Seatown v. Politics Junkie

[LastVoter]

The rapid turnover rate since the departure of former Governor Tyrion to the Senate has revealed some irregularities in the Pacific. Acting Governor and Speaker Politics Junkie has acted outside his responsibilities, as he signed the Bartolome Day Act and the Pacific Regional Parks Act as Governor after voting in the affirmative as a Councillor. Furthermore, acting in the capacity of Governor, Politics Junkie appointed DemPGH to the Pacific Council. Politics Junkie continues to serve as Governor, Speaker of the Pacific Council, Councillor, and Regional Secretary of the Wiki all at once, in blatant disregard of Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Third Atlasian Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Politics Junkie is indeed in violation of this clause, as we claim he is, then he must vacate all offices and we must undo all actions he has taken since the transgression occurred. He has been acting as Regional Secretary of the Wiki and Pacific Councillor since September 3, 2013. I motion that the court annul all Council votes made by citizen Politics Junkie after that date, and all edits to the wiki officially undone and declared devoid of merit by this court.

He claimed the Acting Governorship possibly illegally on November 2, 2013, in accordance with Tyrion's executive order. In doing so, he again violated Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Federal Constitution, as he continued to act in multiple positions. I also motion the Court that all his actions since illegally claiming the Governor's office and failing to vacate neither the Speakership nor a his position as Councillor be voided, including but not limited to signing the Bartolome Day Act and Pacific Regional Parks Act and appointing DemPGH to the 7th Pacific Council.

Former Governor Cincinnatus was elected, and the election was certified, by the Decider of All. Cincinnatus then promptly resigned. Politics Junkie then claimed the Acting Governor's position again, but the position was not his to claim, as he had already come in violation of Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Federal Constitution by that date. Since Xahar was the last legal speaker of the Pacific Council, he may appoint a replacement. Until then, the Speakership, and thereby the Governorship, are vacant.

I also motion the Court for a stay on the impending Special Election for Governor until this issue is resolved.

[PJ]

I have in no way violated the Regional Constitution or Federal Constitution. Neither has Tyrion, as there is no law restricting executive orders. I am not Governor, I am Acting Governor. If I am truly in violation of holding Councillor and Speaker simultaneously, why don't you sue Alfred F Jones, Scott, and Inks as well? I ask the court not to hear this case for the reasons I just outlined. If you do decide to hear this case, I will file a more extensive brief.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Just saying, but here in the Northeast (where our sperm counts are higher, even in our women) the Acting Governor doesn't do a Representative's job as well - I'm pretty sure Dr. Cynic wasn't allowed to vote on bills when he was AG.

[DemPGH]

I have in no way violated the Regional Constitution or Federal Constitution. Neither has Tyrion, as there is no law restricting executive orders. I am not Governor, I am Acting Governor. If I am truly in violation of holding Councillor and Speaker simultaneously, why don't you sue Alfred F Jones, Scott, and Inks as well? I ask the court not to hear this case for the reasons I just outlined. If you do decide to hear this case, I will file a more extensive brief.

And asking that every action taken be retroactively undone to include Wiki edits is completely unreasonable. If PJ is found to have violated this clause of the Constitution, he should give up the second office that put him in violation of this clause. I also doubt that acting as Speaker and Councillor puts one in violation of this clause because a person may be part of a legislative body and occupy a place in its hierarchy. This lawsuit is simply intended to cause further turmoil in the Pacific, as it is spelled out. I'll have further thoughts at a later time.

Edit: Okay, it's always been understood that a person can be Speaker and Councillor simultaneously, so there should not be a problem there. After that he became Acting Governor, which is entirely temporary, and should be permissible. The question is Wiki editor.

I think the legal system should take into consideration that the Pacific is trying to put itself together and that a lot of his positions are either hierarchical or temporary. The special election should be allowed to proceed.

[PJ]

About wiki editor: seatown, I spent 7 hours updating the wiki last weekend to account for the two-year gap in the Pacific Statute, and believe me when I say I have no intention of erasing it. Speaker, Acting Governor, and Regional Secretary of the Wiki are positions I never was required to swear in for, therefore they are not official offices. The only position I officially hold is Councillor.

[Bacon King]

THE LIBERAL COURT SHALL HEAR THE CASE OF SEATOWN V. POLITICS JUNKIE.

Preliminary Judgements (Decision BK0004/A/1-3

1. THE LIBERAL COURT SHALL HEAR THE CASE OF SEATOWN V. POLITICS JUNKIE.

2. The motion for a stay on the election is rejected as the outcome of this case upon it is irrelevant. The governor's office is vacant so there must be a special election, and Politics Junkie is a lawfully qualified candidate in that election and no outcome of this case could change that.

3. Politics Junkie's wiki edits are irrelevant to the issue here and shall not be considered. Any citizen with a wiki account can edit it, if they do it properly; an office such as Regional Wiki Secretary merely gives one the obligation to do so. Sure, if the laws in question are deemed invalid by this court, then they'll have to be expunged, but they were appropriately added to the wiki regardless of who did it.


These are the questions that the court shall consider:

• Is an Acting Governor of the Pacific permitted to be an incumbent Councillor and/or Council Speaker?
• Are Acting Governor of the Pacific, Speaker of the Pacific Council, and/or Regional Editor of the Wiki considered to be "offices of the Republic of Atlasia" per Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Federal Constitution?
• Should this court decide in favor of the plaintiff, what is the proper remedy? Should the defendant's term as Acting Governor be rendered invalid, or should he be retroactively deemed to have resigned from other offices upon assuming his current role as Acting Governor?

Please file briefs with all due haste!

[PJ]

My defense brief:

1/2. Regarding the first and second question, I will bring up something previously mentioned. Why is it controversial to simultaneously be Councillor and Speaker. This happens in four out of five regions and is perfectly accepted. Why is that? This is because of two reasons:

a. The regional constitution, more specifically, The Random Acronym Relating To Council Order, specifically states that the Speaker shall be a Councillor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause says that one of the Councillors duties shall also include that of the Speaker. As I have stated before, the Speaker is not an official position because the Speaker is not required to swear in. Rather, it is an extension of the duties of a specific councillor, as stated by the Speaker clause.

For the full text of RACO, go here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Random_Acronym_Relating_to_Council_Order

b. Article V, Section 1, Clause 1, states the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My opponent claims that Speaker, RSoW, and Acting Governor are all official offices that I have held illegally. But the flaw in his argument is in the very definition of office. Google definition 2A of office is the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The given example for this definition reads the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the context of this definition, taking office means swearing in to office, which is not required for Speaker, Acting Governor, or RSoW. Therefore, they are not official offices. RSoW cannot be an official office, because it is not written into any constitution. Speaker is an extension of councillor, as shown by  the RACO clause. If we also look at the Governorship Vacancy Amendment it shows the same situation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But what does acting mean? According to Google Definition #2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Acting Governor is not the same as Governor because swearing in is not required for it.

For more details:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Governorship_Vacancy_Amendment

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=webster's+definition+of+office&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=+definition+of+office&rls=en&safe=active

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=definition+of+acting&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Third_Constitution

3. If the court decides to side with my opponent, I ask that the proper solution is invalidating my term and holding revotes on the Regional Parks Act and the Bartelomé Day Act instead of removing me from office for the following reason:

 In the above link, Article V of the Constitution is shown, where it does not specify what should happen should this be violated. In the surprisingly similar case, Atlasia vs. Xahar, (which is not legally similar to this case because of its violation of RACO and the fact that Speaker is an extension of Councillor, an office Xahar did not hold) the Supreme Court did not remove Xahar as Senator, even though Xahar held Senator and Council Speaker. Xahar resigned as Speaker, and the Supreme Court decided that because of that, he would remain Senator. In 72 hours, I will either be Speaker or Governor, not both. So if the Court does decide to side with the plaintiff, I ask that they invalidate my time as Acting Governor, which was done in the Supreme Court case.

4. Two additional points I would like to bring up:

a.  Shouldn't this be a federal issue? Seatown has accused me of violating the federal constitution, not the regional constitution.

b. Why has the plaintiff decided to bring this up now of all times? He could have pointed this out when he voted yes on the Random Acronym Relating to Council Order. He could have pointed this out when he was a councillor during the Wiki Restoration Act's passage. He could have pointed this out when he was simultaneously councillor and Speaker. He could have brought this up any time in the last six months. Multiple opportunities were offered. Yet he didn't.

[President Tyrion]

I would be able to file a neutral brief depicting the timeline of events, to clarify the arguments of both Acting Governor Politics Junkie and Councillor Seatown. Would the Court accept such a brief?

[Napoleon]

I will file an amicus brief should the Justice choose to accept one.

[Bacon King]

I would be able to file a neutral brief depicting the timeline of events, to clarify the arguments of both Acting Governor Politics Junkie and Councillor Seatown. Would the Court accept such a brief?

Indeed!

I will file an amicus brief should the Justice choose to accept one.

NO

jk yes that'd be fine

[Bacon King]

4. Two additional points I would like to bring up:

a.  Shouldn't this be a federal issue? Seatown has accused me of violating the federal constitution, not the regional constitution.

Adherence to the Federal Constitution is an explicit requirement stated in the Regional Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, does have appellate jurisdiction regarding this subject matter, if it becomes necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know not why the plaintiff filed this complaint at the present time, but any speculation on the matter is irrelevant because the suit is legitimate.

I'd like to ask you to examine the questions I propose a bit more closely. Whether someone can hold the office of Speaker while serving as Councillor is not at question here and it's discussion is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, both word of law and established precedent allow for a Councillor to be Speaker. The question here is whether you can be Speaker and/or Councillor while also serving as Acting Governor and/or Regional Wiki Editor. You'll go a lot further in this court if you stick to answering the questions I've actually asked

[PJ]

4. Two additional points I would like to bring up:

a.  Shouldn't this be a federal issue? Seatown has accused me of violating the federal constitution, not the regional constitution.

Adherence to the Federal Constitution is an explicit requirement stated in the Regional Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, does have appellate jurisdiction regarding this subject matter, if it becomes necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know not why the plaintiff filed this complaint at the present time, but any speculation on the matter is irrelevant because the suit is legitimate.

I'd like to ask you to examine the questions I propose a bit more closely. Whether someone can hold the office of Speaker while serving as Councillor is not at question here and it's discussion is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, both word of law and established precedent allow for a Councillor to be Speaker. The question here is whether you can be Speaker and/or Councillor while also serving as Acting Governor and/or Regional Wiki Editor. You'll go a lot further in this court if you stick to answering the questions I've actually asked

Apologies, I misunderstood the question about Councillor and Speaker. I will edit my brief as soon as possible.

[President Tyrion]

Filing a brief: In the interest of clarification and bringing certain facts to light

Do note that I decided to make this brief non-neutral based on the facts.

The 5th Pacific Council was vacated before the Wiki Restoration Act was passed, and the court may want to note for the sake of hilarity that they actually technically forgot about the bill for two months. There is some confusion as to whether the Councillors were voting on the original version or the amended version, which is I assume of great interest to the court. The original version reads, posted on 6/2/2013:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The amended version, posted later on 6/2/13, reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume that the precedent is to accept the amended version, regardless of whether or not I or Speaker Xahar ever stated explicitly that the vote was on the amended version. Here is a link to the thread. The Wiki (which I will leave in its unedited form), meanwhile, states that the final version voted upon was actually the original, but I testify that, in my professional judgment, that was merely an error.

I now draw your attention to clause 3 of the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is rather clear that any Pacifican can be appointed. There is certainly some question as to whether or not that means that said clause ultimately defines the RSOW to not be an office. However, do note that the intention behind the bill was to allow an officeholder to legally simultaneously hold the original office and the RSOW position, even if the text does not make that explicit.

Technically, this specific RSOW holds the title electorally, as Politics Junkie was, in fact, elected to the position on 10/8/2013. However, this SHOULD NOT constitute the definition of RSOW of an office, as the recall itself was only allowed on the premise that the Regional Constitution allows the recall of any position, and the decision to allow the recall was my interpretation of the law. Thus, the recall election itself is not binding, nor do I believe it may be used as precedent.

Ultimately, the definition of RSOW as an "office" or not is entirely up to the interpretation of the Court, as there is little convincing evidence that it is NOT an office, and also little convincing evidence that it SHOULD be considered one.

If the Court does consider RSOW as a position, then I fear the Court must invalidate all of Politics Junkie's actions as Councillor and Acting Governor after September 3, 2013, when he was appointed. I urge the Court to rule in favor of the respondent on this matter, as it is a matter of great regional importance that Politics Junkie's actions be upheld as constitutional, lest 4 months of work fall into disarray.

Politics Junkie became Acting Governor as of 11/2/13, via Pacific Governor Executive Order #3.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the constitutional method to determine the "lawfully chosen successor."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simply, Politics Junkie's seizure of the Acting Governor position was entirely legal. Therefore, if we are to invalidate any of his actions, it must be his votes as Councillor, and not his actions as Acting Governor, as he legally took that position. Furthermore, that must only happen if and only if the Court determines it is a conflict of interest for Politics Junkie to have acted in both capacities. I do not believe the Court should strike down Politics Junkie's actions if they do not represent a conflict of interest, regardless of dual office holding, if we must call it that, as the intention of that phrase in the constitution is surely to prevent unilateral governmental powers, which I posit Politics Junkie has not used.

Also, I move that the Court uphold DemPGH's appointment to the Council, under the notion that Politics Junkie's actions as Acting Governor are not under question.

The next detail we must tackle is whether or not it is legal for someone to be both Acting Governor and Speaker, but this is only relevant if the Court determines that Politics Junkie may not serve as Councillor and Acting Governor at the same time. If the Court rules that he may hold both titles, then he may also hold Speaker, as Speaker is an extension of a Council position, which he would legally hold. If the Court rules that Politics Junkie is not a Councillor, then there is still no constitutional basis on which to state that he may not also concurrently serve as Speaker. Indeed, Xahar served as Speaker and At-Large Senator concurrently, and that matter of the case was never handled at the federal level.

That concludes my brief. I am open for questions and or desire for clarification. I may also file more information if the Court desires.

[Bacon King]

QUESTIONS FROM THE BENCH

a. The regional constitution, more specifically, The Random Acronym Relating To Council Order, specifically states that the Speaker shall be a Councillor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause says that one of the Councillors duties shall also include that of the Speaker.

Do you believe this clause should be interpreted to prohibit the Council from selecting someone who is not a Councillor as its Speaker? If so, what makes this office distinct from offices like the IRL Speaker of the US House which can hypothetically be someone besides a Congressman?

Also, should the "sole official of the Pacific Council" not be considered an "office of the Republic of Atlasia"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the sole standard by which the status of "office" from Article V should be defined?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But what does acting mean? According to Google Definition #2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Can one be "installed" into an office without being considered to then hold said office?

[DemPGH]

Brief of DemPGH, Atty. At Law

1) Councillor has every earmark of a position: it is elected, it has a term limit, it requires one to swear in, and it carries legislative responsibility.

2) We all agree that one may be a Councillor and Speaker, so this issue is rested.

3) Acting Governor, in my estimation, is not an "office" or a "position" because a person is only momentarily exercising the powers of the office while serving as Acting Governor. He or she is not installed in the position, only borrowing for a moment the powers of the office. Further, there is no stipulation in the Third Pacific Constitution that an Acting Governor must surrender other responsibilities, such as Councillor. So what we have here is a very real possibility: that one could be a Councillor, could be Speaker, and could be elevated to Acting Gov. It is legal.

4) Speaker is a rather odd entity, and I think is dependent upon context because it is part of the organizational structure of the legislative body of the Pacific. So it is and it is not a position. If one is serving as Councillor it is not considered a second position to serve as Speaker, as we all agree upon. But I think that because it is part of the organizational structure of the Council, if one comes in from the outside (President, Senate, etc.), then it has to be construed as a second position - because it is part of a[nother] legislative hierarchy.

Finally, in the event that the honorable magistrate agrees with the plaintiff, I think this portion from Tyrion's brief is one I completely agree with:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to note, though, that I am very dubious about retroactively striking down votes and actions, most especially since there is some vagueness to the matter at hand. If Politics Junkie has violated the multiple positions clause of the Constitution, I ask the Court to invalidate his status as Councillor from this time forward. This would be congruent with the law and would be least disruptive to the region.

[PJ]

4. Two additional points I would like to bring up:

a.  Shouldn't this be a federal issue? Seatown has accused me of violating the federal constitution, not the regional constitution.

Adherence to the Federal Constitution is an explicit requirement stated in the Regional Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, does have appellate jurisdiction regarding this subject matter, if it becomes necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know not why the plaintiff filed this complaint at the present time, but any speculation on the matter is irrelevant because the suit is legitimate.

I'd like to ask you to examine the questions I propose a bit more closely. Whether someone can hold the office of Speaker while serving as Councillor is not at question here and it's discussion is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, both word of law and established precedent allow for a Councillor to be Speaker. The question here is whether you can be Speaker and/or Councillor while also serving as Acting Governor and/or Regional Wiki Editor. You'll go a lot further in this court if you stick to answering the questions I've actually asked

QUESTIONS FROM THE BENCH

a. The regional constitution, more specifically, The Random Acronym Relating To Council Order, specifically states that the Speaker shall be a Councillor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause says that one of the Councillors duties shall also include that of the Speaker.

Do you believe this clause should be interpreted to prohibit the Council from selecting someone who is not a Councillor as its Speaker? If so, what makes this office distinct from offices like the IRL Speaker of the US House which can hypothetically be someone besides a Congressman?

Also, should the "sole official of the Pacific Council" not be considered an "office of the Republic of Atlasia"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the sole standard by which the status of "office" from Article V should be defined?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But what does acting mean? According to Google Definition #2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can one be "installed" into an office without being considered to then hold said office?
[/quote]
In response to both of these questions:

1. Stated simply, yes. The clause reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The word of shows the relationship between Speaker and the Council:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The definition of the word of shows that Speaker is a part of the council. Therefore, someone not involved with the Pacific Council would not legally be qualified to be the Speaker.

2/3. These questions are similar so I will address them together:

The position of Speaker is not an official office because he/she is not required to swear in. As I brought up before, if this was on official office 4/5 regions would have been acting illegally for years now. But as you stated earlier:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I'm a little confused by this question. But I will address it nonetheless. The definition of office, as previously mentioned is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the given example reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does taking office mean in this context? Swearing in, which the Speaker is not required to do. Therefore, because of the legal system of Atlasia over its entire history and the definition of office, I come to the conclusion that Speaker is not an office, and I hope that the court feels the same.

3. Regarding your third question, that would be assuming that Acting Governor is also an office. Based on the previous evidence offered, I conclude that Acting Governor is in the same boat as Speaker. That is, not an official office. when I was "installed as Acting Governor" I did not hold office. As the definition of acting suggests:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Acting Governor, I did not hold the office of Governor. As an extension of my duties as Speaker and therefore an extension of my duties as Councillor, I was legally, temporarily doing the duties of Governor.

[Bacon King]

Still waiting on Napoleon's brief and anything else seatown has to say. I'll give 24 hours.

[Bacon King]

so yeah, nothing?

[PJ]

so yeah, nothing?

Lol, I guess.

[PJ]

Bump

[Bacon King]

Sorry for the delay, real life and such; training for a promotion at work plus pre Black Friday stuff so long hours into the evening every day. Opinion to come shortly.

[Bacon King]

THE LIBERAL JUSTICE OF THE PACIFIC COURT HAS REACHED A VERDICT IN THE CASE OF SEATOWN V. POLITICS JUNKIE (Decision BK0004)

1. The Speakership of the Pacific Council is not an office of the regional government under the Dual Office Clause of the Federal Constitution. It is an internal legislative office that can be held by anyone meeting the requirements established by the Council through its bylaws. Therefore there is no conflict between holding the Speakership and any other office.

2. The Regional Wiki Secretaryship is not an office of the regional government under the Dual Office Clause of the Federal Constitution. Anyone can edit the Wiki, so it's basically just a title that can be given to an active volunteer. This arrangement is clear with the third clause of the Wiki Restoration Act. Therefore there is no conflict between holding the Regional Wiki Secretaryship and any other office.

2.a. The Wiki Restoration Act can be deemed to have passed with its third clause intact because in the Council's debate, the last time a Pacific official quoted the text it included the third clause, and no statement was ever made to the contrary when it was reintroduced. These inferences make it clear that the intent was to pass the Wiki Restoration Act as amended, rather than the original version.

3. The nature of the Acting Governorship, is less clear than the defendant's other offices. The Vacancy Amendment's use of the phrase "installed" and Executive Order 3's phrase "yield the governorship" seem to imply a degree of permanence that suggests that it should be that official's only role. However, a rough comparison can be made with the Federal Government's own organization: the Vice President can serve as Acting President in a temporary capacity even when he's running the day to day operations in the Senate. I did that once when both the President and PPT were away. Given that the Acting Governor is only intended to serve in that capacity for a short period of time, I find it to be an extension of the Speaker's powers to serve as Acting Governor, just like the Vice President can serve as Acting President, rather than a new official role unto itself.  Therefore there is no conflict between serving as Acting Governor and holding office as Councillor.

4. The legal chicanery of the "unpersonified legal entity" serving as Governor for three days is questionable at best. The Governor of the Pacific must be a registered Pacific voter, and there is no evidence that any "unpersonified legal entity" was on the voting rolls at the time, or even that it could legally be a voter in the first place. However, the Third Pacific Constitution states, "The Governor has the privilege of creating Executive Orders, which powers will be defined by statute". The only law relating to Executive Orders thus far is the Women's Rights Amendment, which prohibits the Governor from limiting abortion rights. Since there are no other statutory limitations on the Governor's authority in existence, Governor Tyrion's implicit temporary revocation of a portion of the Regional Constitution was therefore perfectly legitimate.

5. There is no indication in statute or precedent that the Acting Governor lacks any authority or responsibility that is normally held by the Governor. Therefore there is no reason to retroactively prohibit any actions undertaken by Politics Junkie in such capacity.

THEREFORE, the defendant did not violate the Federal Constitution's prohibition against dual office holding, and the actions he took during that time period were constitutional.

BE IT RESOLVED,

BACON KINGMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
PACIFIC JUSTICE OF THE LIBERAL COURT
THE DECIDER OF ALL

[DemPGH]

I'm very appreciative of the magistrate's time, reasons given, and subsequent ruling. I was a little concerned about combining a couple of these posts, but I did think it would be permissible to momentarily borrow the powers for a short time as Acting Gov. does while serving as Councillor. It is worth noting that some of this was done out of necessity as well - plus we have two completely,100% inactive councillors, and PJ has stepped aside from some of these responsibilities. Nonetheless, the ruling helps us keep the ball moving here in the Pacific, and I am grateful for the ruling.