Lawsuit

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am suing the Secretary of Forum Affairs over the matter of counting Marokai Blue's ballot in the certification of the vote.

     I believe that since Marokai Blue voted in both the absentee voting booth & the regular voting booth, he invalidated his vote, pursuant to section 6, clause 4 & section 10, clause 3 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act.

     As such, I request that the court issue an order requiring that the ballot in question be discounted & that the election results be recertified accordingly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would enjoy letting the court know some information that PiT here conveniently leaves out. My vote does not appear in the Absentee booth.

I'd enjoy PiT providing us with a link showing my vote in the Absentee booth, because one doesn't exist. (You can see it in my profile posts, but it doesn't show up in the Absentee booth, so it could never be counted.) By the time I discovered that my vote had disappeared the Absentee booth had been closed. (So what was I supposed to do? Vote in a booth that had been closed? Don't be disingenuous, PiT)

Earl allowed me to vote again because it was either allow me to have my freakin' vote count, or disenfranchise me due to (proven) circumstances beyond my control. Earl chose to let a citizen have a vote, as I'm sure any sensible justice on this court would do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would enjoy letting the court know some information that PiT here conveniently leaves out. My vote does not appear in the Absentee booth.

I'd enjoy PiT providing us with a link showing my vote in the Absentee booth, because one doesn't exist. (You can see it in my profile posts, but it doesn't show up in the Absentee booth, so it could never be counted.) By the time I discovered that my vote had disappeared the Absentee booth had been closed. (So what was I supposed to do? Vote in a booth that had been closed? Don't be disingenuous, PiT)

Earl allowed me to vote again because it was either allow me to have my freakin' vote count, or disenfranchise me due to (proven) circumstances beyond my control. Earl chose to let a citizen have a vote, as I'm sure any sensible justice on this court would do.

     While a cursory view of the absentee voting booth does not provide evidence that you voted in there, you yourself admit that checking your profile posts prove that you voted in the absentee booth. Therefore, there would be no issue in you informing Earl of the issue & letting him know that you indeed had posted.

     Furthermore, you make the assumption that Earl has the ability to let you vote again. However, the law disagrees with you:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     The bolded terms indicate that it is the SoFA's duty to discount the vote of anyone who votes in both booths, regardless of the circumstances under which they do so. There is proof that you have voted in both booths (a fact that SoFA Earl was made aware of, furthermore), so I am filing suit on the grounds that Earl failed to follow through with his legal duty in this instance.

[Sam Spade]

We see the lawsuit.  We will post ASAP on whether we're taking it or not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

PiT, these are clearly exceptional circumstances, I didn't just vote in both booths for the hell of it, and I'm sure the court will make an exception here because of that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

PiT, these are clearly exceptional circumstances, I didn't just vote in both booths for the hell of it, and I'm sure the court will make an exception here because of that.

     The law as written does not suggest that an exception can be made. Discounting votes is never pleasant, but I would hope that government officials would not flaut the law when it becomes inconvenient.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I ask you, what would you have had me do? If my vote disappeared in the Absentee Booth (as it did) what would you have done? Given the chance to go back in time I would, in your carefully constructed argument, have the options of, in your words, "Break the law" or not have my vote counted at all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I ask you, what would you have had me do? If my vote disappeared in the Absentee Booth (as it did) what would you have done? Given the chance to go back in time I would, in your carefully constructed argument, have the options of, in your words, "Break the law" or not have my vote counted at all.

     Inform Earl (which you did anyway) & simply request that he count your vote anyway. After all, since you could prove that you had voted through viewing your profile posts, he would have no reason not to count it.

[Sam Spade]

I believe I have the OK from our Chief Justice to do this, if not or if there's anything he'd like to change, he should let me know. 

Because of the exigent circumstances and the July 4 weekend upcoming, periods to file will be shorter than in earlier cases.  If any one needs the period to be lengthened, please post so on this thread and we'll see what we can do.

No one has asked for an injunction against the SoFA's final certification and given the fact that CESRA Section 10, Clause 5 gives this court the ability to alter the final certification by court order, we see no reason to grant an injunction where none is asked for and none is needed to implement the court's final decision, should it involve an alteration of the final certification.

ON EVIDENCE

Since it appears like this case will probably have a lot to do with evidence (as well as the law, of course), the court will place a few gudelines about the introduction and preservation of the evidence:

1) CESRA is noticeably lacking in evidentiary protocol SO we will use the same evidentiary guidelines as found in Section 6 of the CCJA AND any appropriate guidelines made by this court in Atlasia v. BenConstine to the extent that they do not conflict with the CCJA.
2) The CCJA is noticeably lacking, as well, in procedures and punishments for tampering of evidence, but I want to put both parties on warning that, if any tampering of evidence occurs after this official release, this court may exercise discretion in creating federal common law for the punishment of such crimes.

That is all, folks. 

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case. 

Schedule
The plaintiff has until Tuesday to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Tuesday, July 1, 2009.

The defendant has an additional twenty-four hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Wednesday, July 2, 2009.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Wednesday, July 2, 2009, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.  However, the Court wishes to proceed as quickly as possible given the electoral implications of this matter.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

So ordered.

[Sam Spade]

I am also making this post to remind all citizens of Atlasia, lest they forget (i.e. putting them on notice):

REMINDER TO POTENTIAL LITIGANTS

All lawsuits concerning the election must be brought before June 30, 2009 @ 10:59:54 AM.  Any lawsuits after this will be barred through the Statute of Limitations in CESRA Section 13, Clause 1, regardless of the result of any present lawsuit before this Court.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So if no injunction is ordered, Lief would swear in as President on July 3rd & would serve until the verdict is rendered & it would become clear who would be President?

[Sam Spade]

    So if no injunction is ordered, Lief would swear in as President on July 3rd & would serve until the verdict is rendered & it would become clear who would be President?

It is certainly possible that we can get a decision out before July 3rd.

I would personally prefer that we wait for issuing injunctions until absolutely necessary, so if it's July 2 and we're not close, we'll make a decision on doing something then.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    So if no injunction is ordered, Lief would swear in as President on July 3rd & would serve until the verdict is rendered & it would become clear who would be President?

It is certainly possible that we can get a decision out before July 3rd.

I would personally prefer that we wait for issuing injunctions until absolutely necessary, so if it's July 2 and we're not close, we'll make a decision on doing something then.

     Understood, though I would not complain if the court did not issue its decision by July 3rd, on account of making sure that its decision is as comprehensive as possible.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marokai although we all feel for you and understand your point of view, as a wise senator here in Atlasia once said:

Well, voting twice is against the law.

It is, but I think we should PM him and ask why he voted twice.

Does it matter? He still voted twice.

Edit: I mean, yeah, I guess finding out why he did it would be nice, but is vote is still invalid regardless, the law being the law.

The law is the law, and voting twice is clearly against it.

[bgwah]

I would be willing to serve as President for another week if necessary.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marokai although we all feel for you and understand your point of view, as a wise senator here in Atlasia once said:

Well, voting twice is against the law.

It is, but I think we should PM him and ask why he voted twice.

Does it matter? He still voted twice.

Edit: I mean, yeah, I guess finding out why he did it would be nice, but is vote is still invalid regardless, the law being the law.

The law is the law, and voting twice is clearly against it.

Gustaf's defense was based on his word and his supposed ignorance of the law. My defense is a proven technical error and I had no choice but to vote elsewhere, or have my vote not count at all. Very different.

[Јas]

Out of interest, has the SoFA and the Attorney General been informed of these proceedings, or is this thread taken as notice?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marokai although we all feel for you and understand your point of view, as a wise senator here in Atlasia once said:

Well, voting twice is against the law.

It is, but I think we should PM him and ask why he voted twice.

Does it matter? He still voted twice.

Edit: I mean, yeah, I guess finding out why he did it would be nice, but is vote is still invalid regardless, the law being the law.

The law is the law, and voting twice is clearly against it.

Gustaf's defense was based on his word and his supposed ignorance of the law. My defense is a proven technical error and I had no choice but to vote elsewhere, or have my vote not count at all. Very different.

I believe PiT already told you what you should have done.

You may have more evidence that your vote did actually disappear, but your mistake is still the same as Gustaf's. If Gustaf had been able to prove that his first vote had disappeared, would you support his vote counting? The only actual difference between Gustaf's case and yours, is that you were told by the SoFA that it was ok for you to break the law. The SoFA however has no legal authority to authorize someone to vote twice. If you can show me a single passage from Atlasian law that suggested he has that authority I will of course change my mind.

 

[afleitch]

May I interupt and say that Marokai's 'two' ballots only appear if you search for posts he has made on the forum. It is only his 'second' vote that appears in any of the booths. The SoFA is obliged to count the votes cast, votes spoiled and invalid votes in the ballot booth/s (nowhere else) and only one cast ballot appears. Marokai's vote is therefore valid.

He could not have technically voted twice if only one ballot can clearly be seen in the voting booth.

[Sam Spade]

ssshhhh in the courtroom... 

[Sam Spade]

Out of interest, has the SoFA and the Attorney General been informed of these proceedings, or is this thread taken as notice?

I'd take this thread as notice, but I'll inform them too.

Of course, the AG may object to it on account of it being "work", but I have nothing to do with that. 

[Hatman 🍁]

I have been informed

[Keystone Phil]

I have been informed of this silliness. What does it mean?

[afleitch]

I would like to notify the court that I intend to submit as an amicus curiae a brief in favour of the SoFA and the certification of the election results.

[Purple State]

Could the court please explain what the filing of an amicus brief would entail, as I would like to file one in favor of this lawsuit.