Ernest v. Gabu III (or is it IV, I've lost count)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What the heck, let's have a nice lawsuit after all.

May it please the honorable Supreme Court of Atlasia.  I bring suit seeking the result of the election held the weekend of June 22 to 24 be amended.  Specificially, I seek that the vote of Defarge be declared invalid as he did not meet the activity requirement of 15 posts during the 56 days preceding the opening of the election booth required by Section 14 Clause 1 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act as amended by the Federal Activity Requirements Revision Act.  As an inspection of the his activity record will show, Defarge's last post before the opening of the booth was made at June 10, 2007, 05:00:44 pm and he made all of 5 posts in the 56 days April 26-June21, 2007 inclusive.

I therefore further ask this court that as a result of said invalid vote, the results for the Census and the election of the Northeast Senator be amended accordingly.

[Gabu]

Why did you wait until now to bring this up?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why did you wait until now to bring this up?

Because I didn't notice this until I was checking the activity levels of the voters in the runoff after the runoff was certified.  (Indeed, I only checked the activity levels of the runoff voters.) By the way, Defarge does have enough activity for the runoff election, so if this suit should be tossed out for some reason, it doesn't affect the runoff directly.

[Emsworth]

The election was certified on June 25 at 3:55:23 am (see here). According to the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act, Section 13, suits must be fild within one week of election certification. It appears, unfortunately, that this suit met the deadline by a little less than two hours.

[Sam Spade]

This lawsuit looks like it will succeed, personally.  Especially as it meets the statute of limitations.

Somehow, I missed what Ernest points out - probably b/c of the flurry of posting by Defarge on the 22nd that I somehow didn't realize was not valid towards his vote.

[True Democrat]

So basically that entire runoff was useless. . .

[The Dowager Mod]

We have decided to hear this case.

[Gabu]

The Department of Forum Affairs finds no real flaw in what Ernest has to say, and thus has no defense to offer.

[TomC]

Two of us are in agreement on an opinion; I'll wait a little for the third Justice to weigh in. For the sake of recordkeeping, this is really just Ernest v Gabu II, right?

[ilikeverin]

The Department of Forum Affairs finds no real flaw in what Ernest has to say, and thus has no defense to offer.

I still find it really strange that not a single person decided to sue me during my two certifications despite the fact that I bungled them more horribly than anything like this

[Emsworth]

Two of us are in agreement on an opinion; I'll wait a little for the third Justice to weigh in. For the sake of recordkeeping, this is really just Ernest v Gabu II, right?

It should be "Ernest v. Department of Forum Affairs," like the other election-related cases.

[Sam Spade]

The Department of Forum Affairs finds no real flaw in what Ernest has to say, and thus has no defense to offer.

I still find it really strange that not a single person decided to sue me during my two certifications despite the fact that I bungled them more horribly than anything like this

Maybe it's because you're so likeable.

Or maybe I was out to lunch. (although I did try to impeach you)

[Sensei]

The Department of Forum Affairs finds no real flaw in what Ernest has to say, and thus has no defense to offer.

I still find it really strange that not a single person decided to sue me during my two certifications despite the fact that I bungled them more horribly than anything like this

Well, there's still Cormorantgate going for you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Two of us are in agreement on an opinion; I'll wait a little for the third Justice to weigh in. For the sake of recordkeeping, this is really just Ernest v Gabu II, right?

It should be "Ernest v. Department of Forum Affairs," like the other election-related cases.

I thought the usual form for these sorts of cases is to use the name of the officer in charge of the department as defendant.

[Emsworth]

Two of us are in agreement on an opinion; I'll wait a little for the third Justice to weigh in. For the sake of recordkeeping, this is really just Ernest v Gabu II, right?

It should be "Ernest v. Department of Forum Affairs," like the other election-related cases.

I thought the usual form for these sorts of cases is to use the name of the officer in charge of the department as defendant.

In the United States, yes. In Atlasia, however, we've had Jfern v. DoFA, Independent Liberal Party v. DoFA, Peter Bell v. DoFA, and True Democrat v. DoFA. For the sake of consistency, at least, we should call this Ernest v. DoFA.

[TomC]

Two of us are in agreement on an opinion; I'll wait a little for the third Justice to weigh in. For the sake of recordkeeping, this is really just Ernest v Gabu II, right?

It should be "Ernest v. Department of Forum Affairs," like the other election-related cases.

I thought the usual form for these sorts of cases is to use the name of the officer in charge of the department as defendant.

In the United States, yes. In Atlasia, however, we've had Jfern v. DoFA, Independent Liberal Party v. DoFA, Peter Bell v. DoFA, and True Democrat v. DoFA. For the sake of consistency, at least, we should call this Ernest v. DoFA.

Well, early on cases dealing with the Department have "Fritz" listed instead of DoFA, but generally I agree- since the Department is empowered to certify elections.

[Defarge]

My apologies to the court and the players involved concerning this election.  Had I been aware of the true letter of the law, I would not have participated, sparing an entire run-off election.