NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Double Jeopardy Prohibition"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Repeal "Double Jeopardy Prohibition"

Postby Mousebumples » Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:28 pm

SUBMITTED! Delegates, please approve!


The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which was to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member states;

REGRETS that the resolution ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member states to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

NOTES that the resolution's text includes the following statement: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:
  1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,
  2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level and may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in order to impact the outcome of the trial,
  3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
    1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,
    2. Tampering with evidence, or
    3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;
BELIEVES that such an absolute ban is neither wise nor prudent due to the compelling need for WA member states to run their judicial systems in a just and reasonable manner through having access to the previously mentioned appeal proceedings;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: Mallorea and Riva


Alqania is working on a replacement draft as well. If there's something in particular that you want in the replacement, see here

Moronist Decisions has another replacement option going here.

As you may already know, Mallorea and Riva started up this as an Insta-Repeal, but as RL is currently causing him all sorts of headaches, he's passed the torch over to me. You can find his original thread here, but I've understandably started up my own thread for the stretch run prior to submission.

Draft One (ish):
The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the intentions of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which were to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member nations;

REGRETS that the resolution contains several sections that ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member nations to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a problematic clause, which states: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:
  1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,
  2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level, which may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in attempt to game the outcome of the trial,
  3. Prosecution appeals, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
    1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,
    2. Tampering with evidence, or
    3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;
BELIEVES that such an absolute ban is neither wise nor prudent due to the compelling need for member states to run their judicial systems in a just and reasonable manner through having access to the previously mentioned appeal proceedings;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: [nation=short]Mallorea and Riva[/nation]


As always, comments and critiques are welcome. As Mall's already been drafting this, or a variation thereof, for a few weeks, I'm hoping to get this submitted yet this week. Alqania is working on a replacement draft as well, if there are any concerns on that front. If there's something in particular that you want in the replacement, see here.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:53 am, edited 7 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:33 pm

Zakath read over the draft and nodded with approval
Fully supported, ready for submission.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:54 am

We remain in full support of attempts to repeal this terrible piece of legislation and look forward to seeing the combined work of the above representatives reach the voting floor.

Ambassador Walker
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:22 am

We're happy with this proposal. By the way, because the Representative of M&R is too busy at the moment, does that mean that the instareplacement will be in your hands too?

OOC: or is someone different authoring the instareplacement?

Klause Uliyan
etc
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:31 am

Merfurian wrote:We're happy with this proposal. By the way, because the Representative of M&R is too busy at the moment, does that mean that the instareplacement will be in your hands too?

OOC: or is someone different authoring the instareplacement?

Klause Uliyan
etc

The replacement was never really my concern. There is a replacement being drafted, but it is independent of the repeal (as all replacements should and must be).
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:04 pm

Merfurian wrote:We're happy with this proposal. By the way, because the Representative of M&R is too busy at the moment, does that mean that the instareplacement will be in your hands too?

OOC: or is someone different authoring the instareplacement?

Nope, I'm not tackling the replacement. I think Alqania was working on one, and - last I heard - he was away on a short holiday with the family. Given the length of the queue, though, right now, he'll probably be back by the time this gets voted on.

Thanks for the support!
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:52 am

We approve of this proposal, with only one little quibble:
Mousebumples wrote:HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a very controversial clause


Just because something is controversial is hardly a valid casus belli to object to it. Since you've already stated the problem with the clause, saying it is controversial looks out of place. Therefore could we please have "Highlights that the resolution text contains an inappropriate clause" or something more like that? This repeal should be a matter of law, not populist politics. (Edit: Although populist politics may include making the Law sensible. But that's still because of the arguments after this statement, not the controversy in and of itself.)

Since it's only the principal, if you have a good reason for keeping it as 'controversial', we will continue to support this proposal.
Last edited by Libraria and Ausitoria on Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:28 pm

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:We approve of this proposal, with only one little quibble:
Mousebumples wrote:HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a very controversial clause

Just because something is controversial is hardly a valid casus belli to object to it. Since you've already stated the problem with the clause, saying it is controversial looks out of place. Therefore could we please have "Highlights that the resolution text contains an inappropriate clause" or something more like that? This repeal should be a matter of law, not populist politics. (Edit: Although populist politics may include making the Law sensible. But that's still because of the arguments after this statement, not the controversy in and of itself.)

Since it's only the principal, if you have a good reason for keeping it as 'controversial', we will continue to support this proposal.

Honestly, populist politics and/or rhetoric often help with gaining votes. Inappropriate doesn't seem to be quite the right term, in my mind, as that doesn't quite fit in my mind. Contentious, perhaps? But I'm not sure if that's much better.

I'll mull over the concept and see if I can come up with something else ...

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:27 pm

I'm just going to migrate my support across to here. The sooner we get rid of this horror of a resolution, the better.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:22 pm

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:We approve of this proposal, with only one little quibble:
Mousebumples wrote:HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a very controversial problematic clause

Better? I edited it into the OP, although I will fully acknowledge that I'm too lazy to do a full on "repost/whatever" with only that change to this point.

Otherwise: I am hoping to submit within the next 24-36 hours, so any last minute comments should be made now versus ... after that point.

Yours in graciousness,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Endorie
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Apr 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Postby Endorie » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:58 pm

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :eyebrow: :palm:

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:08 pm

Endorie wrote:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :eyebrow: :palm:


I'm sure I speak for many here when I thank the Representative of Endorie for the clearly well thought out argument with regards to this repeal and hope that it is the last we hear from them on this issue.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Utopiopolis
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Dec 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Utopiopolis » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:21 am

The Department of International Affairs has recently brought this piece of legislation to the attention of the Government of Utopiopolis, making the very valid point that the literal wording prevents a re-trial should new evidence come to light at a later date. Such things can be common, and as such any repeal would have our nation's full support.

I would add that in terms of this draft specifically I do not believe that pointing out that the legislation is contentious is in fact needed. The fact it is effectively preventing re-trials when new evidence occurs should be argument enough.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:49 am

Utopiopolis wrote:The Department of International Affairs has recently brought this piece of legislation to the attention of the Government of Utopiopolis, making the very valid point that the literal wording prevents a re-trial should new evidence come to light at a later date. Such things can be common, and as such any repeal would have our nation's full support.

I would add that in terms of this draft specifically I do not believe that pointing out that the legislation is contentious is in fact needed. The fact it is effectively preventing re-trials when new evidence occurs should be argument enough.

Thanks for your support. I believe the draft has been updated, as the term "contentious" is no longer present. It is now referred to as being a "problematic clause," which I think is accurate and appropriate.

In other news, I'll likely be submitting this in the next few hours, if there are any further suggestions that individuals would like to make.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:07 am

SUBMITTED! Delegates, please approve!


Of course, prior to submission, I did my usual "Let's edit all the text and stuff" thing - although nothing *serious* changed. Just some minor wording, phrasing quibbles. Here's the updated text, which has been edited into the OP:

The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which was to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member states;

REGRETS that the resolution ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member states to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

NOTES that the resolution's text includes the following statement: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:
  1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,
  2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level and may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in order to impact the outcome of the trial,
  3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
    1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,
    2. Tampering with evidence, or
    3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;
BELIEVES that such an absolute ban is neither wise nor prudent due to the compelling need for WA member states to run their judicial systems in a just and reasonable manner through having access to the previously mentioned appeal proceedings;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: Mallorea and Riva
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7196
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:10 am

Very happy to have approved this.

Though granted, it could have included the lyrics to La Marseillaise and I probably would have approved it...

Dr. Christian Ferguson
Sanctarian Ambassador to the WA
WA Delegate of the International Democratic Union
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Southern Patriots
Senator
 
Posts: 4624
Founded: Apr 19, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Southern Patriots » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:18 am

Happily approved of and endorsed.

Remember Rhodesia.

On Robert Mugabe:
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:He was a former schoolteacher.

I do hope it wasn't in economics.

Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.

Ceannairceach wrote:
Archnar wrote:The Russian Revolution showed a revolution could occure in a quick bloadless and painless process (Nobody was seriously injured or killed).

I doth protest in the name of the Russian Imperial family!
(WIP)

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:31 am

Image

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
AverageBob
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: May 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby AverageBob » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:55 pm

Cannot support anything that reopens case if found not guilty in court. Too much room for abuse.

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:25 pm

I support this regardless. I cannot allow something that permanently closes a compromised case with an acquittal. (Additionally, I shall not support any replacement.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Last edited by Damanucus on Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Warrior Thorin
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Antiquity
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Warrior Thorin » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:37 pm

My main concern, as was my main concern previously, is what happens if new evidence is found that can find the acquitted actually committed the crime? As I read this, I don't believe that this is covered.

I agree that restricting Double Jeopardy should be a high standard, but before the WA places any restrictions on my CJ system, it should be clear that a case may be re-opened due to new evidence. Consider what may happen as we obtain better technology (historically, for example, DNA evidence).

Cover this, and you will have my support.
Child of the August Revolution
Former Senator of the People's Republic of the Pacific
Hail Franco Spain! Hail the Pacific!

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:34 pm

AverageBob wrote:Cannot support anything that reopens case if found not guilty in court. Too much room for abuse.

I don't want to speak for Alqania, who is the delegation drafting the replacement for this repeal, but I would hope that any replacement would ALLOW for such an eventuality but would not require such an option. I expect that your nation could continue to limit appeals in such a way, if you see fit.

Damanucus wrote:I support this regardless. I cannot allow something that permanently closes a compromised case with an acquittal. (Additionally, I shall not support any replacement.)

Ideally, I would have liked to have seen this topic covered within one of the multitude of other legal proposals being drafted, but given the timing of all the repeals that have since been required, that's unlikely to happen. I hope for a general proposal on the subject that avoids being too micromanaging and dictating overmuch to what WA member nations can and cannot do.

Warrior Thorin wrote:My main concern, as was my main concern previously, is what happens if new evidence is found that can find the acquitted actually committed the crime? As I read this, I don't believe that this is covered.

I agree that restricting Double Jeopardy should be a high standard, but before the WA places any restrictions on my CJ system, it should be clear that a case may be re-opened due to new evidence. Consider what may happen as we obtain better technology (historically, for example, DNA evidence).

Cover this, and you will have my support.

I referenced this shortcomings under clause 3c, within the repeal text -->
3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
c. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;
I am unable to amend the existing resolution as amendments are not legal. However, such a provision could be (and I believe should/is) covered in the replacement currently being drafted. (I've linked to that thread in the OP.)

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaklen » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:15 pm

I am pleased to announce that Zaklen supports this repeal, and that we have convinced our regional delegate to approve it.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:14 pm

WE HAVE QUORUM!

Let's see the abomination of Double Jeopardy Protection get thrown off the statute books.

Klause Uliyan
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:11 pm

Merfurian wrote:WE HAVE QUORUM!

Let's see the abomination of Double Jeopardy Protection get thrown off the statute books.

Klause Uliyan


Yes, congratulations. The Lion in Council looks forward to seeing our new Chief Representative arrive in time to vote for this.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads