Wolfentoad Memorial Liberal Courthouse, Pacific Justice Bacon King Presiding

[Bacon King]

IN RE IN RE OPERATION SAVE THE PACIFIC (BK0008)

1. By the unanimous agreement of the Pacific Council the State of Emergency and all Emergency Powers stated in ruling BK0007 are acknowledged to have ended.
2. This ruling should not be construed to invalidate any prior actions related to Section 5 or 6 of that ruling, but merely a statement of fact that the prior ruling is no longer operative.
3. This ruling should not be construed to have any bearing on the existence or legality of any other state of emergency the Pacific may or may not be under currently and/or any that the Governor of the Pacific currently considers it to be under.

[DemPGH]

The federal government could request an injunction on the judicial matter pending review if this court would accept that. There's this matter and the recent matter in the Mideast where proper procedure was clearly not followed in the appointment of a Senator, but it depends upon whether the federal government's concern is valid or not, and I don't see why it wouldn't be, but it is the justice's call.

[Simfan34]

I completely fail to see the Federal Government's interest in the matter. Anyway, the law has been suspended.

[DemPGH]

I'm a concerned Pacifican. I'll file if necessary.

[Simfan34]

Fair enough. I would not object, actually.

[Bacon King]

The federal government could request an injunction on the judicial matter pending review if this court would accept that. There's this matter and the recent matter in the Mideast where proper procedure was clearly not followed in the appointment of a Senator, but it depends upon whether the federal government's concern is valid or not, and I don't see why it wouldn't be, but it is the justice's call.

Which matter are you referring to? If it's the "Operation Save the Pacific" stuff I'm fairly certain that my acknowledgement of the council's action is an entirely moot point; I distinctly recall Oakvale ending the state of emergency under the terms of sections 5/6 of the original decision but I'm unable to locate whichever thread it was buried in.

Nevertheless I welcome any legal challenges or queries on any topic, if you affirm your desire for the commencement of a formal case and specify the subject(s) that will be under scrutiny, I'll gladly commence the proceedings posthaste

[DemPGH]

The federal government could request an injunction on the judicial matter pending review if this court would accept that. There's this matter and the recent matter in the Mideast where proper procedure was clearly not followed in the appointment of a Senator, but it depends upon whether the federal government's concern is valid or not, and I don't see why it wouldn't be, but it is the justice's call.

Which matter are you referring to? If it's the "Operation Save the Pacific" stuff I'm fairly certain that my acknowledgement of the council's action is an entirely moot point; I distinctly recall Oakvale ending the state of emergency under the terms of sections 5/6 of the original decision but I'm unable to locate whichever thread it was buried in.

Nevertheless I welcome any legal challenges or queries on any topic, if you affirm your desire for the commencement of a formal case and specify the subject(s) that will be under scrutiny, I'll gladly commence the proceedings posthaste

I was referring to the judicial matter. IMO, it should be done as an amendment - so if I choose to file, I'll do so in the next 24 hrs. or so. Thank you for calling attention to the issue, your honor!

(I will make a point to read the regional page more closely more often).

[Oakvale]

Morning, comrades. Mr. Justice, I have the posts to which you're referring. The state of emergency indeed was ended all the way back in January, after a little over two weeks, by executive order of the then-president.

Mr. President,

Since the Pacific stimulus bill has passed, as Pacific Special Project Manager I'm humbly requesting you issue an executive order declaring an end to the State of Emergency declared on January 9th, 2014.

6. The State of Emergency shall be ended only by: Senate resolution, Federal executive order, judicial order, or a unanimous act of the Pacific Council signed by the Pacific Governor.

This will continue the Pacific's (often rocky) path to recovery and a return to normality in the region, and aid my transition into the oversight and advisory role as outlined in the stimulus legislation.

Oh yes.

Executive order  #691:

I declare an end to the state of emergency in the pacific region. Please proceed as you normally would. Good luck.

[Bacon King]

IN RE EXECUTIVE ORDERS 10-05, 10-06, 10-07 (BK0009)

This case is to determine the legality and constitutionality of three executive orders recently issued by Governor Simfan.


10-05

Executive Order 10-05

A curfew is imposed from 11:30pm to 4:30am, local time, for all but essential personnel. People are advised to stay in their homes until 4:30am Saturday morning, 10/4.

Organised or politcally-motivated gatherings of 6 or more persons in public areas are prohibited until further notice.

Forcing people indoors before certain hours, and limiting gatherings in public areas? This is in blatant violation of the Pacific Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also violates the Federal Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10-06

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this sounds pretty unconstitutional to me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might be able to argue that this martial law was for a "public rebellion" or something something "public safety" but consider that those exceptions in the Pacific Constitution are still required to be consistent with the Law. "Law" includes the Federal Constitution that says it can only be done when Habeas Corpus has been lawfully suspended. The Federal Constitution also says that only the Senate has the authority to do so. Ergo, no martial law.

The Federal Constitution also says the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, meaning you can't be ordering Federal units around. Furthermore, it also says "Regional authorities shall be bound by the the federal Constitution and federal laws" which includes the laws related to the proper way to dismiss the Attorney General, so you can't do that with an executive order either.

Also you can't give me authority that the regional constitution doesn't already grant to me so that's just right out as well


10-07

Executive Order 10-07

All sporting, musical, social, and other large events with more than 100 spectators are hereby ordered postponed until further notice and the lifting of martial law. Martial law shall be lifted once the legal state of the government is clarified.

Nope, can't do that. As I clarified earlier you can't infringe on the freedom of assembly and you can't declare martial law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can not usurp the authority of the Commander in Chief from the President. Your action also contravenes the explicit powers of the Senate pertaining to the militia, armed forces, dealing with insurrection, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No if you can't have martial law in your own region there's no way you would be allowed to institute it in another region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no sitting SOIA so this is irrelevant


ALL THREE OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE HEREBY OVERTURNED IN FULL. Every single line is blatantly and explicitly unconstitutional for the reasons stated above. Effective immediately, these orders are not in effect. This ruling is temporary for the next twenty four (24) hours, during which time the Governor or any other party may object to this preliminary judgement.

IT IS DECIDED

-BK

[Simfan34]

I damn well object!

[Bacon King]

I damn well object!

Please make your case

[Simfan34]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-protests-020140816-story.html#page=1

I am just starting.

[GAworth]

I  thank the Justice for his wise judgement.

[Simfan34]

The Justice may deem this segment of Executive Order 10-11 my formal response:

Executive Order 10-11

[...]

The state of martial law is lifted as there exists no statute or constitutional provision, regional or federal, detailing such a state of law; the declaration did not affect any actual change in law enforcement or any other facet of governance. The general state of emergency (as provided for in the Patriation of the Pacific Recovery Act 2014) is maintained.

The provisions of this order, and prior orders dealing with the regulation of public gatherings, are in conformance with the principle that government may regulate the time, place, and manner of expression, as established through legal precedent (cf. Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, Ward v. Rock Against Racism).

The curfew is likewise maintained, as it is conforms with the established precedent of a compelling state interest, such as when a region has been ravaged by a natural disaster, or when its safety and welfare are otherwise threatened (as it is now), permitting their imposition (cf. Zemel v. Rusk).

The activation of units of the Pacific National Guard and the Pacific Defence Force, as part of the regional militia as opposed as a part of the Armed Forces, to maintain the public order, protect public utilities and infrastructure, and secure government offices and facilities, is well within the rights of the Governor as the commander-in chief of the regional National Guard and a state/regional defense force. As per the the Pacific Constitution, forces may be deployed during "public rebellion or in the interests of public safety", which applies to the present situation.

[Bacon King]

Ok. I think some of your restrictions are a little harsh but I'm going to allow this one. I don't particularly care to get into the nuances of American vs Atlasian jurisprudence. There's also the fact that there is no state of emergency from the "Patriation of the Pacific Recovery Act 2014" that is legally in existence but that's insubstantial to the rest of it.

Here's how let's do this k? Your new executive order more or less adhered to my previous case so I'm gonna go ahead and finalize that and not instigate legal action against the new one.

Verdict of BK0009 is hereby finalized

(note: my tacit acceptance of EO 10-11 here does not imply any binding legal decision nor does it preclude judicial acceptance of a public petition concerning the constitutionality of an executive order, pursuant to the Pacific Constitution)

[Bacon King]

I hereby resign from the office of Justice of the Pacific, effective immediately.