Joe Republic vs. DownWithTheLeft

[Keystone Phil]

I don't even know what Ebowed has apparently done wrong, because I haven't been following Senate business that closely.

But you follow it enough to go after DWTL? You know I admire you, Joe, but I have to point out that what you're doing is purely personal and inappropriate.

[Keystone Phil]

I also realize that you did something big to make this look legitimate on your part.

June 3, 2007  Approximately 12:23

Joe Republic
Independent
Ohio

Just eleven minutes later...

I wish to sue Senator DownWithTheLeft for a breach of the Atlasian Constitution.

For a short period of time on June 2nd 2007, the senator used a Tennessee avatar, and had no reference to his residence in New Jersey in his signature at the time.  Although I do not have any proof of this (e.g. a screenshot), I have at least one witness who can verify my claim, and an apparent confession from the senator himself.  If Senator DWTL denies my claim, I will be happy to call said witness and reproduce said confession.

This action is a direct breach of Article V, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a result of his action, as he will not have followed this rule for the entire duration of his term, it is my understanding that he has effectively forfeited his seat in the Senate.

Will the Court hear my case?

I'm pretty sure that all of this wasn't revealed to you within ten minutes of your re-registration. You had been researching this for quite awhile but realized that your case wouldn't be as legitimate if you didn't have some proof that you yourself were even active enough to make a case.

We all have our problems with DWTL's behavior here and elsewhere but I didn't expect personal problems that you had with him to boil over into Atlasia.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I also did not do any senate actions while possesing that avatar, I ask the court to see the case what it is, a personal vendetta, and not hear it

[Joe Republic]

I'm not sure what this recent line of questioning regarding my motives has to do with the charges against DWDL, or indeed with the case at all.  Unless you have a legitimate and relevant reason to be participating in this court case, Mr Vice President, I kindly ask you to keep your theories to yourself.

I will address Justice TCash's questions shortly.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not sure what this recent line of questioning regarding my motives has to do with the charges against DWDL, or indeed with the case at all.  Unless you have a legitimate and relevant reason to be participating in this court case, Mr Vice President, I kindly ask you to keep your theories to yourself.

I will address Justice TCash's questions shortly.

I just expected better from you, Joe, and not addressing my point leads me to believe that you know your reasons for bringing this up are inappropriate.

[MasterJedi]

While I agree that DWTL needs to be more civil the massive hypocrisy (in this case and the censure vote) to be really pathetic. Almost everyone has done this at some point but nobody has brought it up before, it's only because it's DWTL that it's happening.

[ilikeverin]

Well, it's about time Atlasia got a completely and utterly frivolous and ridiculous court case about some arcane regulation that got broken.

I SOO YOU, GABU< FOR HAVING IMPROPER STATE BY YOUR NAME>  YOU ARE FROM VICTORIA NOT CANADIAN COLUMBIA GOSH

[Joe Republic]

Thank you for taking the time to ask these questions, Justice TCash.

----------

Do I understand correctly that we are not being asked to remove DWTL, but that the plantiff believes DWTL is no longer a Senator?

Under my own interpretation of the relevant clause, Sen. DWTL will not have fulfilled the explicit requirement for the entire duration of his term, as stated, and thus it is my belief that with effect from the moment he changed to an I-TN avatar on June 2nd 2007, he effectively forfeited his Senate seat.

----------

Is there any evidence that can be provided, either public record or testimony of government officials that reinforces the belief that DWTL is no longer a Senator?

The following excerpt is taken from a post by one of the original framers of the current constitution:

If the Constitution is taken at face value and is applied strictly to the letter, then arguably by changing avatar without a note in his signature (if this indeed what happened), DWTL automatically expelled himself from the Senate (in effect, changing his avatar was an act of resignation).

----------

Have any votes taken place and been tallied since the incident?

The following bills contain votes on final passage that were cast on June 2nd itself, the date in question:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=56207.msg1204963#msg1204963
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=57507.msg1204887#msg1204887

He has also introduced a series of amendments to this bill, which is still in debate.  I understand if this in particular would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

If the Court does decide to hear my case, perhaps an injunction might be necessary to temporarily prevent him from participating further in Senate business until the matter is resolved.

----------

Not a perfect parallel, but how is this different from someone who has not yet taken the oath  and does not have Constitutional powers? Once the person does, he/she then assumes these powers.

That would initially be a similar contravention of a constitutional requirement, I believe.  However, while your example is one in which a senator may not take his/her seat until that singular, "one-off" requirement is fulfilled, this case involves a person who failed to comply with a requirement that remains continuously in place throughout the term in which the person retains a federal office.

----------

In other words, I see the validity of a claim that while the avatar did not meet Constitutional standards, DWTL did not have the powers of a Senator (again, were any votes made with an incorrect avatar?), but what validates the claim that he has permanently lost his Constitutional powers?

It is essentially the last eight words of the relevant clause that I am invoking: "for the entire duration of their holding office".  Whether an inappropriate avatar was used for, say, ten minutes, ten days, or even ten weeks, the fact is that the requirement would not have been met for the entire duration.

I cannot fully answer your question here, as it really boils down to how the clause is interpreted.  Essentially, my view is similar to that expressed by (but not necessarily espoused by) Peter Bell above.

[Peter]

Well, it's about time Atlasia got a completely and utterly frivolous and ridiculous court case about some arcane regulation that got broken.

I SOO YOU, GABU< FOR HAVING IMPROPER STATE BY YOUR NAME>  YOU ARE FROM VICTORIA NOT CANADIAN COLUMBIA GOSH

Interesting point. I've spotted a few other federal office holders. Collect the whole set and get a free garden gnome.

[PBrunsel]

This is balderdash. I realize that Senator DWTL can be a bit on the edgy side sometimes, but we all are at sometimes (with the exception of Gustaf). He can be rude as well, but as a young man he can change that. I myself was like him at one time, and those who were on the forum in April-May of 2004 can testify to that.

I fear President Republic is simply using this technicality as some tool against a Senator who has, in all honesty, been very active. I ask that the Supreme Court not accept this case and let the boy off with a warning. We make our mistakes, and this one did not affect anyone but the Senator. Perhaps Mr. Republic can use this as an issue in a run against the Senator for his seat when DWTL is up for reelection.

That is all I have to say, disect at your will.  

[Joe Republic]

not addressing my point leads me to believe that you know your reasons for bringing this up are inappropriate.

Almost everyone has done this at some point but nobody has brought it up before, it's only because it's DWTL that it's happening.

I fear President Republic is simply using this technicality as some tool against a Senator who has, in all honesty, been very active.

The questioning of a plaintiffs's motives by unrelated third parties is completely inappropriate behavior in the middle of a court case.

[Keystone Phil]

not addressing my point leads me to believe that you know your reasons for bringing this up are inappropriate.

Almost everyone has done this at some point but nobody has brought it up before, it's only because it's DWTL that it's happening.

I fear President Republic is simply using this technicality as some tool against a Senator who has, in all honesty, been very active.

The questioning of a plaintiffs's motives by unrelated third parties is completely inappropriate behavior in the middle of a court case.

I am happy to hear the case if another Justice agrees.

Where is the other Justice, Joe?

[Joe Republic]

I'm not sure what that question really has to do with anything, but as you can see I am of course waiting for a decision from Chief Justice TexasGurl and Associate Justice Opebo on whether they will hear the case.

If either or both decide not to, so be it.


Edit:  I think I now see what point you were making.  If I'm right, then please read the end of my previous post as; "at the beginning of a court case", or whichever phrasing is more suited.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not sure what that question really has to do with anything, but as you can see I am of course waiting for a decision from Chief Justice TexasGurl and Associate Justice Opebo on whether they will hear the case.

If either or both decide not to, so be it.

It has plenty to do with the subject at hand because you said...

The questioning of a plaintiffs's motives by unrelated third parties is completely inappropriate behavior in the middle of a court case.

...when, as of now, there is no court case. You even acknowledge that a case has not been recognized in your comments above.

[Joe Republic]

I see that now.  Please read my earlier edit.

Do you have any further questions that are relevant to the 'potential' case at hand?

[Keystone Phil]

Do you have any further questions that are relevant to the 'potential' case at hand?

No questions. I'll again ask you to admit that this is purely personal betwene you and DWTL and you will, again, ignore it. It is my hope that you not pursue this case.

[Joe Republic]

On the contrary, I'm not going to ignore your question, but I'm not going to answer it either as my response would obviously be entirely irrelevant to the charges that have been brought against Sen. DWTL.

[Sam Spade]

I might have more to post on this when I get home.  Presently, I see a question of law and a question of fact.

At the outset, I might note that the section is badly worded:  "To hold office" one "must retain an avatar...for the entire duration of their holding office" is inherently a very confusing phrase b/c of the potential for dual meanings of "hold office" within that same sentence.

Quite frankly, either Joe's interpretation or TCash's earlier musings or Migrendel's earlier ruling has the potential of being a valid interpretation.  I really wouldn't want to have to face this one. 

[Peter]

Please continue this back-and-forth in another thread if you absolutely must. At the very least, Joe is more likely to answer the question if its not in the case thread.

[The Dowager Mod]

The court has decided to hear the case.

It would be helpful if only the plaintiff, defendant and Justices were to post in this thread from now on.

[Joe Republic]

I thank the Court for allowing the case to proceed.

[MasterJedi]

And now the question is, will opebo show up without being told about this case?

[The Dowager Mod]

The court has decided to hear the case.

It would be helpful if only the plaintiff, defendant and Justices were to post in this thread from now on.

And i will quote myself already.

[bullmoose88]

Your honor(s),

Would the court be open to amicus curae briefs, should interested and relevant parties be willing to submit them?

Respectfully,
AG Bullmoose.

[The Dowager Mod]

Your honor(s),

Would the court be open to amicus curae briefs, should interested and relevant parties be willing to submit them?

Respectfully,
AG Bullmoose.

Of course.

I am also issuing an injunction at this point preventing any further actions by the senate against Sen DWTL effective until this case is resolved.