Atlasia -vs- The Former Pacific

[Хahar 🤔]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

All actions are constitutional unless ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court may reestablish the former Pacific government if it so rules, but without any decision to the contrary, the constitutional amendment abolishing the region is valid; therefore, there is no Pacific government to respond.

At the very least, I suggest that the period for the respondent to file a brief be delayed until it is clear who the respondent is.

[Хahar 🤔]

How exactly can you file suit against nobody?

[Хahar 🤔]

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

[Хahar 🤔]

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.