If DeSantis wins

[Ag3ma]

I know about state rights and all that. It's not a state's right to take someone off the ballot because they think it's against the constitution, which needs to be figured out by a federal court.

That's not how the court system works, bud.

Cases are seen at the lowest level appropriate, and then get referred upwards by appeals as required. Who gets to be on a state ballot is under state jurisdiction, so it gets heard by a state court. And then if people aren't satisfied and successfully appeal, it goes up to a higher level state court, and then possibly on all the way to SCOTUS.

How is the constitutional not federal law?

Federal law conventionally means laws relating to federal statutes: what is passed by the federal legislature, or what is specifically assigned to federal courts by the Constitution. This case is state law applying to state statutes, therefore would not be heard by a federal court (unless it is appealed up). The Constitution of course oversees both federal and state law. Bear in mind that pretty much every single case in existence, state or federal, could in theory be appealed all the way to SCOTUS. But no-one uses this as an argument to say therefore state law is federal law.

Although fact fans might also note there was long a controversy about whether the Constitution applied to state law. The Bill Of Rights, for instance, was initially held to only apply to federal laws. This again was the cause of a major legal kerfuffle way back in the day, as the Constitution was gradually applied more and more over state law as well as federal.

And if states had the power to do such things with their own unique interpretations, then red states would remove democrats and blue states would remove republicans from the ballots, it would be a shit show.

They could try. I doubt it would pass legal challenge unless the US judicial system were comprehensively fucked, or of course unless the candidate had done something spectacularly shady. Like, for instance, inspired a mob to storm the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election result.

I didn't say that SCOTUS doesn't make up shit at times. I said there's no reason why they'd have to make up shit if they want Trump on the ballot. There's no reason to remove him from the ballot so they don't have to make up anything. You are all acting like because SCOTUS is conservative leaning, they will make up shit to keep Trump on the ballot. But they don't have to make up anything to have Trump on the ballot, it's pretty basic that someone alleged of doing something shouldn't be punished until convicted (regardless of what it is). Because if you start punishing people just alleged of doing something, then that leads down a path nobody wants to walk down.

This just isn't true, though. The point of civil law is that you can be found to have done all sorts of things without being convicted. For instance, Trump has had to pay a journalist millions of dollars for sexual assault, with no criminal conviction. OJ Simpson was found legally responsible for murdering his wife without a criminal conviction. Your parking and speeding tickets, no conviction involved - but you are most certainly punished. If you are found in a court to have broken the law, tough shit: the legal truth is that you broke the law and may be due any relevant legal punishments.

Even if we take impeachment, there is no standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", and so someone may be successfully impeached on a lower standard of evidence than a regular criminal court conviction requires, and they can't even appeal that to SCOTUS. Are you going to argue no-one can be punished after impeachment either?

Yes, they do have to make shit up. If everyone knew what the answer was, this would never have passed the initial court case because it would have all been sealed up nice and tight with a pretty pink bow, and a higher court would have refused an appeal on the grounds there was no reasonable basis to support one. If there's no known answer, they have to invent one. As per my previous post, I have outlined that SCOTUS could reasonably take a number of different positions, each of which I am sure they could justify at least half-way adequately. This basically means they're going to make shit up as it suits them. The reasoning to support their decision may indeed be very good. However, that's not the same as it being the only reasonable answer, or the best.

 

[tstorm823]

If you want to talk about evidence, then you should also provide evidence to demonstrate that the judge was biased - which is, after all, an extraordinarily serious and defamatory accusation. Otherwise, I think it would be better to respect their decision as supportable with respect to the arguments presented before them in court.

I would also note that the "cynicism" you continually demand we show those that oppose Trump is something you don't ask of Trump himself: remarkable given we have decades of evidence of repeated dishonesty and fraud.

I don't need evidence to suggest the judge has lungs, do I?

There is no person of even slight political knowledge in America without an opinion of January 6th. You don't need evidence to say a person is biased on that topic.

Your comment about not applying that to Trump doesn't even make sense. When would I be asking Trump to do anything on this forum?

 

[Silvanus]

I don't need evidence to suggest the judge has lungs, do I?

There is no person of even slight political knowledge in America without an opinion of January 6th. You don't need evidence to say a person is biased on that topic.

Do you think that no person of even slight political knowledge wouldn't allow their personal bias to override their professional duties? Because that's more like what you're saying about Sarah Wallace.

Of course, justices in the US are political appointees, so their judgements are already worth some side-eye whenever a politically hot question comes up.

 

[Ag3ma]

There is no person of even slight political knowledge in America without an opinion of January 6th. You don't need evidence to say a person is biased on that topic.

Sure. However, I suspect the average judge also has an opinion that equates to "It is my professional and ethical duty to dispassionately review the case and come to as accurate and fair a judgement as I can", which is going to bias them to making a balanced and reasonable judgement.

So, would you perhaps like to explain why their opinion on Jan 6th will necessarily take precedence over their professionalism, with supporting evidence?

Your comment about not applying that to Trump doesn't even make sense. When would I be asking Trump to do anything on this forum?

And that's just particularly obtuse.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It certainly shows that they're not just judging by appearance. Their knowledge of the person's actual traits matters more.



I understand the argument you're going for. But unfortunately, language requires mutual understanding. We cannot simply assume others know we're disregarding gender.



Lol ok. If I get mugged, I'll keep that in mind before going to the police. Why moan? I've got other options, like just making all the money back again!



You really don't understand your own country's legal framework, do you? Firstly, states have significant freedom to determine their own electoral rules. That too is guaranteed constitutionally. If the Supreme Court were to rule, they could easily rule that states may make their own determinations.

There are rationales available for the justices to do whatever they want. It doesn't depend on actual legal weight. It depends on what they personally want.

Or what the person NORMALLY looks like.

You can also assume people aren't misgendering as well. Chances are people are using sex because that's what the majority does.

If you can stop said thing from happening before it happens, they you shouldn't be complaining.

If that were the case, you'd have states not putting candidates on ballots for awhile now. We'll see what happens and I'd bet a ton of money that Trump will be on all ballots or no ballots. It's like you can't have states applying the age requirement differently for example. You can't have one state that says you have to be 35 at the election date and another state saying it's ok to be 34 at election date as long as you're 35 by inauguration.

That's not how the court system works, bud.

Cases are seen at the lowest level appropriate, and then get referred upwards by appeals as required. Who gets to be on a state ballot is under state jurisdiction, so it gets heard by a state court. And then if people aren't satisfied and successfully appeal, it goes up to a higher level state court, and then possibly on all the way to SCOTUS.



Federal law conventionally means laws relating to federal statutes: what is passed by the federal legislature, or what is specifically assigned to federal courts by the Constitution. This case is state law applying to state statutes, therefore would not be heard by a federal court (unless it is appealed up). The Constitution of course oversees both federal and state law. Bear in mind that pretty much every single case in existence, state or federal, could in theory be appealed all the way to SCOTUS. But no-one uses this as an argument to say therefore state law is federal law.

Although fact fans might also note there was long a controversy about whether the Constitution applied to state law. The Bill Of Rights, for instance, was initially held to only apply to federal laws. This again was the cause of a major legal kerfuffle way back in the day, as the Constitution was gradually applied more and more over state law as well as federal.



They could try. I doubt it would pass legal challenge unless the US judicial system were comprehensively fucked, or of course unless the candidate had done something spectacularly shady. Like, for instance, inspired a mob to storm the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election result.



This just isn't true, though. The point of civil law is that you can be found to have done all sorts of things without being convicted. For instance, Trump has had to pay a journalist millions of dollars for sexual assault, with no criminal conviction. OJ Simpson was found legally responsible for murdering his wife without a criminal conviction. Your parking and speeding tickets, no conviction involved - but you are most certainly punished. If you are found in a court to have broken the law, tough shit: the legal truth is that you broke the law and may be due any relevant legal punishments.

Even if we take impeachment, there is no standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", and so someone may be successfully impeached on a lower standard of evidence than a regular criminal court conviction requires, and they can't even appeal that to SCOTUS. Are you going to argue no-one can be punished after impeachment either?

Yes, they do have to make shit up. If everyone knew what the answer was, this would never have passed the initial court case because it would have all been sealed up nice and tight with a pretty pink bow, and a higher court would have refused an appeal on the grounds there was no reasonable basis to support one. If there's no known answer, they have to invent one. As per my previous post, I have outlined that SCOTUS could reasonably take a number of different positions, each of which I am sure they could justify at least half-way adequately. This basically means they're going to make shit up as it suits them. The reasoning to support their decision may indeed be very good. However, that's not the same as it being the only reasonable answer, or the best.

So you just need one state challenging Trump and insurrection. Another other state doing it is just for publicity's sake.

You can get punished monetarily for something in civil court but not other punishments. You can go to court over traffic tickets and win if the cop can't prove their case. Impeachment means like nothing and it does nothing besides being a headline basically.

Again, it's going to be a very basic ruling of you can't punish someone for doing something allegedly. You act like I don't know how court rulings work but I get them right all the time. It's like how everyone was like Kyle Rittenhouse is so going be convicted here and I'm like it's a real simple case and he did nothing that would lend himself to being convicted of any of the murders. And the discussion of that case here lasted here for how long when it was as simple a case could basically be.

 

[Silvanus]

Or what the person NORMALLY looks like.

ah yes, because clothing and makeup are some fundamental traits that can't change.

You can also assume people aren't misgendering as well. Chances are people are using sex because that's what the majority does.

Eh, I'll assume people are using identity-based terms of refer to identity.

If you can stop said thing from happening before it happens, they you shouldn't be complaining.

Can't complain about that mugging then. Could've taken a different route.

If that were the case, you'd have states not putting candidates on ballots for awhile now.

No, because its based on the insurrectionist clause, and Trump is the only Presidential candidate to have engaged in insurrection.

 

[Ag3ma]

So you just need one state challenging Trump and insurrection. Another other state doing it is just for publicity's sake.

Not necessarily. All the states have their own laws, so the cases must be processed through the individual state courts individually because different rules apply. Sure, in the end, they might all sum up to the same sort of end and be rolled into one for consideration by SCOTUS - but they also might not. A similar issue occurred with abortion. Multiple states challenged Roe v. Wade with similar legislation, and they all had to be dealt with separately until they got to SCOTUS, and if no-one attempted to push through new abortion legislation then it wouldn't happen.

Which also means that unless someone petitions to have Trump removed, it won't necessarily be done: it cannot be assumed all states would remove Trump just because one did (if SCOTUS agreed), or even that there may be something about a case in one state which could it to fail anyway - even for instance a technicality - which would allow Trump to stand.

You can get punished monetarily for something in civil court but not other punishments. You can go to court over traffic tickets and win if the cop can't prove their case. Impeachment means like nothing and it does nothing besides being a headline basically.

Impeachment is incredibly serious. If successful, Congress can literally remove a public servant from office, up to and including the President of the USA, in the middle of their term. No appeals, no second chances.

Civil courts have a range of options available to them, although financial penalties are the most common. They can also do things like decide custody, or take your kids off you, for instance. I suspect people can be committed to a mental hospital against their will without criminal law. Britney Spears basically had her freedom as an adult taken away and forced to perform for her father's financial wellbeing. In the UK, being declared bankrupt (again, civil law) can make someone ineligible as an MP.

Another point here is that being barred from being president is not part of the sentence for committing an insurrection, so it is not a direct punishment for that offence. They don't say "I sentence you to five years in prison and bar you from being president". The bar from being president is another law.

Again, it's going to be a very basic ruling of you can't punish someone for doing something allegedly. You act like I don't know how court rulings work but I get them right all the time.

Why do you do this? Why do you constantly feel the need to tell us about how you get everything right? I strongly advise you recognise that you don't earn respect by self-declaring your genius: in fact, usually just the opposite, it looks like you're covering something up. Self-declaring your genius after you've just demonstrated there's a load of stuff you don't know or understand just makes it look even worse.

You are confusing two things. Yes, you can predict what the outcome of a case will be, as can we all. I am treating you like you don't know how legal processes work because you are demonstrating that you do not know. (I'm not claiming I'm perfect, but I'm pretty sure I'm a lot closer.) The fact you don't appear to understand what federal law means does not prevent you from predicting what the judgement in a specific case will be, and being able to predict the outcome of an individual case does not mean you necessarily know what federal law is. But if you're getting at least something wrong, on a debate board someone's probably going to tell you.

For the record, I think a lot of people predicted that Rittenhouse would be acquitted. It's just an awful lot of them also hoped that he would be found guilty.

 

[tstorm823]

And that's just particularly obtuse.

No seriously, I have no idea what that comment of yours was supposed to mean.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you think that no person of even slight political knowledge wouldn't allow their personal bias to override their professional duties?

I think every other person of equivalent position

Do you think that no person of even slight political knowledge wouldn't allow their personal bias to override their professional duties?

Do you think that's the only way to be biased?

 

[Silvanus]

Do you think that's the only way to be biased?

Of course not. But it's the level of bias that you're insinuating of Judge Wallace. So yes, when you say that everyone's biased, you're right-- but it's worth pointing out that what you're alleging goes well beyond that.

 

[thebobmaster]

https://twitter.com/joshuaphilll/status/1750283104953188619?s=46&t=vdqjPx5weRH00Bv9wMU8Wg

Since the embed doesn't seem to be working, the Florida Senate just passed a bill that allows employers to schedule 16 and 17 year olds for over 30 hours a week and 8 hours a day on school nights. One senator was quoted as saying "We've been weakening our society" and need to have kids "start working full-time".

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

https://twitter.com/joshuaphilll/status/1750283104953188619?s=46&t=vdqjPx5weRH00Bv9wMU8Wg

Since the embed doesn't seem to be working, the Florida Senate just passed a bill that allows employers to schedule 16 and 17 year olds for over 30 hours a week and 8 hours a day on school nights. One senator was quoted as saying "We've been weakening our society" and need to have kids "start working full-time".

"We have to protect children from being exploited... by someone else."

 

[Ag3ma]

https://twitter.com/joshuaphilll/status/1750283104953188619?s=46&t=vdqjPx5weRH00Bv9wMU8Wg

Since the embed doesn't seem to be working, the Florida Senate just passed a bill that allows employers to schedule 16 and 17 year olds for over 30 hours a week and 8 hours a day on school nights. One senator was quoted as saying "We've been weakening our society" and need to have kids "start working full-time".

Just as well burnout isn't a thing, eh?

"We have to protect children from being exploited... by someone else."

"If we don't make our kids work, we'll have to let immigrants in to do the jobs that need doing."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Since the embed doesn't seem to be working, the Florida Senate just passed a bill that allows employers to schedule 16 and 17 year olds for over 30 hours a week and 8 hours a day on school nights. One senator was quoted as saying "We've been weakening our society" and need to have kids "start working full-time".

*But*...tiktok is way too dangerous for kids

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

*But*...tiktok is way too dangerous for kids

Gotta protect them from collaborating and organizing a strike.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

ah yes, because clothing and makeup are some fundamental traits that can't change.



Eh, I'll assume people are using identity-based terms of refer to identity.



Can't complain about that mugging then. Could've taken a different route.



No, because its based on the insurrectionist clause, and Trump is the only Presidential candidate to have engaged in insurrection.

Costumes are different than what people normally look like.

Whatever you assume doesn't mean people are misgendering. If someone is using pronouns based on sex, they literally can't be misgendering.

Bad faith argument.

Allegedly...

Not necessarily. All the states have their own laws, so the cases must be processed through the individual state courts individually because different rules apply. Sure, in the end, they might all sum up to the same sort of end and be rolled into one for consideration by SCOTUS - but they also might not. A similar issue occurred with abortion. Multiple states challenged Roe v. Wade with similar legislation, and they all had to be dealt with separately until they got to SCOTUS, and if no-one attempted to push through new abortion legislation then it wouldn't happen.

Which also means that unless someone petitions to have Trump removed, it won't necessarily be done: it cannot be assumed all states would remove Trump just because one did (if SCOTUS agreed), or even that there may be something about a case in one state which could it to fail anyway - even for instance a technicality - which would allow Trump to stand.



Impeachment is incredibly serious. If successful, Congress can literally remove a public servant from office, up to and including the President of the USA, in the middle of their term. No appeals, no second chances.

Civil courts have a range of options available to them, although financial penalties are the most common. They can also do things like decide custody, or take your kids off you, for instance. I suspect people can be committed to a mental hospital against their will without criminal law. Britney Spears basically had her freedom as an adult taken away and forced to perform for her father's financial wellbeing. In the UK, being declared bankrupt (again, civil law) can make someone ineligible as an MP.

Another point here is that being barred from being president is not part of the sentence for committing an insurrection, so it is not a direct punishment for that offence. They don't say "I sentence you to five years in prison and bar you from being president". The bar from being president is another law.



Why do you do this? Why do you constantly feel the need to tell us about how you get everything right? I strongly advise you recognise that you don't earn respect by self-declaring your genius: in fact, usually just the opposite, it looks like you're covering something up. Self-declaring your genius after you've just demonstrated there's a load of stuff you don't know or understand just makes it look even worse.

You are confusing two things. Yes, you can predict what the outcome of a case will be, as can we all. I am treating you like you don't know how legal processes work because you are demonstrating that you do not know. (I'm not claiming I'm perfect, but I'm pretty sure I'm a lot closer.) The fact you don't appear to understand what federal law means does not prevent you from predicting what the judgement in a specific case will be, and being able to predict the outcome of an individual case does not mean you necessarily know what federal law is. But if you're getting at least something wrong, on a debate board someone's probably going to tell you.

For the record, I think a lot of people predicted that Rittenhouse would be acquitted. It's just an awful lot of them also hoped that he would be found guilty.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, concluded that Trump didn't meet ballot qualifications under the insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution but a judge put that decision on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision on the similar case in Colorado.

Hence, you just need one state challenging a law and anything else is for publicity's sake.

Impeachment means like nothing. It's basically just being charged for something in a sense. When a president gets impeached, it literally doesn't do anything.

I've been on a jury in a criminal trial, I know how it goes and the instructions you get. There was literally no way Rittenhouse would've been charged for murder yet people kept acting like he was. And on this forum people were telling me I didn't know what I'm talking about. I also said the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional and guess how that ended up? The fact Biden backdoored it through OSHA meant it was pretty likely that it was unconstitutional. I know the insurrection law is federal and it will be decided by a federal court whether it applies to Trump (and Trump will be on the ballot in all states or no states). Also, the case for it applying to Trump is paper thin to begin with. What I have said here that is wrong?

 

[Silvanus]

Costumes are different than what people normally look like.

You don't say. Yet someone here is trying to argue that outward visual appearance should determine pronouns, and it's not me.

Whatever you assume doesn't mean people are misgendering. If someone is using pronouns based on sex, they literally can't be misgendering.

Similarly, if someone says a racist slur, it's not much of a defence if they insist that according to their personal definition, its not a slur and is perfectly polite. Language is based around mutual understanding.

Bad faith argument.

I'd say that "if a bad thing happens but it could maybe have been avoided, then noone can complain" is about the worst faith argument possible, so I'm not much inclined to treat it any better.

Allegedly...

And legally, by the judgement of the state Court.

 

[Ag3ma]

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, concluded that Trump didn't meet ballot qualifications under the insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution but a judge put that decision on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision on the similar case in Colorado.

Hence, you just need one state challenging a law and anything else is for publicity's sake.

No, you're not getting this.

Maine has a procedure, and Colorado has a procedure. They are legally obliged to go through their procedures. Someone has launched a challenge in their state and the system must respond to it according to procedure in order to meet its legal obligations. Citizens in Maine and Colorado and other states can launch campaigns to have Trump removed from the ballot with or without any co-ordination with citizens in other states. Every state is then obliged by law to deal with their state's individual case. This means procedures and cases occur in parallel in multiple states. Eventually, one or more of those cases may end up referred to a relevant authority (SCOTUS) that will then rule for all the states. But the states still have to run their procedures in parallel until they reach that point where the higher court ruling can be applied.

Impeachment means like nothing. It's basically just being charged for something in a sense. When a president gets impeached, it literally doesn't do anything.

You're just playing semantics to avoid the point here.

What I have said here that is wrong?

This is moving the goalposts. What you got wrong earlier has been addressed. I'm not interested in addressing a different set of claims, especially when it serves the purpose of dishonestly trying to pretend you weren't wrong earlier.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You don't say. Yet someone here is trying to argue that outward visual appearance should determine pronouns, and it's not me.



Similarly, if someone says a racist slur, it's not much of a defence if they insist that according to their personal definition, its not a slur and is perfectly polite. Language is based around mutual understanding.



I'd say that "if a bad thing happens but it could maybe have been avoided, then noone can complain" is about the worst faith argument possible, so I'm not much inclined to treat it any better.



And legally, by the judgement of the state Court.

I said that physical appearance does determine pronouns, I didn't say should (nor do I even care what should determine pronouns because they are fucking pronouns and hardly mean anything), I said that's how people determine pronouns because it's the simplest way.

Yeah, and the majority understanding of pronouns is sex-based.

You're arguing something that technically can be avoided (but not really) is the same thing as something that can be completely avoided. You can't avoid getting mugged the same as you can't avoid a deer running into your car, sure you can do things to mitigate those things from happening but it is mitigation and not 100%. You can technically say you could've took a different route and avoided both those things but that's only true in hindsight. Hence, bad faith argument.

State court is not federal court and can't apply federal law.

No, you're not getting this.

Maine has a procedure, and Colorado has a procedure. They are legally obliged to go through their procedures. Someone has launched a challenge in their state and the system must respond to it according to procedure in order to meet its legal obligations. Citizens in Maine and Colorado and other states can launch campaigns to have Trump removed from the ballot with or without any co-ordination with citizens in other states. Every state is then obliged by law to deal with their state's individual case. This means procedures and cases occur in parallel in multiple states. Eventually, one or more of those cases may end up referred to a relevant authority (SCOTUS) that will then rule for all the states. But the states still have to run their procedures in parallel until they reach that point where the higher court ruling can be applied.



You're just playing semantics to avoid the point here.



This is moving the goalposts. What you got wrong earlier has been addressed. I'm not interested in addressing a different set of claims, especially when it serves the purpose of dishonestly trying to pretend you weren't wrong earlier.

I totally get "it". You're acting like they have some long-ass procedure to remove someone from the ballot. Literally 5 voters challenged Trump's qualification in Maine and the Secretary of State has the power to remove a candidate from the ballot. That's how simple it is. Again, in essence, just a publicity stunt. Even Colorado's challenge is effectively a stunt as well. That will move it through the courts and get a decision but it's obviously going to be reversed. Just like if some red state found a legal reason to remove Biden, that would be a publicity stunt too because that would be reversed as well and I would say the same thing. It's like the left doesn't even understand that doing this plays into Trump's narrative and only will make more want to vote for Trump. I'm fine with going after Trump if you have really good evidence for whatever you claim he did, but I'm so fucking tired of the left constantly crying wolf over Trump when there's not even a paw of a wolf let alone a whole wolf to be seen. When you lied so hardcore about Trump-Russia collusion, I'm not gonna believe much of what you say until you actually provide strong evidence or actually get a conviction.

So what happened to Clinton and Trump because they got impeached? Literally nothing. It just makes for a big headline. You said successful impeachment can remove a public official from office. No it can't. It's akin to getting charged with something, that doesn't do anything on its own. It's like saying successfully charging someone for murder can kill them (if they get the death penalty). It's the successful trial in a guilty verdict that does that, not the mere act of charging someone.

 

[Silvanus]

I said that physical appearance does determine pronouns, I didn't say should (nor do I even care what should determine pronouns because they are fucking pronouns and hardly mean anything), I said that's how people determine pronouns because it's the simplest way.

K, but you've also been arguing in favour of that approach for ages (while also providing a bizarre fictional example of how unreliable it is).

Yeah, and the majority understanding of pronouns is sex-based.

You keep insisting that.

You're arguing something that technically can be avoided (but not really) is the same thing as something that can be completely avoided. You can't avoid getting mugged the same as you can't avoid a deer running into your car, sure you can do things to mitigate those things from happening but it is mitigation and not 100%. You can technically say you could've took a different route and avoided both those things but that's only true in hindsight. Hence, bad faith argument.

This all just stinks of shifting the goalposts, frankly. You gave a standard, I provided an example of that standard falling through, so you just added more criteria.

State court is not federal court and can't apply federal law.

Absolute lol, you genuinely have no idea how your own country's legal framework works.