The United Sovereign Nations


You are not connected. Please login or register

The Federal Republic of Rheinland & The Republic of Aleutia v. The USNW Government

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Guest


Guest
The Federal Republic of Rheinland & The Republic of Aleutia v. The USNW Government

Rheinland & Aleutia would like to seek the following lawsuit against the USNW Government for violations of the USNW Charter and rights guaranteed by the Charter

In July 2011 an unlawful piece of legislation passed through USNW restricting the rights of current two members. Saathoff and Tyler. This restriction was both members were not allowed to run for executive/cabinet positions within USNW. However this violates the USNW Charter agreed to upon all the current USNW members at the time of the signing. The UCOM merger restriction is unconstitutional or as you could say uncharteristic for violating our basic rights to campaign and run

Chapter One, Article Two, Section B Five states the following directly quoted from the USNW Charter

USNW Charter wrote:Full Members will have the opportunity to run for
ministry positions after two months of membership and cabinet positions
after three months of membership.

This means ALL full members are allowed the opportunity to run for both ministry and cabinet positions in USNW as promised by USNW. The UCOM merger restrictions violates our rights to run for government.

We are seeking that the USNW Government repeals the measure for its uncharteristic ruling.


Thank You
Rheinland & Aleutia

I will remain neutral in this case.

View user profile http://oktimes.canadian-forum.com

stanislavsoltys

avatar
Member (Malinova)
Member (Malinova)
I shall also remain neutral.

View user profile http://www.freetrojan.gov/obamacare/government-funding.htm

alerules22

avatar
Member (Oxacmela & Balisca)
Member (Oxacmela & Balisca)
I'll be abstaining...

View user profile http://www.usnw.net

Guest


Guest
Technically you can't abstain this isn't a vote. But you can remain neutral

alerules22

avatar
Member (Oxacmela & Balisca)
Member (Oxacmela & Balisca)
Sorry, Then I'll remain Neutral Razz

View user profile http://www.usnw.net
Since the Vice-Consul is on-leave, I, as the Consul, have to remain neutral, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone to officiate over the proceedings Razz

View user profile
I and my nation shall be neutral at this time.

View user profile
Case postponed until further notice - the plaintiffs' objective is moot, as neither Aleutia nor Rheinland is a full member yet, and so are forbidden from running for high office by default. Case will be reopened upon request should either plaintiff become a full member.

[in other words, if you wish for the case to continue, then hurry up with your full member application(s) Wink]

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Rheinland is displeased with the ruling has a members status should not constitute as an excuse for having an unconstitutional law. In other words were pushing this case because we want fairness for everyone not just us. Again were are extremely displeased with the ruling.

The Consul wishes to remind the plaintiffs that a ruling has not been reached yet; it has only been postponed until further notice, as at present, the law in question is not unconstitutional, but simply redundant. The law will become unconstitutional when one or both plaintiffs ascend to full membership.

UPDATE: Upon further consideration, the postponement period of this case is now over. We wait for the Chancellor and Executive Secretary of the Union, as co-heads of state with the First Minister (who, due to being the Consul, has declared neutrality), to make an official statement on this.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Guest


Guest
Seriously? Don't you have better things to do?

Please, no offensive comments here please. Smile

View user profile

Guest


Guest
That's philosophy...
I can walk on water. Don't you think I can't walk on your heads?!?!

You guys should do memes about AIN, to lighten the mood. Razz

danspaceman wrote:Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Being a newer member here, and not being involved with SC4 for the last three years, I'm interested in this history .. perhaps you could explain to me further?

You can catch me on skype, ask DC or JITS for details, or feel free to PM me here or on AIN.

View user profile

ForthWall

avatar
Member (Kuyrut)
Member (Kuyrut)
Uh oh...

This ain't gonna be good

@fox You don't need to look, History will repeat itself, if people want it to be Neutral


_________________
[center]


ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ
View user profile

Jon

avatar
First Minister (Kaskaskia & Insulo)
First Minister (Kaskaskia & Insulo)
To members of other unions:
Please remember, you are guests on our forums, and are expected to treat all of our members respectfully regardless of your past relations with them. Making purposely inflammatory comments will not be tolerated, even if they are not objectively insulting. In this instance the context creates the issue, and the comment in question, that started this discussion, is quite obviously intended to cause problems within our union. This is the final warning.

The question at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the history of any members of this union, the matter is related to the constitutionality of an agreement entered into by our union. The history of members is not relevant in the discussion of constitutionality, and should only be considered when a member is applying for higher membership levels or public office.

View user profile
Jesus.in.the.sky wrote:That's philosophy...
I can walk on water. Don't you think I can't walk on your heads?!?!

You guys should do memes about AIN, to lighten the mood. Razz
I would, if I had time Razz

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Can we get back to the point of this thread please.

Very well then, I'm repeating my statement from the previous page:

We now wait for the Chancellor and Executive Secretary of the Union, as co-heads of state with the First Minister - who, due to also being the Consul of the High Court, has declared neutrality - to make an official statement on this.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
With all due respect.. this is absurd. Nate and Tyler agreed to this when they joined. They agreed and now they'd are trying to blame the law on being unconstitutional... you guys have got to be kidding me. History is repeating itself. That bill or whatever was created to keep Nate and Tyler from ascending to a position of power due to past circumstances and issues in the AIN. I will be highly disappointed with the USNW if this case is in favor of Nate and Tyler.


SBL



Last edited by smartbylaw on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:50 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest
They are not in favor or against it. They are all neutral Razz
If my opinion counted, I'd be at 60% for this case.

Qorten

avatar
Member (Ami Confederation)
I would be all for Tyler and Nate to be able to run for a ministerial or executive position. Until this case started I didn't even know they were banned from those positions. It's been almost a year now, I guess, since the troubles with AIN which you speak off, and people may change for the better (also in AIN). It's not right to keep a grudge forever and people should have a chance to redeem themselves.

Besides, there is zero chance for Nate and especially Tyler to reach higher office unless they become more active (again, especially Tyler).

This is all just my honest and unimportant opinion of course. Feel free to disregard.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum