Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Well that was a lot to read. Was it established that non-citizens have the right to a trial?

Lack There Of wrote:Well that was a lot to read. Was it established that non-citizens have the right to a trial?

Oh my God. I completely forgot about that.

Same here. Ouch.

Actually, what abiut the APPEAL ACT? Ill go check.

Anyway, Albenia is a convicted felon, so heclearly can appeal to the APPEAL act.

However, there is no where in the APPEAL act saying either, that a non citizen CAN or CANNOT appeal. I think Ill go check the COURT act though I doubt theres anything.

ANYWAY, I think the decision here is clear. (I have made it upon my best knowledge of Libertatem law combined with interpretation and reasoning) that Mr. T. SHOULD be tried, BECAUSE the STATE is going against him. In fact, the appeal act is kinda irrelalevant because he is not a felon appealing, he is being tried as a criminal. The normal procedure. That just makes sense. (Id love to hear your opinions and to see it your way too though. )

No citizenship, no trial. Pretty clear cut

Ankha wrote:Anyway, Albenia is a convicted felon, so heclearly can appeal to the APPEAL act.

However, there is no where in the APPEAL act saying either, that a non citizen CAN or CANNOT appeal. I think Ill go check the COURT act though I doubt theres anything.

ANYWAY, I think the decision here is clear. (I have made it upon my best knowledge of Libertatem law combined with interpretation and reasoning) that Mr. T. SHOULD be tried, BECAUSE the STATE is going against him. In fact, the appeal act is kinda irrelalevant because he is not a felon appealing, he is being tried as a criminal. The normal procedure. That just makes sense. (Id love to hear your opinions and to see it your way too though. )

Looks like someone is trying to sound like a lawyer. I wonder why. But, anywho, Mr. T was being tried under COURT not APPEAL. TTA would be tried under APPEAL.

Humpheria wrote:Looks like someone is trying to sound like a lawyer. I wonder why. But, anywho, Mr. T was being tried under COURT not APPEAL. TTA would be tried under APPEAL.

Whatever you say. What I was saying is a) Albenia (TTA) is trued under APPEAL because he is a convicted felon. B) Mr. T. Is not convicted, and THE STATE IS PROSECUTING. Therefore, based on basic logic, the state decided whether to have the case. If the prosecution wants a trial, they get one. If not, it is dropped. I suggest the board vote on this.

Ankha wrote:Whatever you say. What I was saying is a) Albenia (TTA) is trued under APPEAL because he is a convicted felon. B) Mr. T. Is not convicted, and THE STATE IS PROSECUTING. Therefore, based on basic logic, the state decided whether to have the case. If the prosecution wants a trial, they get one. If not, it is dropped. I suggest the board vote on this.

It doesn't matter anymore. He plead guilty and left.

Ok, if that is considered a formal plea of guilt, then he is now a convicted felon. A concludijg jote would be that if he does come back, he would be subject to APPEAL. Butl I guess this ones over for now.

Makeb wrote:Hello

Hello.

Makeb wrote:Hello

Have we met before?

Yes I was the prime minister of the new British empire a fellow ally and member of the previous REATO high council before the second treaty was made.

To what do we owe the honor

Wait, Conservative? BURN WITH FIRE! Just kidding I accept all political views as long as you don't act like a moron. [Except Fascism]

Welcome to all new arrivals.

Reagan Embraced Free Trade and Immigration

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reagan-embraced-free-trade-immigration

By Daniel Griswold

June 24, 2004

In the many eulogies to Ronald Reagan since his passing, virtually all acknowledge his role in defeating Soviet communism and reviving America’s self-confidence. But another aspect of Reagan’s record that should not be forgotten was his commitment to keeping America open to trade and immigration.

Reagan’s vision of an America open to commerce and peaceful, hardworking immigrants contradicts the anti-trade and anti-immigration views espoused by Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and many others who claim to speak for the conservative causes Reagan largely defined.

Reagan’s heart and head were clearly on the side of free trade. While president, he declared in 1986: “Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize … the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”

It was the Reagan administration that launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1986 that lowered global tariffs and created the World Trade Organization. It was his administration that won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. That agreement soon expanded to include Mexico in what became the North American Free Trade Agreement, realizing a vision that Reagan first articulated in the 1980 campaign. It was Reagan who vetoed protectionist textile quota bills in 1985 and 1988.

During Reagan’s eight years in office, Americans eagerly expanded their engagement in the global economy. In 1980, the year before Reagan became president, Americans spent a total of $334 billion on imported goods and services and payments on foreign investment in the United States. By 1988, his last year in office, American spending in the global economy had nearly doubled, to $663 billion. If Reagan was a “protectionist,” it had no discernable effect on the ability of Americans to spend freely in the global marketplace. Fittingly, one of the major federal buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue is named the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.

Like most post-war presidents, Reagan championed free trade while selectively deviating from it. Critics of trade note correctly that Reagan negotiated “voluntary” import quotas for steel and Japanese cars and imposed Section 201 tariffs on imported motorcycles to protect Harley-Davidson. All true. But those were the exceptions and not the rule. They were tactical retreats designed to defuse rising protectionists pressures in Congress.

Reagan’s words and deeds regarding immigration were equally expansive. At a ceremony at Ellis Island in 1982, he spoke movingly of immigrants who “possessed a determination that with hard work and freedom, they would live a better life and their children even more so.” As with trade, Reagan’s record on immigration was mixed. He signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which included stepped up border enforcement and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. But that legislation also legalized 2.8 million undocumented workers. More immigrants entered the United States legally under President Reagan’s watch than under any previous U.S. president since Teddy Roosevelt.

Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, he noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. “It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do?” Reagan asked. “One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”

In his farewell address to the nation in January 1989, Reagan beautifully wove his view of free trade and immigration into his vision of a free society: “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

Compare Reagan’s hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Free Trade is bad. Protectionism is the best way.

Free Trade is bad just like Charity is evil.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Free Trade is bad just like Charity is evil.

I know.

Charity should be banned to protect Americans.

Albenia wrote:Free Trade is bad. Protectionism is the best way.

So you'd rather have a lower income just to protect inefficient industries?

Pevvania wrote:So you'd rather have a lower income just to protect inefficient industries?

I think the way me and Amar continued that made sure it sounded like a joke.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Free Trade is bad just like Charity is evil.

Albenia wrote:I know.

Charity should be banned to protect Americans.

Albenia wrote:I know.

Charity should be banned to protect Americans.

Yes and African Americans should be enslaved to protect them from racism.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Yes and African Americans should be enslaved to protect them from racism.

Oh most defenently.

We should ban gays so that people are treated equal marriage wise

Post self-deleted by Albenia.

Albenia wrote:Oh most defenently.

We should ban gays so that people are treated equal marriage wise

Ever since I banned murder in Muh Roads, people only get beat to near death. It's great.

How is it that Reagan's legacy got so twisted to fit the neo-con agenda?

Lack There Of wrote:How is it that Reagan's legacy got so twisted to fit the neo-con agenda?

People. That's how.

And I'll be back in a few hours, if you need me, don't.

Now you know about the unknown variable: that I would be the AG, and therefore couldnt defend. Such is the case. I am the new AG of Libertatem.

There goes the Judicial system.

But, seriously, did anyone else see this coming? I knew the second he trying to sound all official that he was vying for the job.

Can we pass a law that forbids feeding of the trolls?

Lack There Of wrote:Can we pass a law that forbids feeding of the trolls?

That would be an interesting piece of legislation. Authoritarian, but interesting.

Humpheria wrote:That would be an interesting piece of legislation. Authoritarian, but interesting.

its from lack of course its Authoritarian.

What's authoritarian is monopolizing the RMB for hours on end spouting nonsense and creating inter-regional strife

Humpheria wrote:But, seriously, did anyone else see this coming? I knew the second he trying to sound all official that he was vying for the job.

I saw it coming. I think Ankha will do a fine job.

Lack There Of wrote:What's authoritarian is monopolizing the RMB for hours on end spouting nonsense and creating inter-regional strife

Freedom of speech comes with things you dont wanna hear

Muh Roads wrote:I saw it coming. I think Ankha will do a fine job.

Thanks Muh. But who will run muh judicial system? Me!

I am a bit surprised though Humpy, that you didn't volunteer for the job.

Lack There Of wrote:What's authoritarian is monopolizing the RMB for hours on end spouting nonsense and creating inter-regional strife

I thought you were an Anarchist, in Anarchy you can regulate speech.

Ankha wrote:Thanks Muh. But who will run muh judicial system? Me!

Lol, Anytime.

What if it was real informal like

Lack There Of wrote:What's authoritarian is monopolizing the RMB for hours on end spouting nonsense and creating inter-regional strife

Muh Roads wrote:Freedom of speech comes with things you dont wanna hear

Ankha wrote:Now you know about the unknown variable: that I would be the AG, and therefore couldnt defend. Such is the case. I am the new AG of Libertatem.

Wait what?

I saw your attitude change last night so hard... that's why

Muh Roads wrote:I am a bit surprised though Humpy, that you didn't volunteer for the job.

You see the thing is, I was considered, but I figured I would let Anhka show his colors, this is his first high office.

Albenia wrote:Wait what?

I saw your attitude change last night so hard... that's why

That was the kicker for me. Pev doesn't tell me everything, but he is incredibly predictable at times. No offense, My Liege.

Humpheria wrote:You see the thing is, I was considered, but I figured I would let Anhka show his colors, this is his first high office.

Im not sure how to take that...

Ankha wrote:Im not sure how to take that...

Take it well.

Hey you'll be a better AG then someone I know.

Albenia wrote:Take it well.

Hey you'll be a better AG then someone I know.

lol

Albenia wrote:Take it well.

Hey you'll be a better AG then someone I know.

Thanks.

Ankha wrote:Im not sure how to take that...

Just remember to be objective when interpreting the laws of this region.

Humpheria wrote:Just remember to be objective when interpreting the laws of this region.

Of course.

Humpheria wrote:Just remember to be objective when interpreting the laws of this region.

ya dont do what TTA did with that job lol

Humpheria wrote:Just remember to be objective when interpreting the laws of this region.

....Mumble.....

That was a mistake on my part.

The Amarican Empire wrote:ya dont do what TTA did with that job lol

Exactly!

I'm a prime example on how mot to be an AG

Can we all just agree to not feed trolls for future reference? The minute someone says "RLP tyranny" the conversation ends.

Lack There Of wrote:Can we all just agree to not feed trolls for future reference? The minute someone says "RLP tyranny" the conversation ends.

RLP tyranny

Damn, im such a rebel.

Secretly Miencraft trust. :P

Humpheria wrote:You see the thing is, I was considered, but I figured I would let Anhka show his colors, this is his first high office.

Ahh, gotcha. I figured the law student would be all over AG. haha.

ok from now on all must use RLP Tyranny in every sentence they use.

Muh Roads wrote:Ahh, gotcha. I figured the law student would be all over AG. haha.

He's right Anhka. I study law, I'm watching you.

Well look at that the RLP wants to silence this against them.

RLP is tyrannical.

RLP Tyranny doesnt exist. (I used it in a sentence)

The Amarican Empire wrote:ok from now on all must use RLP Tyranny in every sentence they use.

Or at least when you want to end a conversation. RLP tyranny.

Humpheria wrote:He's right Anhka. I study law, I'm watching you.

OK then. Im not scared now..

Btw, Are there any previous court records?

Yesterday, the Founder and I discussed whether to appoint [nation=short]Ankha[/nation] to the position of Attorney-General or a different candidate. We decided Ankha would be the right choice. He is inexperienced, but he is active and eager to learn about the law. Welcome aboard.

I'll also clarify to Ankha and all future candidates for the position: I am not looking for a yes-man as an Attorney-General. I am just looking for someone who can interpret the Constitution and execute the law.

Pevvania wrote:Yesterday, the Founder and I discussed whether to appoint [nation=short]Ankha[/nation] to the position of Attorney-General or a different candidate. We decided Ankha would be the right choice. He is inexperienced, but he is active and eager to learn about the law. Welcome aboard.

I'll also clarify to Ankha and all future candidates for the position: I am not looking for a yes-man as an Attorney-General. I am just looking for someone who can interpret the Constitution and execute the law.

I plan to do just so.

But, seriously Pev, please commission Minerva as the official representative to REATO.

Humpheria wrote:But, seriously Pev, please commission Minerva as the official representative to REATO.

Alright. I thought someone had already gone. I'll let him know.

I sent you a telegram, but I forgot that you could not receive any. Why is that? Did you break a rule?

Pevvania wrote:Alright. I thought someone had already gone. I'll let him know.

I sent you a telegram, but I forgot that you could not receive any. Why is that? Did you break a rule?

I receive, I just can't send. Technically, I guess. Anhka blocked me and I used RWN to continue to speak to him. He reported me and I have a two-week block.

Humpheria wrote:I receive, I just can't send. Technically, I guess.

Sounds like a personal problem. xP

Muh Roads wrote:Sounds like a personal problem. xP

.............................shut up

Muh Roads wrote:Sounds like a personal problem. xP

:P

Why the hell did this happen? Why did somebody not tell me that there was a dispute?

Pevvania wrote:Why the hell did this happen? Why did somebody not tell me that there was a dispute?

Because someone went straight to the mods.

Humpheria wrote:Because someone went straight to the mods.

After seriously considering this and then consulting both RWN and Mien, both of whom saw no other way to go about it.

Somebody should have telegrammed me. If there was indeed harassment going on then there's no excuse for it, but calling the mods on a member of your own region? That's really, really not cool.

Ankha wrote:After seriously considering this and then consulting both RWN and Mien, both of whom saw no other way to go about it.

Except going to the President. And Jack didn't tell you to call the mods, he told me he didn't.

Humpheria wrote:Except going to the President. And Jack didn't tell you to call the mods, he told me he didn't.

The president wasnt on. And Jack said there "was no other way".

Pevvania wrote:Somebody should have telegrammed me. If there was indeed harassment going on then there's no excuse for it, but calling the mods on a member of your own region? That's really, really not cool.

*looks around* I don't recall seeing anyone making excuses.

Ankha wrote:The president wasnt on. And Jack said there "was no other way".

Okay, so we'll leave the liar who is minus a friend out of this.

Humpheria wrote:Okay, so we'll leave the liar who is minus a friend out of this.

?

I had nothing to do with it.

Ankha wrote:?

Jack, the one who lied to his real life friend to get close to a guy behind a computer hundreds of miles away.

Humpheria wrote:Jack, the one who lied to his real life friend to get close to a guy behind a computer hundreds of miles away.

Wow. Thats harsh.

Ankha wrote:Wow. Thats harsh.

Yeah, kinda. But just.

True, I suppose.

Humpheria wrote:Jack, the one who lied to his real life friend to get close to a guy behind a computer hundreds of miles away.

Really? That's how your going to say it?

Albenia wrote:Really? That's how your going to say it?

you're* and yes, why wouldn't I?

Three questions

1. Whose Jack?

2. How'd he lie

3. Why was he trying to get close?

Albenia wrote:Three questions

1. Whose Jack?

2. How'd he lie

3. Why was he trying to get close?

1. RWN

2. He told me he didn't tell Anhka to call the mods

3. I have no idea why, probably political motivation.

And who was he getting close to?

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.