Atlasia -vs- The Former Pacific

[opebo]

It seems the Private Message function is disabled, so I'd like to express my willingness to 'vote' regarding certiorari here to my fellow Justices.

[opebo]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

I would like to explore this - if we find that the action of 'abolishing itself' is not constitutional, is not the government of the Pacific still in fact extant, and thus eligible for the role of respondent?  I would like to read both sides argument on this question.

[opebo]

cont.d

The Court should probably, just to remove any lingering confusion, explicitly deem nul and void this attempt at reestablishing government in the unincorporated territories, as it did not come from the citizens of the region, and also on account of the unconstitutional language in paragraph 8.

There's been no case brought before us regarding the issue to which you refer.

Huh? You what, Napoleon? The way the case is setup at current, there is no respondent. That needs fixing.

Do you wish to submit an amicus brief arguing about the interpretation of the title of the case, Lewis?  There is a respondent listed there.

[opebo]

With all due respect, I don't think that lawsuits work by filing a suit and then waiting for a defendant to emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment

[opebo]

With all due respect, I don't think that lawsuits work by filing a suit and then waiting for a defendant to emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment

That applies to situations where a defendant has been named and failed to appear, not situations where the litigant expects someone to appear to claim the title of defendant.

Thank you for your amicus brief, stranger.

[opebo]

The Court unanimously rules in favor of the plaintiff and that the most recent constitution -'the Final Constitution' - violates IV.1-3 of the federal Constitution and is thus invalid.  The Court orders the voiding of said 'Final Constitution' and the restoration of the Fourth Pacific Constitution.