| Welcome to the forums of the Humane Republic of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features |
| Review of PRL law in Lazarus; Declaratory Judgement | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 22 2016, 06:08 AM (47 Views) | |
| Amerion | Apr 22 2016, 06:08 AM Post #1 |
|
Supreme Leader of All Leaders in the Earth
|
THE GRAND COURTOF THE HUMANE REPUBLIC OF LAZARUS Chief Justice Constie, Court Officials Amerion & Powthran Court Finding [2016] GC 2 22 April 2016 As written by Amerion On submission as a Declaratory Judgement Legal question: Is the legal code of the People's Republic of Lazarus applicable in the Humane Republic of Lazarus? Background: On October 7 2015, the Church of Satan lodged a criminal complaint against Stujenske, Feux, Pergamon, Milograd/Yao, A Mean Old Man. The complainant alleged the aforementioned individuals to be guilty of aggression, harassment, subversion, conspiracy, fraud, forum destruction, and deserting the administration of the People's Republic of Lazarus, henceforth referred to as 'PRL'. On April 15 2016, the Court reopened an inquiry into this unaddressed criminal complaint. In internal discussions, a majority of the bench expressed doubt as to whether the laws of the PRL had legal standing in the Humane Republic of Lazarus, henceforth referred to as 'HRL'. The crimes of which the complainant alleges the accused to be guilty of are crimes stated in the legal code of the PRL. At time of writing, the HRL does not have a comparable legal code. Ratio decidendi: The specific question before the Court is within a grey area of the law. The Court is aware that a legal foundation separate of the Mandate which addresses criminal and civil crimes are necessary for the maintenance of order. The Court has the option of ruling that the legal code of the PRL is not applicable in the HRL. However, should such a ruling be made, the HRL will by all means, be a comparably lawless society. The Court is aware of a hypothetical situation wherein individuals will commit what would otherwise be considered criminal activities on the basis that no laws exists to prevent them from doing so. Such a scenario would contravene the notion of a civil region envisioned by the framers of the Mandate. Conclusively, there must be a mechanism (the judiciary) and an enabling tool (the law) for order to be maintained and in this case, it involves the laws mentioned by the complainant. Obiter dictum: While the specific laws referred to by the complainant in his criminal complaint have application in the HRL, this does not extend to the entirety of the legal code of PRL. These mentioned laws are widely accepted to be common sense laws and it is logical that a reasonable sound-mined person can expect these laws to be in force in regions across NationStates. The same cannot be said for other sections in PRL's legal code. The Court notes the need for a separate legal code of the HRL. The Court acknowledges that an addendum to the Unified Legal Code is currently before the floor of the Grand Assembly. Without speaking to the merit of this addendum, the Court compels with great urgency the prompt manner in which it is discussed and subsequently voted on by the Grand Assembly. Ruling: The stated crimes which the complainant alleges the individuals at question to be guilty of are under the purview of this Court. As such, a trial based on these particular laws may proceed. |
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
| « Previous Topic · Rulings · Next Topic » |