In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Date: 2/6/22
stinkycow
v.
The Stratham Republic
I. Description of Case
Your Honor,
I bring before you three legal violations the government has made today, the 6th of February, in regards to the creation of a parliament committee.
Violation 1:
The Committee was not put to a vote.
The Parliamentary Committee Standards Act, Section 4. Process, Step 2, states that "The Speaker will then put the said committee to a vote to the Members to form/Re open the said Committee and if a majority of approval is passed the committee is then formed/re opened."
The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee was not put to a parliament vote before its formation.
Violation 2:
The Committee was not requested by the correct party.
The Land Acquisition Act, Section 5. Acquisition Process, Step 3.b, states that "If an agreement of compensation cannot be reached, the landowner or Prime Minister can choose to put forward a request to Parliament to review the IAL and determine just compensation in exchange for the land. Parliament will then determine just compensation through the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee (LAC)."
According to Dusty, the Committee was "made from the request of the Chief of Staff" (LAC1.png)
The Chief of Staff is not the landowner in this situation, nor the Prime Minister, meaning that this Committee was not requested by anyone legally approved to do so.
Violation 3:
Committee gave itself more power through an internal vote.
As you can see from the dialogue in LAC1.png, after realizing the Committee was only created for Lashgaming, Dusty motioned to include all other requested cases from the Chief of Staff in the already created Committee.
A Committee cannot just grant themselves the power to make more "legally binding" (Land Acquisition Act, Section 5. Step 3.b) decisions through an internal vote.
II. Parties
stinkycow
Dusty_3
III. Sequence of Events
1. The Chief of Staff requests the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee
2. Dusty officially requests the creation of "the Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee"
3. Dusty puts out the expression of interest announcement for said Committee
4. Committee is created
5. Dusty sends list of cases to be discussed
6. I point out that the Committee was only created for Lashgaming
7. Dusty holds an internal Committee vote to include other cases
IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee must be disbanded, requested, and created properly.
2. Every other LAC cases must be requested (by the Prime Minister or Landowner), approved, and formed separately.
3. A public apology must be made, from the legislative branch to the potentially effected landowners (Lashgaming, _PastelGhost_, HistoriaOrangie, and Tracefais.)
V. Special Requests
1. I am requesting that any decision made by the Land Acquisition Committee in question is halted until this case concludes.
Date: 2/6/22
stinkycow
v.
The Stratham Republic
I. Description of Case
Your Honor,
I bring before you three legal violations the government has made today, the 6th of February, in regards to the creation of a parliament committee.
Violation 1:
The Committee was not put to a vote.
The Parliamentary Committee Standards Act, Section 4. Process, Step 2, states that "The Speaker will then put the said committee to a vote to the Members to form/Re open the said Committee and if a majority of approval is passed the committee is then formed/re opened."
The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee was not put to a parliament vote before its formation.
Violation 2:
The Committee was not requested by the correct party.
The Land Acquisition Act, Section 5. Acquisition Process, Step 3.b, states that "If an agreement of compensation cannot be reached, the landowner or Prime Minister can choose to put forward a request to Parliament to review the IAL and determine just compensation in exchange for the land. Parliament will then determine just compensation through the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee (LAC)."
According to Dusty, the Committee was "made from the request of the Chief of Staff" (LAC1.png)
The Chief of Staff is not the landowner in this situation, nor the Prime Minister, meaning that this Committee was not requested by anyone legally approved to do so.
Violation 3:
Committee gave itself more power through an internal vote.
As you can see from the dialogue in LAC1.png, after realizing the Committee was only created for Lashgaming, Dusty motioned to include all other requested cases from the Chief of Staff in the already created Committee.
A Committee cannot just grant themselves the power to make more "legally binding" (Land Acquisition Act, Section 5. Step 3.b) decisions through an internal vote.
II. Parties
stinkycow
Dusty_3
III. Sequence of Events
1. The Chief of Staff requests the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee
2. Dusty officially requests the creation of "the Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee"
3. Dusty puts out the expression of interest announcement for said Committee
4. Committee is created
5. Dusty sends list of cases to be discussed
6. I point out that the Committee was only created for Lashgaming
7. Dusty holds an internal Committee vote to include other cases
IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee must be disbanded, requested, and created properly.
2. Every other LAC cases must be requested (by the Prime Minister or Landowner), approved, and formed separately.
3. A public apology must be made, from the legislative branch to the potentially effected landowners (Lashgaming, _PastelGhost_, HistoriaOrangie, and Tracefais.)
V. Special Requests
1. I am requesting that any decision made by the Land Acquisition Committee in question is halted until this case concludes.