud
7. 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.’
8. Your voter fraud falls into 4.3. It states nowhere parties are exempt, you are undermining the validity of an election in some fashion.
9. Constitutional law is above House Law. Therefore, you have no case.
10. You have not been harrassed, you have been victimising yourself for every slight criticism. Grow up.
11. There is evidence that the only one interfering in the election is you, and can be provided if you wish.
12. The only one here who is ignorant to the constitution is yourself.
I am not a court member and therefore exert no influence on the court, but I have do have the right to free speech.
2. Let’s go through this, shall we:
3. >>> Article 3: Parties in regional elections
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. ‘4. Voting Fraud
7. 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.’
8. Your voter fraud falls into 4.3. It states nowhere parties are exempt, you are undermining the validity of an election in some fashion.
9. Constitutional law is above House Law. Therefore, you have no case.
10. You have not been harrassed, you have been victimising yourself for every slight criticism. Grow up.
11. There is evidence that the only one interfering in the election is you, and can be provided if you wish.
12. The only one here who is ignorant to the constitution is yourself.
I am not a court member and therefore exert no influence on the court, but I have do have the right to free speech.
8
Pending Cases / Re: Force vs. The High Court
« Last post by Lashnakia on Today at 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.
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.
9
Pending Cases / Force vs. The High Court
« Last post by Bennisia on Today at 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.
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.
10
Pending Cases / Force vs. Sumeka
« Last post by Bennisia on Today at 12:58:00 pm »I, Bennisia, on behalf of the people of the Union of Force hereby request that the court empanel a jury and bring the following charges against Sumeka:
Voter Fraud
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.
Sumeka has made false and irrelevant allegations of voter fraud against me during a General Election. The law as it stands states the following;
‘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.’
It is worth noting that the Constitution has absolutely no say over what happens within political parties. As ‘unconstitutinal’ institutions, they operate outside of the refines of the constitution. They are not liable to the same laws that Regional institutions like the Cabinet or Court are, so any complaints regarding the DPP primaries should be immediately thrown out, and it is worrying that they have even been accepted at this stagIe. Any complaints about the primary had the opportunity to be addressed when Sumeka was a member of the DPP and if he felt so strongly about them he could have complained to the Party Chair. Instead, he left the party, along with the rest of the establishment who were upset about my win. It is also worth noting that the Constitution states that ‘Harassment is defined as repeated or continuing contact serving no useful purpose except to create alarm, annoyance, or cause emotional distress.’ As you will see from the evidence that he has given you (though not made public), at no point have any individuals asked me to cease or desist contact, so one would not be able to reasonably assume that they felt ‘harassed’. It is a matter of subjectivity.
It is a matter of utmost urgency that this election interference is addressed. Not only is it a waste of the Court's time to make these kinds of allegations, but it shows Sumeka is ignorant of the Constitution and the role it plays in terms of political parties and their internal workings.
I am in this region and involved in it's politics because I love it and I want to help Force, yet the region's establishment seems to be out to get me, as is evident by Sumeka, clearly emotional over his defeat in the DPP primaries, collating and gathering 'evidence' that I have somehow meddled in elections. This is borderline obsessive and I consider it harassment.
Voter Fraud
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.
Sumeka has made false and irrelevant allegations of voter fraud against me during a General Election. The law as it stands states the following;
‘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.’
It is worth noting that the Constitution has absolutely no say over what happens within political parties. As ‘unconstitutinal’ institutions, they operate outside of the refines of the constitution. They are not liable to the same laws that Regional institutions like the Cabinet or Court are, so any complaints regarding the DPP primaries should be immediately thrown out, and it is worrying that they have even been accepted at this stagIe. Any complaints about the primary had the opportunity to be addressed when Sumeka was a member of the DPP and if he felt so strongly about them he could have complained to the Party Chair. Instead, he left the party, along with the rest of the establishment who were upset about my win. It is also worth noting that the Constitution states that ‘Harassment is defined as repeated or continuing contact serving no useful purpose except to create alarm, annoyance, or cause emotional distress.’ As you will see from the evidence that he has given you (though not made public), at no point have any individuals asked me to cease or desist contact, so one would not be able to reasonably assume that they felt ‘harassed’. It is a matter of subjectivity.
It is a matter of utmost urgency that this election interference is addressed. Not only is it a waste of the Court's time to make these kinds of allegations, but it shows Sumeka is ignorant of the Constitution and the role it plays in terms of political parties and their internal workings.
I am in this region and involved in it's politics because I love it and I want to help Force, yet the region's establishment seems to be out to get me, as is evident by Sumeka, clearly emotional over his defeat in the DPP primaries, collating and gathering 'evidence' that I have somehow meddled in elections. This is borderline obsessive and I consider it harassment.