(Resolved) Scouting, Apepistan vs Serenarea, Zanland, Chivalry

1. Primary Plaintiff, United States of Scouting, resides as a member of the World Alliance Security Council.
   
2. Co-Plaintiff, The United Kingdoms of Apepistan, resides in the region of Arcadia, which is represented by the WASC Council Member, New Rhodinia.
   
3. Defendants reside as members of the World Alliance Security Council.
   
4. Defendants are seen to be in dereliction of duty during the timeframe of December 8th, 2014 - January 8th, 2015.
   
5. Dereliction of Duty is defined as: "the shameful failure to fulfill one's obligations."
   
6. Defendants listed have failed to carry out their duties that they've been appointed to carry out by Abstention or Abstention by default, or otherwise on proposed legislation or resolutions, in which we the plaintiffs consider Dereliction of Duty.
   
7. Defendants failed to act on proposed legislation in the amount that follows between the dates above: Chivalry (5), Serenarea (5), Zanland (6), DPRK (6), Articmainia (7)
   

Signed,


President of the United States of Scouting

Zanland wrote:The reason I haven't voted on the six cases was due to the lack of relevance to my nation. The cases have nothing to do with Zanland or her people. Normally when I don't vote it defaults to abstention, I didn't vote in the cases. From now on, I will officially state my choice to abstain if i so choose.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

The International Court of the World Alliance

The United States of Scouting,
The United Kingdoms of Apepistan

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY

vs.

The Empire of Articmainia,
The Federation of Serenarea,
The United Socialists States of Zanland,
The People's Republic of North Korreaa,
The Commonwealth of The Republic of Chivalry,

Defendants

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|




Dated this 8th day of January, 2015


Plaintiffs complain against Defendants and allege:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1. Primary Plaintiff, United States of Scouting, resides as a member of the World Alliance Security Council.
   
2. Co-Plaintiff, The United Kingdoms of Apepistan, resides in the region of Arcadia, which is represented by the WASC Council Member, New Rhodinia.
   
3. Defendants reside as members of the World Alliance Security Council.
   
4. Defendants are seen to be in dereliction of duty during the timeframe of December 8th, 2014 - January 8th, 2015.
   
5. Dereliction of Duty is defined as: "the shameful failure to fulfill one's obligations."
   
6. Defendants listed have failed to carry out their duties that they've been appointed to carry out by Abstention or Abstention by default, or otherwise on proposed legislation or resolutions, in which we the plaintiffs consider Dereliction of Duty.
   
7. Defendants failed to act on proposed legislation in the amount that follows between the dates above: Chivalry (5), Serenarea (5), Zanland (6), DPRK (6), Articmainia (7)
   

The Harms of Failing to Vote, Dereliction of Duty

Failing to vote and to carry out duties as a WASC member has its costs. There is a requirement of 10 votes for a law or resolution to pass currently, out of 14 members. This means no more than 4 abstentions and nay vote can occur or the law/resolution isn't passed. With the amount of abstentions going around the entire WASC, it is extremely difficult to get something to pass. Granted of course, an abstention could have very well been a nay vote, but if it were a yea vote, some things that failed to pass may have passed with the abstentions votes.

On multiple of these proposed legislation, the combined defendants could have potentially made a difference in the passage.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We bring forth a Conflict of Interest against The Empire of Great Eurussia, whom is the President of the WASC. Due to the fact that the President appointed the members of the Security Council, we believe it is in everyone's best interest that the President is not involved in these proceedings. As The Grand Empire of Xolox is the Vice-President, we recommend that the Chain of Command is followed and have the Vice-President serve as the Judiciary Authority on this matter.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST II

We feel that as the primary plaintiff in this matter that we should NOT be allowed to vote on any end results.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST III

We feel that the defendants in this matter should NOT be allowed to vote as they're directly involved in the lawsuit, and thus is a conflict of interest.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IV

We feel that the President of the WASC should NOT be allowed to vote as the President has made the appointment of all WASC members, thus creating a conflict of interest.

Conclusion

We the plaintiffs see it only fit that each defendant be removed from his/her seat on the WASC and an adequate replacement be chosen, if there is no such replacement deemed worthy by the President of the WASC, we ask that the seat(s) remain empty until such time arises. To ensure proper representation in this matter, the co-plaintiff, The United Kingdoms of Apepistan represents the nations within the World Alliance to ensure that a 3rd party is involved to bring fairness to the matter and justice by the people.

Signed,


President of the United States of Scouting

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:The United States of Scouting Officially requests this case to be escalated, as it is apprx. 16 hours AFTER the timeframe for statements to be made. Furthermore, as DPRK's statement was lodged after the timeframe, we motion to dismiss their statement from the proceedings.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote: I recommend that these proceedings are held until a vote is taken on the compulsory request.

Serenarea wrote: I have voted on all the pending proposals that are still in vote by the time I get online and the ones I don't vote on may be a issue with my nations neutrality or its something my nation might not care for.

chivalry wrote:Okay, I am at a lost, I vote every time I get a notice in my box, if i don't get a notice, how am i suppose to vote on something, if i am not notified about something, I have a pretty voting record.

Zanland wrote:The reason I haven't voted on the six cases was due to the lack of relevance to my nation. The cases have nothing to do with Zanland or her people. Normally when I don't vote it defaults to abstention, I didn't vote in the cases. From now on, I will officially state my choice to abstain if i so choose.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:The quotes from the defendants statements below show the incompetence and clear misunderstanding of their duties within the WASC. These quotes alone nearly make the Plaintiffs' case.

While we are glad that you vote on proposals that are still in vote "by the time you get online", you represent your CONTINENT, not your COUNTRY. Granted it may be difficult to reach your constituents in time, you are still obligated to represent their opinions, or what you believe they would want.

Notice the phrase, "representing each of the continents of the WA"

"There shall also be thirteen (13) member states representing each of the continents of the WA also appointed by the President provided that they are not puppet states, on the WA Map, and active in both roleplaying matters and out-of-character matters which can also be removed by the WASC, for any grounds, at anytime and at will."

Empire of Russia wrote:Citing the failure of this resolution https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t700-dismissed-remove-serenarea-new-korea-chivalry-zanland-china-china. I see no more need for this case. So this case is hereby dismissed. This verdict can be contested at anytime.

I now ask that members of the SC vote on the verdict of this case. If it gets enough votes in favor it will be the official verdict.

Empire of Russia wrote:Objection noted.

Correct. The matters in this case are very important. And if a nation fails to execute their duties then i suggest proposing to remove them. I'd also suggest continuously sending telegrams notifying them of the proposal. Posting on the RMB about the proposal. Much of which is already done. The Security Council can not outright force a nation to vote. And no where in the Constitution does it say we can remove them without question. Perhaps there should be a law giving requirements for activity, and the proper punishment for not meeting these requirements. But as it stands at this moment there is not much more the court can do except threaten or ask for someones resignation. Both of which would have little effect. I recognize it makes sense that members should have to meet a requirement. But the court does not run on what makes sense we run on what is the law. To directly answer your question that bill is relevant because it pertains to the people of this case. There isn't a stronger law that can guide the court in these matters. But we can warn these members. If they aren't more active the security Council can remove them. And I see it as a legal obligation that they must remove them if they are not active.