| · Portal |
 Help
 Search
 Members
 Calendar
|
| Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Follow this clock for all operations.
| Glen-Rhodes | Posted on May 4 2012, 05:12 PM | ||||
The Court went by what evidence was available to them. Under the Constitution, you must maintain residence in EID to be considered a Native. Ossitania's departure was very public and it was very clear that they no longer wished to be a member of EID:
The Court had no choice but to assume that Ossitania left the region altogether, rendering their Native status null and void. Keep in mind, however, that this ruling does not prevent any other Native from bringing this question to the Court again. It is a narrow order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari, based on the petitioner's right to seek redress by the Court. |
|||||
| Sanctaria | Posted on May 4 2012, 12:04 AM | ||||
| Left the region != abandoned nativity. How do you know he hasn't a puppet in the region? |
|||||
| Glen-Rhodes | Posted on May 2 2012, 05:17 PM | ||||
| PDF available: http://hierocles.me/EID/Ossitania%20v.%20Quelesh.pdf SUPREME COURT OF THE EASTERN ISLANDS OF DHARMA Ossitania v. Quelesh Ordered on May 2, 2012 In the matter of Ossitania v. Quelesh, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The petitioner has left the region and thus has no constitution right to file such petition. The Court further rejects its right to independently review the actions of Quelesh, acting as Head of government, in this case. This order does not prevent any Native from petitioning the Court regarding this case again. The Court has not considered the constitutional merits of this issue. This order is a narrow opinion regarding the petitioner’s right to seek review of the actions of the Head of Government. |
