Search results

Granted, please try to be as quick as possible.

You may.

The time is set for 24 hours from now. @Freeze_Line reminder you have until tomorrow at 5:15pm GMT-5 to submit an answer to complaint.

The decision is final and the EI will remain. Please make the arguments for STV or the Presidential Run-off acts as part of the actual case. The Court has recognized that there is a valid path to the run-off in both laws. Another motion to reconsider for either party on the EI will result in a...

What are your qualifications and under what capacity?

Clarification: I’m sustaining that my comment related to the Presidential Run-Off Act is being stricken from the record. The Emergency Injunction continues into effect.

The motion is sustained.

While waiting on the plaintiffs answer on the motion to dismiss, the defendant has 48 hours to post their answer to complaint.

Both the objection and the motion to strike are sustained.

The motion to reconsider the Emergency Injunction from both sides is denied. The STV process is specifically laid out in the Electoral Act. If a candidate has fewer votes than the threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes are eliminated. (see Electoral Act 8(4)(a)). When a candidate is...

You may.

The motion to reconsider is denied. The law is very clear and it states that the two highest voted candidates are the ones to be included in the runoff election.

The mandated process in the Presidential Runoff Act. There must be a runoff election between xEndeavour and 1950minecrafter

The Supreme Court is granting an alternate emergency injunction. The current administration which the President is Lcn will remain in caretaker mode for the duration of this case. The department of state is ordered to begin a runoff election following the mandated process. The results of this...

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont.

Case dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.

The appeal is granted. The appellant was not explicitly ordered to stop speaking. The law establishes that a person must be warned first before they can be held in contempt of court. Given a warning was not issued the Supreme Court has decided to overturn the contempt charge in a 3-0 decision...

Extension Granted.

The Supreme Court has voted to deny this appeal due to the lack of legal reasoning in the appeal. We apologize for the extreme tardiness.

The motion to recuse is denied. I trust the good intentions of magistrate @Mask3D_WOLF and that they did not mean in any way to be biased toward any of the involved parties.