NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal GAR#183 "Defense of Self and Others"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Repeal GAR#183 "Defense of Self and Others"

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:48 pm

Repeal "Defense of Self and Others"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GAR#183
Proposed by: Bananaistan

Description: WA Resolution #183 Defense of Self and Others (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: the World Assembly

Approving of the intentions of resolution #183 to allow for a person’s right to self-defence,

Regretting that resolution #183 relies on the institution of the "judiciary" despite there being no international law requiring the independence of the judiciary, the proper functioning of the judiciary, or even the existence of the judiciary,

Observing that under the terms of the second operative clause a person cannot be prosecuted for using reasonable force yet under the terms of the third operative clause the decision as to whether reasonable force was used or not is reserved to the judiciary,

Believing that this presents a significant barrier to a member state’s prosecution services from initiating prosecutions where the use of reasonable force may be used as a defence in legal proceedings, as the prosecution services themselves are unable to make a determination as to what constitutes reasonable force,

Noting that this is a serious contradiction within resolution #183: an individual cannot be prosecuted for the use of reasonable force yet the determination of whether that individual used reasonable force is a decision reserved to the judiciary,

Regretting that resolution #183 contains a definition of reasonable force which is inexact due to the usage of the vague terminology: “within a reasonable degree of the smallest amount of force”,

Contending that the definition used is so unclear that many criminal acts of violence may not be prosecutable due to the lack of guidance to prosecutors, judges and others involved in potential legal proceedings as to what exactly constitutes reasonable force, and by extension, therefore, what constitutes excessive force,

Realising that prosecutors should retain the right to bring prosecutions against those they suspect may have used more than reasonable force and that suspects are entitled to whatever form of fair trial may be used in a member state,

Maintaining that resolution #183 unintentionally introduced an almost all pervasive immunity from prosecution to any person claiming they used reasonable force,

Further believing that the use of reasonable force to defend oneself or others should be no more than a valid defence in legal proceedings,

Hereby:

Repeals resolution #183, "Defense of Self and Others ".

Repeal "Defense of Self and Others"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GAR#183
Proposed by: Bananaistan

Description: WA Resolution #183 Defense of Self and Others (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: the World Assembly

Approving of the intentions of resolution #183 to allow for a person’s right to self-defence,

Regretting that resolution #183 relies on the institution of the "judiciary" despite there being no international law requiring the independence of the judiciary, the proper functioning of the judiciary, or even the existence of the judiciary,

Observing that under the terms of the second operative clause a person cannot be prosecuted for using reasonable force yet under the terms of the third operative clause the decision as to whether reasonable force was used or not is reserved to the judiciary,

Believing that this presents a significant barrier to a member state’s prosecution services from initiating prosecutions where the use of reasonable force may be used as a defence in legal proceedings, as the prosecution services themselves are unable to make a determination as to what constitutes reasonable force,

Noting that this is a serious contradiction within resolution #183: an individual cannot be prosecuted for the use of reasonable force yet the determination of whether that individual used reasonable force is a decision reserved to the judiciary,

Furthermore believing that resolution #183 prevents a trial by a jury of the accused’s peers where reasonable force may be used as a defence in legal proceedings as the decision is reserved to the judiciary only,

Regretting that #183 contains a definition of reasonable force which is inexact due to the usage of the vague terminology: “within a reasonable degree of the smallest amount of force”,

Concerned that the definition used is so unclear that many criminal acts of violence may not be prosecutable due to the lack of guidance to prosecutors, judges and others involved in potential legal proceedings as to what exactly constitutes reasonable force, and by extension, therefore, what constitutes excessive force,

Realising that prosecutors should retain the right to bring prosecutions against those they suspect may have used more than reasonable force and that the suspects are entitled to whatever fair trial may be used in a member state, which may include a trial by jury,

Maintaining that resolution #183 unintentionally introduced an almost all pervasive immunity from prosecution to any person claiming they used reasonable force,

Further believing that the use of reasonable force to defend oneself or others should be no more than a valid defence in legal proceedings,

Hereby:

Repeals resolution #183, "Defense of Self and Others ".

Repeal "Defense of Self and Others"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GAR#183
Proposed by: Bananaistan

Description: WA Resolution #183 Defense of Self and Others (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: the World Assembly

Approving of the intentions of #183 to allow for a person’s right to self-defence,

Regretting that #183 assumes that a member state uses a particular justice system which includes judiciary when many member states’ justice systems may not be so set out,

Observing that under the terms of the second operative clause of #183 a person cannot be prosecuted for using reasonable force yet under the terms of the third operative clause the decision as to whether reasonable force was used or not is reserved to the judiciary,

Believing that this prevents a member state’s prosecution service from initiating prosecutions where the use of reasonable force may be used as a defence in a criminal trial,

Furthermore believing that #183 prevents a trial by a jury of the accused’s peers where reasonable force may be used as a defence in legal proceedings as the decision is reserved to the judiciary only,

Regretting that #183 contains a definition of reasonable force which is unclear due to usage of the term “within a reasonable degree of the smallest amount of force”,

Believing that the definition used is so unclear that many criminal acts of violence may not be prosecutable due to the lack of guidance to prosecutors and judges as to what exactly reasonable force constitutes, and by extension, therefore, what excessive force constitutes,

Noting that the requirement that no person who has used reasonable force to defend themselves or others may be prosecuted is an unreasonable imposition on the criminal justice system,

Believing that prosecutors should retain the right to bring prosecutions against those they suspect may have used more than reasonable force and that the suspects are entitled to whatever fair trial may be used in a member state, which may include a trial by jury,

Believing that the use of reasonable force should only be a valid defence in a criminal trial rather than a complete exemption from prosecution,

Hoping that the World Assembly will address this in future legislation,

Hereby:

Repeals resolution #183, "Defense of Self and Others ".

This is just an idea arising from a discussion between CD and myself in the Disabled Voters Act debate.

I think the main trust is the prohibition of the prosecution of someone who has used reasonable force. I would think that this effectively disbars member states from even bringing such a person to trial.

Also, the definition is as clear as mud. It's rather unfortunate that within the definition the words it defines are used. While the bit I've quoted above is particularly unclear and brings in uncertainty due to three different words used: "reasonable", "degree" and "smallest".

Please tear to shreds etc.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:58 am, edited 6 times in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:05 pm

"This is one of those repeals that makes obvious sense but isn't written very snappily. I don't know that it makes all that compelling a case as a result even though the basic argument does make sense.
Regretting that #183 assumes that a member state uses a particular justice system which includes judiciary when many member states’ justice systems may not be so set out,

"The passive tense here makes this really awkwardly worded. How about something like: 'Resolution #183 relies on the institution of the "judiciary" despite there being no international law requiring the independence of the judiciary, the proper functioning of the judiciary, or even the existence of the judiciary'.
Believing that the use of reasonable force should only be a valid defence in a criminal trial rather than a complete exemption from prosecution,

"I do feel that this is an important distinction that could be articulated a bit more forcefully. There is a clear difference between permitting someone to use 'reasonable force' as a defence against prosecution, and a claim of reasonable force providing complete immunity from prosecution.

"Because this repeal sort of hints at wanting to replace it we might not end up supporting it, but we will endeavour to provide whatever comments we can to help as we would dearly love to see this resolution repealed."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern
Last edited by The Dark Star Republic on Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:30 pm

Many thanks.

I have included your wording there and I have split that immunity v valid defence argument into two. I have also dropped the hint at a replacement. I am utterly unconcerned with same and I certainly wouldn't be proposing a replacement.

I have also dickied around with the wording and split up other clauses.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:59 pm

The complete lack of comment is rather surprising but I suppose there a few other irons in the fire around here atm.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:34 am

Bananaistan wrote:The complete lack of comment is rather surprising

And unfortunate. Funny how if you'd just submitted it you would have been blasted for not sitting around twiddling your thumbs :lol:

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:04 am

Indeed.

Perhaps it's just so good nobody felt the need to comment!

Only 2 proposals in the queue at the moment. I'm thinking letting this up this evening when I'll be able to take an hour or so to TG some delegates.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:11 am

OOC: In terms of consistency, you use "resolution #183" throughout except in your "Regretting" clause.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:47 pm

Thanks, I'll change that. I'm also considering adding an argument relating to how the resolution allows for use of force in the event of an imminent threat to health and/or safety by another person or persons. Such a threat could be rather different to just a threat of violence.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Defwa
Minister
 
Posts: 2598
Founded: Feb 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Defwa » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:14 pm

It was a short resolution so there's not much to say about it. The original appears rather insufficient and for most nations does not do much new or innovative.

The repeal at present pretty much invalidates every line in the original so content is more or less maxed out. Some voters might be happier if "recognising" is expanded to clarify that this will not force any nation to prosecute someone for self defense or at least that nations uphold similar ideals regardless of this resolution, and perhaps a statement calling for superior replacement.
__________Federated City States of ____________________Defwa__________
Federation Head High Wizard of Dal Angela Landfree
Ambassadorial Delegate Maestre Wizard Mikyal la Vert

President and World Assembly Delegate of the Democratic Socialist Assembly
Defwa offers assistance with humanitarian aid, civilian evacuation, arbitration, negotiation, and human rights violation monitoring.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:29 pm

OK, I agree with the repeal's sentiments; you do make a persuasive argument, if a wordy one. Condense it a little, if only for flow. The "Noting" clause appears to be only repeating what you've already said before. The "Furthermore believing" clause confuses me somewhat: that the judiciary's supremacy in deciding on reasonable force negates trial by jury. Aren't juries part of the judicial process, and therefore a (temporary) component of the judiciary?

The verb tense in the "concerned" clause disagrees with every other clause, in which the active verbs are used in the gerund form. If you want to excessively nitpick.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:04 pm

Defwa wrote:It was a short resolution so there's not much to say about it. The original appears rather insufficient and for most nations does not do much new or innovative.

The repeal at present pretty much invalidates every line in the original so content is more or less maxed out. Some voters might be happier if "recognising" is expanded to clarify that this will not force any nation to prosecute someone for self defense or at least that nations uphold similar ideals regardless of this resolution, and perhaps a statement calling for superior replacement.


I'd be reasonably happy that such voters should be ok with that clause. It only points that prosecutors should retain the right ... rather than they must ... I'm inclined to leave it unchanged but thanks for commenting.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, I agree with the repeal's sentiments; you do make a persuasive argument, if a wordy one. Condense it a little, if only for flow. The "Noting" clause appears to be only repeating what you've already said before. The "Furthermore believing" clause confuses me somewhat: that the judiciary's supremacy in deciding on reasonable force negates trial by jury. Aren't juries part of the judicial process, and therefore a (temporary) component of the judiciary?


I think the noting clause does repeat the two proceeding clauses but it also provides a useful summation of those two clauses. Probably a fair point re trial by jury and I am rather surprised to find out that there is another sense of the word judiciary. I had always thought that it typically referred to judges as a collective but it turns out there are other definitions. Therefore, I have removed that clause.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The verb tense in the "concerned" clause disagrees with every other clause, in which the active verbs are used in the gerund form. If you want to excessively nitpick.


Haha, excellent catch. Changing this to contending doesn't really alter the gist of the proposal.

I have made these changes, and I've also slightly altered the realising clause removing the reference to trial by jury and adding "form of" between whatever and fair trial. I think the current draft is well suitable for submission.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:28 pm

OOC: Are you from the Commonwealth or the US? It might just be the fact that the US has a separate judicial branch, whereas Commonwealth countries don't really have true separation of powers.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:33 pm

OOC: Ireland. Although I would disagree about the separation of powers, I have never heard of the word judiciary being used other than in the context of referring to judges as a collective.

Also, I have submitted. Hopefully it's good enough to get to vote.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:38 pm

Bananaistan wrote:Also, I have submitted. Hopefully it's good enough to get to vote.

Are you campaigning for it currently?
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:35 am

Yes, I have just now sent a TG to delegates.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Chester Pearson
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Aug 02, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chester Pearson » Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:29 pm

The Federation remains adamantly opposed to this repeal.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
-17.5 / -6
Chester B. Pearson,
Ambassador, Imperial Minster of Foreign Affairs United Federation of Canada
Premier The North American Union
Secretary-General United Regions Alliance
World Assembly Resolution Author
Recognized as one of the most famous NS's ever

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8641
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:32 pm

Chester Pearson wrote:The Federation remains adamantly opposed to this repeal.


Remains? This is your first comment on this proposal.
And should I bother asking why the the honourable representative objects to this repeal?
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
The Other Otter
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 57
Founded: Jan 31, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Other Otter » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:36 pm

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Remains? This is your first comment on this proposal.
And should I bother asking why the the honourable representative objects to this repeal?

It's Chester! Don't question his many whims. -chuckles-

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2168
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:43 am

Chester Pearson wrote:The Federation remains adamantly opposed to this repeal.


I would echo the ambassador from Dooom35796821595 thoughs. Why's that then?
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Affiliated South Califan Sprawls
Attaché
 
Posts: 68
Founded: Feb 05, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Affiliated South Califan Sprawls » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:53 am

At the special meeting of the Federal Assembly in Harbor City where the new Califan World Assembly Detachment was elected, it was decided that the Federation should support Repeal GAR#183 at this time. As my second delegate pointed out, 183 is one of the many resolutions aching to be repealed and this looks like the best way out right now.
Domestic update: Soccer (FLSC A1-2)
Thanks The Freestates for flag.
WA: Califan WA Detachment
she/they
Libertarian Communist (-8.5, -6.97)
Sondstead wrote:And of course, it is in fact a law of physics that immigrants neither pay taxes nor contribute to the economy in any way. This is referred to in technical terms as the Klux Property.

User avatar
Atrides
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Aug 24, 2014
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Atrides » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:52 pm

There is not a way to make amendments to the resolutions? It is just fix the last part of it and the resolution will be ok.

That's strange, looks like a partisan fight, the resolution in threat of repeal was approved by a large number of the nations on the multiverse. Now the repeal is obviously with a huge advantage too.

Is this just another mode of "conservatives vs. liberals" reflected in the multiverse? An emulation of US politics? I'm brazilian, not american, but I know of the US cultural war and I see it clearly on the resolutions being voted.

Thank you.

User avatar
The Dark Star Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Oct 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Dark Star Republic » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:55 pm

Atrides wrote:There is not a way to make amendments to the resolutions?

No.
Atrides wrote:Is this just another mode of "conservatives vs. liberals" reflected in the multiverse?

No.

User avatar
Karolingia
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Jan 17, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Karolingia » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:46 pm

Atrides wrote:There is not a way to make amendments to the resolutions? It is just fix the last part of it and the resolution will be ok.

OOC: Allowing for amendments would require serious changes to the game code, or so I've been led to believe. Resolutions directly affect national statistics for WA members, for instance, and there's no allowance for the changes that an amendment would make to that effect. Repeals, on the other hand, simply reverse whatever effect the resolution caused in the first place--or at least, that's how I understand it. All in all, it's easier from a coding standpoint to outlaw amendments.

IC: We are rather confused about the importance that this repeal places on GAR #183's assumption of a judiciary, considering that the WA does guarantee the right to a fair trial (as also noted in the repeal). Is it possible to have such a trial without a judiciary?

User avatar
Drewlantis
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Nov 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drewlantis » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:12 pm

Atrides wrote:Is this just another mode of "conservatives vs. liberals" reflected in the multiverse? An emulation of US politics? I'm brazilian, not american, but I know of the US cultural war and I see it clearly on the resolutions being voted.

OOC: Hahaha foreigners, they don't under- damn... He's right. It is a cultural war... I must go now to join my Republican brethren in arms.
But in all seriousness I can see that occurring a lot in the Assembly, but I don't know if it applies to this particular resolution. It's being repealed because it does not adequately cover the entirety of the intention of the legislation in the first place.
With Regards,
Fromm Burgenheimer.
Minister of the Department of Diplomacy, Ambassador to the WA, Advisor Second Class to Emperor Imperator Andrew Lake the First.
Personality Type: ENTP, that means watch out ladies and gentlemen, either I'm going to take over the world, or rig a toaster to fly, I don't know yet..
Additional random psychology information: No, I'm not insane, and I have no mental illnesses. I am highly intelligent with some narcissistic tendencies who can be very charming when I want to be, which is sometimes described as psychopathy, but I highly doubt it.. Sometimes.. ;)

User avatar
Drewlantis
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: Nov 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Drewlantis » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:16 pm

Bananaistan wrote:The complete lack of comment is rather surprising but I suppose there a few other irons in the fire around here atm.

"I suppose that is due in part to the fact that this is a very technical resolution. It requires a lot of effort to understand." Ambassador Burgenheimer shakes his head, yawns, and then pushes his glasses up and rubs his nose. "It took a while for me to understand it, but that may be because I'm not a legal technician."
With Regards,
Fromm Burgenheimer.
Minister of the Department of Diplomacy, Ambassador to the WA, Advisor Second Class to Emperor Imperator Andrew Lake the First.
Personality Type: ENTP, that means watch out ladies and gentlemen, either I'm going to take over the world, or rig a toaster to fly, I don't know yet..
Additional random psychology information: No, I'm not insane, and I have no mental illnesses. I am highly intelligent with some narcissistic tendencies who can be very charming when I want to be, which is sometimes described as psychopathy, but I highly doubt it.. Sometimes.. ;)

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads