NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Omnibus Due Process Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

[PASSED] Omnibus Due Process Act

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:44 pm

Human Rights: Mild

Whereas recent legal developments have led to the repeal of GA 443 “Preventing the Execution of Innocents”, and the repeal of various provisions protecting the rights of criminal defendants writ large, rather than just in terms of capital prosecutions:

And whereas the Assembly seeks to reimpose those protections to protect defendants from overzealous prosecutors seeking unfair and unjust outcomes to pad their case records or the influence of member nations seeking certain favourable outcomes by undue process of law:

And whereas three classes of protections are of utmost importance to safeguard defendants from corruption of their advocates, prevent defendants from being surprised with evidence introduced at the last minute, and safeguard persons under the custody of member nations or agents thereof from being rendered to areas where they are not protected by World Assembly legislation:

The World Assembly enacts as follows:

  1. Negative inference. The invocation of any right or privilege by the defendant may not be used as evidence of wrongdoing or as the basis of a negative inference.

  2. Undue influence. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, client welfare.

  3. Discovery. Prosecutors before member nation courts shall provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation. Defendants must also provide to prosecutors such evidence they also have collected.

    1. Evidence may be excluded if there is a preponderance of evidence that providing it would lead to witness tampering or intimidation, expose information vital to national security, or substantially threaten the safety of witnesses or other third parties.

    2. Counsel for the defence shall be provided sufficient time to review and examine evidence provided under the above clause. It shall be grounds for reversible error on appeal if the defence can show insufficient time was provided such that a competent advocate could not have provided effective counsel.

    3. In this section, the word “evidence” does not include strategies or other products of time spent by attorneys or advocates reviewing that case.
  4. Rendition. No individual in the custody of a member nation, or any agents thereof, may be extradited, rendered, or otherwise moved to any place likely to commence, resume, or carry out judicial proceedings which would contravene World Assembly legislation against that individual.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:27 am, edited 11 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:45 pm

Reserved.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9370
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:40 am

Support - in the increasingly unlikely event that 443 is ever actually repealed.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Hulldom
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 453
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:04 am

"which would contravene World Assembly legislation" probably does not need to be set off as an appositive here. Additionally, might it make sense to develop some sort of prohibition against hearsay? (Lawyers feel free to challenge the substantive legal stuff on this, including if I need to be told off for this already being here or something.)
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:28 am

Hulldom wrote:"which would contravene World Assembly legislation" probably does not need to be set off as an appositive here.

Well taken.

Hulldom wrote:Additionally, might it make sense to develop some sort of prohibition against hearsay? (Lawyers feel free to challenge the substantive legal stuff on this, including if I need to be told off for this already being here or something.)

Hearsay is a rule barring admission of certain types of evidence. The hearsay rule, at least as implemented in Anglo-American common law, also has so many exceptions that if I were to touch it – and I don't want to – it would require all 5000 characters. Insofar as the specific rules of evidence are outside the context of stopping undue influence of counsel, ensuring that the state cannot win on surprises, and stopping people from being extraordinarily rendered, that would be the topic for a different proposal.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1145
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Old Hope » Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:37 am

OOC: This might be illegal.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Discovery. Prosecutors before member nation courts shall provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation. Defendants must also provide to prosecutors such evidence they also have collected.

It appears to contradict World Assembly Resolution 37.
REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial;

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:34 am

Old Hope wrote:OOC: This might be illegal.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Discovery. Prosecutors before member nation courts shall provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation. Defendants must also provide to prosecutors such evidence they also have collected.

It appears to contradict World Assembly Resolution 37.
REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial;

Self-incrimination has never been considered to include surrender of physical evidence. Insofar as the defence produces physical evidence to that effect (ie signing a confession), it is itself a waiver of that right. Testimony under oath at the trial is protected based on the statement in GA 37, but non-collection is not penalised. Disclosure of evidence is not itself a pleading.

The remaining possibility for this to be the case, that any delivery of any evidence by the defence is somehow self-incrimination, is absurd and doesn't square with the context in GA 37 on statements and testimony. Submitting a bloody knife when required by warrant is not self-incrimination.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3965
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:31 pm

"In 2(b), 'no competent advocate' strikes me as too exacting a standard. If Eodore Tholsen or Cocky John Ransom could have provided effective counsel despite being blindsided by undisclosed evidence, that doesn't mean a defendant could get on those lawyers' schedules, or afford their fees. I suggest wording akin to 'no advocate of average competence' or perhaps 'an advocate above replacement level.' One's ability to pay shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not prosecutors can get away with evidentiary skulduggery."
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3965
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:32 pm

Old Hope wrote:OOC: This might be illegal.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Discovery. Prosecutors before member nation courts shall provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation. Defendants must also provide to prosecutors such evidence they also have collected.

It appears to contradict World Assembly Resolution 37.
REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial;


No.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:43 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"In 2(b), 'no competent advocate' strikes me as too exacting a standard. If Eodore Tholsen or Cocky John Ransom could have provided effective counsel despite being blindsided by undisclosed evidence, that doesn't mean a defendant could get on those lawyers' schedules, or afford their fees. I suggest wording akin to 'no advocate of average competence' or perhaps 'an advocate above replacement level.' One's ability to pay shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not prosecutors can get away with evidentiary skulduggery."

An advocate of average competence would be more competent than a competent advocate. I see what you meant now.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:17 pm

Bump, now that P Innocents was repealed illegally.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20493
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:36 pm

1. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client.

OOC: Would this mean that defendants could no longer be required to swear that they will tell "the truth, the complete truth, and nothing but the truth"? After all, there are probably WA member nations where -- for supernatural reasons -- anybody formally swearing that oath really would have to keep it...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:44 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
1. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client.

OOC: Would this mean that defendants could no longer be required to swear that they will tell "the truth, the complete truth, and nothing but the truth"? After all, there are probably WA member nations where -- for supernatural reasons -- anybody formally swearing that oath really would have to keep it...

We already have bars against requiring testimony that would lead to self-incrimination. GA 37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials". Regardless, I am not very inclined myself to bow before religio-wank just in the same way I'm not that interested in entertaining Clarketech-wank.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:59 pm

I will submit this next.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1145
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Old Hope » Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:59 pm

Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel.

Worthless.
What's undue influence and what not is not explained. It is open to interpretation.

User avatar
Hulldom
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 453
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Sun Oct 10, 2021 6:47 pm

Old Hope wrote:
Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel.

Worthless.
What's undue influence and what not is not explained. It is open to interpretation.

"I think tampering with evidence and/or witness/jury tampering is something that's well-established and need not be elaborated on."
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1975
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Goobergunchia » Sun Oct 10, 2021 6:52 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:2b. Evidence may be excluded if there is a preponderance of evidence that providing it lead to witness tampering or intimidation, expose information vital to national security, or substantially threaten the safety of witnesses or other third parties.

We believe that this sentence is missing a "would" before "lead".

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Oct 10, 2021 6:59 pm

Goobergunchia wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:2b. Evidence may be excluded if there is a preponderance of evidence that providing it lead to witness tampering or intimidation, expose information vital to national security, or substantially threaten the safety of witnesses or other third parties.

We believe that this sentence is missing a "would" before "lead".

Correction well taken!

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1358
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Mon Oct 11, 2021 7:59 am

Doesn’t this proposal assume an adversarial justice system? Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it looks to be so in clause 2.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, everybody dies.
Lord Dominator wrote:
10000 Islands Foreign Affairs wrote:~The population of 10000 Islands suffered a huge increase
I mean, if it’s that terrible I’m sure someone else will take them…

Frenchy: grub would be so proud knowing his descendants are the best raiders of their time and they’re queer

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:12 am

Comfed wrote:Doesn’t this proposal assume an adversarial justice system? Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it looks to be so in clause 2.

In an inquisitorial justice system, defendants are still permitted to raise objections (general ones not the legal ones) to the judge for exclusion of evidence and cross-examine witnesses etc. Section 2(b) does somewhat assume that defendants need effective counsel. However, in an inquisitorial system I would imagine that it is easier to show effective counsel, especially if the role of counsel is lessened.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:55 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Comfed wrote:Doesn’t this proposal assume an adversarial justice system? Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it looks to be so in clause 2.

In an inquisitorial justice system, defendants are still permitted to raise objections (general ones not the legal ones) to the judge for exclusion of evidence and cross-examine witnesses etc. Section 2(b) does somewhat assume that defendants need effective counsel. However, in an inquisitorial system I would imagine that it is easier to show effective counsel, especially if the role of counsel is lessened.


OOC: Just throwing out, the French system (with which I am most familiar) still provides the defense the entire dossier. For the reverse, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a criminal defendant WOULDN'T hand over exculpatory evidence immediately anyway (I mean, presuming the defendant wishes for acquittal). Civil matters are a different matter, but I do not read IA to be reaching into civil law here, so I am not sure it is relevant.

Edit: IA, how would you feel about adding a line somewhere to the effect of:
The invocation of any right or privilege by the defendant may not be used as evidence of wrongdoing or as the basis of a negative inference.

? I do not recall, but I do not believe the prior guarantee of the right to remain silent prevents such silence from being used to the detriment of the defendant.
Last edited by Desmosthenes and Burke on Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:48 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:In an inquisitorial justice system, defendants are still permitted to raise objections (general ones not the legal ones) to the judge for exclusion of evidence and cross-examine witnesses etc. Section 2(b) does somewhat assume that defendants need effective counsel. However, in an inquisitorial system I would imagine that it is easier to show effective counsel, especially if the role of counsel is lessened.


OOC: Just throwing out, the French system (with which I am most familiar) still provides the defense the entire dossier. For the reverse, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a criminal defendant WOULDN'T hand over exculpatory evidence immediately anyway (I mean, presuming the defendant wishes for acquittal). Civil matters are a different matter, but I do not read IA to be reaching into civil law here, so I am not sure it is relevant.

Edit: IA, how would you feel about adding a line somewhere to the effect of:
The invocation of any right or privilege by the defendant may not be used as evidence of wrongdoing or as the basis of a negative inference.

? I do not recall, but I do not believe the prior guarantee of the right to remain silent prevents such silence from being used to the detriment of the defendant.

Thanks for your feedback, I'm not very familiar with criminal trials in civil law jurisdictions (outside the context of the Roman republic and empire, so about 2000 years out of date), so it's very well taken.

The suggestion also is well taken. GA 37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" says "the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial" but it does not go further in prohibiting a negative inference. Eg J Dig 50.17.142 (Paul, Edict 56) ("Someone who is silent does not necessarily confess; but yet it is true that he does not deny").

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 439
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:51 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Thanks for your feedback, I'm not very familiar with criminal trials in civil law jurisdictions (outside the context of the Roman republic and empire, so about 2000 years out of date), so it's very well taken.

The suggestion also is well taken. GA 37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" says "the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial" but it does not go further in prohibiting a negative inference. Eg J Dig 50.17.142 (Paul, Edict 56) ("Someone who is silent does not necessarily confess; but yet it is true that he does not deny").


On the assumption that the GA at large did not want to read several hundred words on the matter, I TGed you an overview, after which I think you will understand also my suggestion for the addition.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8084
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:12 pm

Image
The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, "Omnibus Due Process Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3965
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:24 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:On the assumption that the GA at large did not want to read several hundred words on the matter...


OOC: Just where do you think you're posting, anyway? When you assume... :p
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads