tack50 vs. Wulfric

[Former President tack50]

Greetings honorable Justices,

Today I am filing suit against the former self proclaimed chair of the Progressive Union Party Wulfric over his takeover of the party in April.

As you may know, Wulfric changed his affiliation to the Progressive Union Party on April 1st. At the time the PUP had no leadership structure after both the chair and vice-chair had left for  He then proceeded to, in order:

1: Open a new convention of the PUP
2: Name himself chair of the party
3: Repeal the party's by-laws, platform and symbols
4: The following day, resign as chair of the party, directly appointing Jaydon Brooks as Chair and Mondale_was_an_inside_job as Vice Chair

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=317064.0

However, the Progressive Union Party was already an existing and developed party with its own by-laws. And the actions Wulfric took directly contradict the bylaws of the party. Specifically, the petitioner would like to challenge actions 3 and 4.

First of all, here is the last version I was able to find of PUP's bylaws, as posted by then-chairman Pericles: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=281399.msg6399393#msg6399393

The repeal of the bylaws directly contradicts Article IX, Section 1 of the existing bylaws, where ammendments to the bylaws require a 48h wait, being seconded by another member of the party and a 2/3 majority. It is my position that the repeal of the bylaws was invalid and thus, that the earlier version of the bylaws as posted by Pericles are the current bylaws of the PUP.

Furthermore, Wulfric on his last action as self-proclaimed chair appointed 2 people as Chair and Vice Chair. Even if we are to assume that Wulfric was the legitimate chair of the party, elections for Chair and Vicechair require to follow a certain procedure specified in Article II of the bylaws; which was clearly not followed. It is my position that neither Jaydon Brooks, nor Mondale_was_an_inside_job are Chair or ViceChair of the Progressive Union Party; with instead being a power vacuum in the party.

Finally, I am not challenging Wulfric's self-appointment as Chair. At the time, the PUP did have a power vacuum; with the Chair and Vice Chair of the party both having left the party. So it is my position that at that time any PUP member (including Wulfric) could have appointed themselves as emergency Chair in order to revive the party, and that Wulfric's position as Chair was legal at the time.

However, I would personally like some clarification from the Court on whether this was true, and specifically on the circumstances under which parties can be revived.

I would also like to add that this is not an attack on Wulfric. On the contrary, I genuinely enjoyed his April fools' joke and do think that trying to give the party some sort of structure was a good idea. However, it does open the door for further problems with zombified parties, especially since their dissolution is hard to do. Under the current situation, anyone could take control of any inactive party.

I would personally like some clarification from the court on how parties with a vacuum in leadership can act and be revived.

Thank you Honorable Justices for hearing the case.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I believe my actions were fully legal. In short, the process for electing a Chair requires an outgoing Chair to be Present. If no outgoing Chair is Present (and none was), no election can begin. Therefore my self-appointment was the only recourse available. And since I was not "outgoing", I was under no obligation to even start an election for Chair, and so proceeded to do the duties of Chair for the duration of my time in the party. The court may not like this, but there is no recourse for them to prohibit it because the bylaws only call for an election in the event of the existence of an outgoing Chair.

With respect to my elimination of the bylaws to appoint new leadership in anticipation of my departure from the Party, I did not amend the bylaws. Instead I abolished them, and wrote a new bylaws that simply stated "TBD". To amend means to change an existing text. I did not change an existing text, I rid the party of the existing text and created a new text. Therefore I established total power to myself in a legal way, which I used to appoint the new leadership.

Therefore, I motion to dismiss the case.

In the event the case is taken, I will write additional prose.

[windjammer]

This has been seen.

[windjammer]

Writ of certiorari denied

[Former President tack50]

Writ of certiorari denied

Any explanation for this?

[Sestak]

Writ of certiorari denied

Any explanation for this?

Traditionally, the Supreme Court does not accompany denials of certiorari with any statement or reasoning.

[Dereich]

A very interesting decision, and I believe the correct one. This is the big problem with Tack50's filing:

Was the case justiciable? In other words, does the Court have the authority to enforce what the Plaintiff was seeking?

For a case to be justiciable there must be an adversarial element; both sides must have different arguments and be requesting differing outcomes. The issue also cannot be moot, or already resolved at the time of the controversy.

So what outcome is the Plaintiff seeking the court to enforce in this case? He expressly stated that he was NOT challenging Wulfric's self-appointment as chair, so there's nothing for the Court to rule on there. And while the Plaintiff disagreed with Wulfric's actions as chair and mentioned potential violations of bylaws, he never actually raised a prayer for relief based on those grounds. Instead, what he seeks seems to be an advisory opinion.

So is providing an advisory opinion within the power of the court? No.

The Constitution states that the Court's jurisdiction is as follows:

i. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and all official acts made under its authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which this Republic shall be a party; to controversies between two or more Regions, or between a Region and citizens of another Region; between citizens of different Regions; between citizens of the same Region claiming lands under grants of different Regions, and between a Region, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.

There must be a case or controversy for the Court to make a ruling. There is no room for advisory opinions within the case and controversy clause. If no outcome is requested, there is no case in law or equity. If the Plaintiff was seeking damages there might be a case in law. If he sought an injunction, there might be a case in equity. Currently there is neither and so the Court has nothing to rule on.

SCOTUS has been clear on the same issue with the US Case and Controversy clause. The classic case involves the plaintiff seeking SCOTUS's advice on the legality of legislation with no actual controversy beyond believing something was unconstitutional. That would be Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).

Perhaps the plaintiff was seeking a declaratory judgment. However, it is unclear whether that would be allowed under Atlasian law as they are based on statute. Plus, declaratory judgement tend to be narrowly focused to the individual action and not as broad as the Plaintiff in this case was seeking; IE such a judgment might apply to the narrow circumstances of the PUP but not to parties as a whole.

Whether or not the Court would have authority to enforce or change party by-laws at all is another interesting question, one I THINK the answer to is no, but I'm not sure without looking more into it. Either way, its an issue for another case.

[Mr. Reactionary]

A very interesting decision, and I believe the correct one. This is the big problem with Tack50's filing:

Was the case justiciable? In other words, does the Court have the authority to enforce what the Plaintiff was seeking?

For a case to be justiciable there must be an adversarial element; both sides must have different arguments and be requesting differing outcomes. The issue also cannot be moot, or already resolved at the time of the controversy.

So what outcome is the Plaintiff seeking the court to enforce in this case? He expressly stated that he was NOT challenging Wulfric's self-appointment as chair, so there's nothing for the Court to rule on there. And while the Plaintiff disagreed with Wulfric's actions as chair and mentioned potential violations of bylaws, he never actually raised a prayer for relief based on those grounds. Instead, what he seeks seems to be an advisory opinion.

So is providing an advisory opinion within the power of the court? No.

The Constitution states that the Court's jurisdiction is as follows:

i. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and all official acts made under its authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which this Republic shall be a party; to controversies between two or more Regions, or between a Region and citizens of another Region; between citizens of different Regions; between citizens of the same Region claiming lands under grants of different Regions, and between a Region, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.

There must be a case or controversy for the Court to make a ruling. There is no room for advisory opinions within the case and controversy clause. If no outcome is requested, there is no case in law or equity. If the Plaintiff was seeking damages there might be a case in law. If he sought an injunction, there might be a case in equity. Currently there is neither and so the Court has nothing to rule on.

SCOTUS has been clear on the same issue with the US Case and Controversy clause. The classic case involves the plaintiff seeking SCOTUS's advice on the legality of legislation with no actual controversy beyond believing something was unconstitutional. That would be Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).

Perhaps the plaintiff was seeking a declaratory judgment. However, it is unclear whether that would be allowed under Atlasian law as they are based on statute. Plus, declaratory judgement tend to be narrowly focused to the individual action and not as broad as the Plaintiff in this case was seeking; IE such a judgment might apply to the narrow circumstances of the PUP but not to parties as a whole.

Whether or not the Court would have authority to enforce or change party by-laws at all is another interesting question, one I THINK the answer to is no, but I'm not sure without looking more into it. Either way, its an issue for another case.

I agree with you 100%.

IIRC a few of the Supreme Court Justices do not recognize Lujan as valid and do not believe standing is constitutionally required. I recall a few cases since I joined where the issue of standing was dispensed with. Random petitioners who were not parties to the events being sued over were permitted to maintain their suit even though they had no injury and were seeking no remedy for themselves (or clients in the case of lawyers). It really functioned as nothing more than an advisory opinion as to the petitioner.

I was heartened to see one justice dismiss a case for lack  of standing recently.

[Former President tack50]

Well, this outcome was certainly disappointing, though I thank the justices for their time.

To answer some of Dereich's claims, I did make an adversarial claim. Specifically, had the case been heard and my claims found correct, 2 things would have been enforced by the court:

1: The PUP's old bylaws would have been restored. As of now, the bylaws just state "TBD".

2: Jaydon Brooks and Mondale_was_an_inside_job would have been dismissed as Chair and Vice-Chair of the PUP as their appointment would have been invalid.

I did ask for a merely advisory opinion or declaratory judgement on Wulfric's self-appointment as chair, as I am not sure whether that self-appointment was legal or not and said controversy would be moot as Wulfric has already left the party.

However, I did believe a proper ruling was justified on at least those 2 aspects.

To be honest, if the case was rejected, I imagined it would be rejected on pure standing grounds (even if those have been applied very inconsistently in Atlasia, as Mr. R suggested). After all, neither myself nor Wulfric are members of the PUP, though I'd argue that any Atlasian citizen is affected by that as they can simply switch parties and take control of the party through a barely justified coup inmediately if the current bylaws (which just state "TBD") stood.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I thank the court for agreeing to dismiss the case.

ALLHAILJAYDON
ALLHAILMONDALE

[Sestak]

Tack, imo, To sue this, the following would have needed to happen:

1. The bylaws actually go into effect or the appointed chairs actually take office.
2. A decision is actually made by those officals or according to those bylaws.
3. That decision is accepted by the SoFE or RG and formally incorporated into an official action by that cabinet member.

At that point, the recourse would be to sue the SoFE/RG for treating the decision as official, and you'd probably have to cite a law on how the SoFE/RG should approach bylaws etc. Not sure if such a statute is currently on the books.


(This post is made as a private citizen. None of this post should be considered to carry any authority from the Game Engine.)

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Tack, imo, To sue this, the following would have needed to happen:

1. The bylaws actually go into effect or the appointed chairs actually take office.
2. A decision is actually made by those officals or according to those bylaws.
3. That decision is accepted by the SoFE or RG and formally incorporated into an official action by that cabinet member.

At that point, the recourse would be to sue the SoFE/RG for treating the decision as official, and you'd probably have to cite a law on how the SoFE/RG should approach bylaws etc. Not sure if such a statute is currently on the books.


(This post is made as a private citizen. None of this post should be considered to carry any authority from the Game Engine.)

Interestingly, I've just noticed that Peebs did in fact treat MB's party-dissolving spree after the April elections as official, which might warrant a court case. MB joined a number of minor parties (e.g. the Hoxhaists) and absorbed their members into the Confederates. At least one of the individuals in these parties, Gone to Carolina aka SaltGiver, who was previously registered as a Hoxhaist and made no move to change his registration, was moved in the Census to the Confederate Party at MB's prompting.