Windjammer vs Hifly

[Badger]

The Court was busy over the weekend, and logged on to Atlas to find this suit just now.

This matter may be delayed, or at least complicated, by the fact the Defendant is on Mod Review at the moment. The Court will seek to investigate this matter and issue a timeframe for arguments (or other preliminary order as needed) sometime tonight.

[Badger]

The Court had an attack of Real World last night, but is ready to issue a few preliminary rulings:

First, regardless of any other aspect of Plaintiff's suit, Governor TJ's veto of the Promotion of Marriage through Education Act renders that portion of the suit moot, and is accordingly dismissed. The balance of this matter will relate to the passage of the Mideast Right to Life Act.

Second, any postings in this case by any party must have PM'd notice sent to opposing counsel and the Court. Likewise any PM'd communications to the Court must cc the other party.

In any postings/briefs/arguments/motions/etc., citation of any legal authority must include a link to same the first time it is cited.

Finally, the Court will not make any ruling adverse to the Defense without adequate chance to respond once this whole mod review thing is settled.

The Court will pose the following questions to Plaintiff to begin:

1) Did the Assembly accede by silence to Hilfy's self-nomination and ratification? Should the Assembly's lack of activity negate Hilfy's unopposed volunteering? At what point was there objection in some form by the Assembly?

2) Even assuming this, how is negating the statute an appropriate remedy?

[Badger]

The Mideast Government believes that it, rather than Hifly is the appropriate party for the defense in this case as the law in question was signed and is enacted statute. Its defense falls logically on the government rather than upon Hifly as an individual.

The Mideast Government requests that if the Court is to consider striking statute on the basis of Hifly's allegedly invalid Speakership, the Plaintiff must file suit against the regional government rather than Hifly personally.

I thank the parties for their patience over the weekend. The Court will review Plaintiff's argument 2 posts above in more detail within the next day or two depending on real life time constraints.

Although this accordingly may be putting the cart before the horse depending on the Court's assessment of Plaintiff's claims, the Court is inclined to find whether the named party for the Defense is either Hifly individually in his challenged role as (then) Speaker, or the Region as a whole as suggested by Governor TJ, is not determinative regarding the issues raised. The Court is also therefore inclined to allow some liberality with the Defense choosing the role of responding.

Therefore, it is SO ORDERED that the current named Defendant Hifly advise whether he wishes to continue arguing/defending this matter himself, or wishes to accept the Governor's "motion"/offer to argue the matter (either himself or by such other counsel he may designate under the discretionary powers of his office) on behalf of the Region as a whole. The Court notes, however:

1) It expects an answer from Defendant Hifly, either within this thread and/or via PM to the Court and parties (for purposes of this ruling to include Governor TJ) within 48 hours of this post;

2) IF Hifly wishes to delegate arguing this matter to the Region, the Court further expects that the decision regarding who will argue for the Defense--i.e. Governor TJ or other counsel appointed by the Governor--to be announced by that point. The Court anticipates Hifly and the Governor will coordinate accordingly before notifying the Court and Plaintiff of their decision; and

3) If Plaintiff has any objection to the Court's tentative decision in this matter, notwithstanding the Court's inclination a change in the specific named Defendant doesn't affect the validity of Plaintiff's suit, it must be likewise posted within 48 hours of this post. Even if the Defense should announce it's decision before any timely objection is lodged, the Court will still consider and rule on any such objection by Plaintiff. (The Defense is free to respond to any such objection as it wishes). Likewise, if Plaintiff doesn't object to the proposed substitution of the named Defendant in this matter, the Court requests he state so at earliest convenience.

SO ORDERED:
X Justice Badger

[Badger]

The Court has considered the argument of Counsel as well as the PM'd request of Hifly to have this case argued by Gov. TJ. While mindful of Plaintiff's objection, the Court sees no material detriment on Plaintiff's claim by permitting the Region to be joined as a defendant (NOT, though, "substituting" Hifly as a named defendant).

Therefore it is SO ORDERED that the Mideast Region is joined as a Defendant to this cause, and that counsel of record for both Defendants is, until further notice, Gov. TJ. The court assumes Defense Counsel has paid his Bar dues in full; otherwise there's a jar at the end of the Court's bench marked 'Bourbon Fund'.

The Court will seek to review the merits of this case tonight, and would ask Defense Counsel to respond to respond to Plaintiff's argument by 8:00 PM EST tonight, or otherwise post notice of requesting more time which, if needed, the Court is inclined to grant.

Both parties are free to respond to the other's arguments and supplement their own. Freely until the Court renders a decision please note the Court may pose questions to either/both sides. If additional time is sought to respond (we all gotta sleep sometime) at any point in the argument, please note so and the Court will, again, likely grant it.

As always, please PM opposing counsel (now just TJ for the Defense) and Court whenever a post is made in the thread, and further note the Court's order to link Anny authority the first time it is cited by a party (if multiple posts are made citing the same authority, one link the first time cited is per missable, but repeatedly linking in each post will not be in any way frowned upon).

SO ORDERED
X Justice Badger

[Badger]

Gov. TJ hasn't been active on the Forum since last night, so the Court will sua sponte extend the time to respond until a reasonable period after he's returned from real life.

[Badger]

The Court asks Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's arguments; to-wit:

1) Hifly's self-selection of himself as Speaker, while "not ideal", doesn't violate and Mideast constitutional or statutory provision;

2) The Assembly, by its subsequent action (or inaction) gave de facto ratification of Hifly serving as Speaker;

3) The Assembly ultimately passed the Mideast Right to Life Act by a majority vote which was subsequently signed by the Governor, so the appropriate remedy would be for the Assembly to hold Hifly in contempt, not vacation of the Act itself.

[Badger]

Governor TJ, Chief Justice Badger,

1) It violates the constitution.  Article III Section 1, Clause 3: "The Assembly shall have the power to choose its own officers, including a Speaker, and judge the qualifications of its members." They chose DC Al Fine as their speaker, Hifly's self nomination is basically a violation of the right of the Assembly to choose their own Speaker because he wasn't chosen by the Assembly. So, Hifly's self-selection of himself as Speaker, I believe, violates the Mideast Constitution.

2) Chief Justice  Badger, I believe the Mideast Constitution is clear, the word "choose" is used. When someone chooses something, this is made "openly". If they wanted to choose Hifly as their own speaker, they have to say that openly.

3) Chief Justice Badger, the Speaker is an important figure in the Mideast. The Speaker is the second in line for the Governor's succession, and most notably, he has the FULL powers to make his own rules: the time allowed for debates, the time allowed for the vote,... This is an important office, that has a DIRECT influence on the laws. And hifly used basically this position to skip the debates and to quickly pass this law before the end of this session. This law would have probably been different if an another person more respectful of debates would have allowed more time for debates for this bill. The Speakership is an important office which is shown by the abuses made by Hifly as speaker: allowing only 24 hours for debates, allowing only a 24 hour vote,... That's why I believe that if the "nomination" of the speaker is illegal, everything that has been made by this person should be illegal as well, because the Speaker has a big influence on the debates, bills currently debated in the Mideast Assembly.

Best regards,
Windjammer

Regarding this last point, Counsel, doesn't the lack of objection by other Assembly members--including Franzl whom, the Court will take judicial notice of the fact he was on record as adamantly opposing this Act--of Hifly assuming Speakership or allegedly rushing votes speak volumes? If the legislature ultimately ratified the Act by majority vote without objection to Hifly's role or pacing debate, wasn't this fundamentally an act of legislative democracy that, at worse, was somewhat clumsy and rushed, but not per se illegal? What authority do you rely on in your argument this crossed the line into the latter (illegality)?

[Badger]

The Defense would like to have 5 more hours to type a response to the Plaintiff's latter statements.

Granted.

[Badger]

The Court is ready to decide.

The closest thing to an objection to Hifly's running the Assembly as Speaker was as follows (including Defendant's response):

I understand that it may be desirable to get as much done before this session ends, but we've almost always had more than one day for debate on bills.

I understand, but in an Assembly with only 3 members and with predictable voting patterns it's usually not necessary to have long debate, especially as the session comes to a close.

The Court will reserve comment on the propriety or wisdom of even appearing to rush legislation through, regardless of how "predictable voting patterns" are believed to be.

That said, the exercise of legislative democracy in this case, as previously suggested by the Court, was at worst clumsy, but not illegal. The Court adopts as it's ruling Defendant's argument herein:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=199392.msg4328036#msg4328036

The Court rarely adopts a party's argument, en toto, but in this case the argument closely mirrors the Court's ultimate assessment of the facts and law, and frankly, I'm tired and want to go to bed.

The Court finds for the Defense. Nevertheless, I genuinely commend the parties on a well-argued case from both sides.

Court is ADJOURNED.

X Justice Badger