Ossitania v. Quelesh, Order given May 2, 2012
| · Portal |
 Help
 Search
 Members
 Calendar
|
| Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
 | Welcome to The Eastern Islands. 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: |
Follow this clock for all operations.
   |
Ossitania v. Quelesh, Order given May 2, 2012|
Posted: May 2 2012, 05:17 PM
|
|
|
God  Group: Chief Justice Posts: 153 Member No.: 104 Joined: 2-February 11  |
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. |
 
|
|
Posted: May 4 2012, 12:04 AM
|
|
 God Group: Associate Justice Posts: 110 Member No.: 102 Joined: 22-January 11 |
Left the region != abandoned nativity.
How do you know he hasn't a puppet in the region? |
|
|
|
Posted: May 4 2012, 05:12 PM
|
|||||
|
God Group: Chief Justice Posts: 153 Member No.: 104 Joined: 2-February 11 |
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. |
||||
|
|
 |
|
