1184AZ v Peebs

[Pragmatic Conservative]

 Greetings honourable justices

I am filing suit against RG Peebs alleging that she illegally removed the following four individuals from the voter rolls.  

New Tennessean Politician
Deregister

deregister

Recent developments over the past few days (weeks? months?) have shown that this game is, in its current form, almost completely devoid of anything I would consider to be fun or engaging.

kyc0705
Deregistered

maxwell
deregistered

no more pms please!

These individuals did not qulify for deregistration under section 14 of the electoral act as they did not miss more then three elections they were eligible for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As their is no statute allowing voluntary deregistration we can construed that the individuals do not have the ability to do so.

I am asking the court to order these individuals to be placed back on the voter roll and order an end to voluntary  deregistration.

Thanks
1184AZ

[Sirius_]

Mike Wells was deregistered by losing a duel.

[windjammer]

This has been seen

[windjammer]

(I'm posting it tomorrow morning)

[windjammer]

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether these 5 voters should have been deregistered or not.

Schedule

Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 4:00AM EDT on  Monday, August 20, 2018.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 4:00AM EDT on Thursday, August 23, 2018.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 4:00AM EDT on Friday, August 24, 2018.

Additional time may be granted to either party, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

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

[Pragmatic Conservative]

As I believe this is a fairly simple case I would like the court to consider my petition as my brief.  To reiterate as their are clear definitions on dereregistration in the federal elections act that do not include voluntary deregistration the RG is unable  to process voluntary deregistration.

[Blair]

Surely if we made this ruling, it would have to extent to every de-registration since the reset (as IIRC we had a law in place beforehand to allow de-registration, but older members may remember better than me)

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Surely if we made this ruling, it would have to extent to every de-registration since the reset (as IIRC we had a law in place beforehand to allow de-registration, but older members may remember better than me)

It would only effect the above four  individuals and any future deregistrants anyone else that was removed by the voter roll for Peebs after requesting deregistration missed voting in the the proceeding three elections and thus should here been removed from the voter roll then.

[Blair]

Surely if we made this ruling, it would have to extent to every de-registration since the reset (as IIRC we had a law in place beforehand to allow de-registration, but older members may remember better than me)

It would only effect the above four  individuals and any future deregistrants anyone else that was removed by the voter roll for Peebs after requesting deregistration missed voting in the the proceeding three elections and thus should here been removed from the voter roll then.

Forgive me for being dense (which I can blame on jet lag) but I can't see what's special about the 4 individuals. Why are other people who have requested de-registration since the reset not also part of the case?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Surely if we made this ruling, it would have to extent to every de-registration since the reset (as IIRC we had a law in place beforehand to allow de-registration, but older members may remember better than me)

It would only effect the above four  individuals and any future deregistrants anyone else that was removed by the voter roll for Peebs after requesting deregistration missed voting in the the proceeding three elections and thus should here been removed from the voter roll then.

Forgive me for being dense (which I can blame on jet lag) but I can't see what's special about the 4 individuals. Why are other people who have requested de-registration since the reset not also part of the case?

Some of the other people who requested de-registration should indeed be part of the case, but this is not universal. There are people who should not have been removed from the voter rolls at the time they "deregistered", but have since become legally removed as a result of not having voted in the past three regular elections. We still have legal basis for removing people from the rolls after missing three regular elections, just no legal basis for removing people by their own request.

If the court rules that deregistration at will is unconstitutional, it would become the responsibility of the court or a person designated by the court to comb through the list of deregistrations since the reset and figure out which remain invalid and which have become valid as a result of inactivity.

[Blair]

I just want to make sure that there isn't some distinction I'm missing between the four individuals, and the roughly 100+ people who've de-registered through request since the reset.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I just want to make sure that there isn't some distinction I'm missing between the four individuals, and the roughly 100+ people who've de-registered through request since the reset.

These four individuals are the only ones to my knowledge Peebs improperly removed from the voter roll that should still be on the rolls.

[Blair]

I just want to make sure that there isn't some distinction I'm missing between the four individuals, and the roughly 100+ people who've de-registered through request since the reset.

These four individuals are the only ones to my knowledge Peebs improperly removed from the voter roll that should still be on the rolls.

From a 10 second check there were these two other posters who de-registered by request; the point I was making is that a lot of members have done this since 2015.

Is the argument that if you de-register by request (something you claim is illegal) and then don't vote 3 times, that you're deregistration becomes legal? (as you've meet the 3 missed votes clause)

TDAS04
Deregistered  

I’m too lazy to make a thread for this but congrats to LT for his win last night. Now I guess I now have to do this because I said I would do this earlier and plus I’ve been wanting to this for a while now.

Also a sincere thank you to all of those who voted for me.

OneJ_
Deregistered

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I just want to make sure that there isn't some distinction I'm missing between the four individuals, and the roughly 100+ people who've de-registered through request since the reset.

These four individuals are the only ones to my knowledge Peebs improperly removed from the voter roll that should still be on the rolls.

From a 10 second check there were these two other posters who de-registered by request; the point I was making is that a lot of members have done this since 2015.

Is the argument that if you de-register by request (something you claim is illegal) and then don't vote 3 times, that you're deregistration becomes legal? (as you've meet the 3 missed votes clause)

TDAS04
Deregistered 

I’m too lazy to make a thread for this but congrats to LT for his win last night. Now I guess I now have to do this because I said I would do this earlier and plus I’ve been wanting to this for a while now.

Also a sincere thank you to all of those who voted for me.

OneJ_
Deregistered

Yes your honor your automatically deregistered for missing three straight consecutive regularly scheduled federal elections. 

[windjammer]

What is your position on those who "deregistered" after having lost a duel. Should that be overturned too?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

What is your position on those who "deregistered" after having lost a duel. Should that be overturned too?

No because those are covered by statute.

[Poirot]

Amicus brief in favor of the respondent

The Registrar General did nothing illegal by removing people from the voter roll at their request. The Registrar followed the instruction of citizend exercising a fundamental right. I ask the Court to respect the free choice of citizens who voluntarily deregistered by not putting them back on the voter roll against their will.

It is possible to deregister even if there is no specific legislation adopted by the fantasy government post reset.

I) Atlasia's mother country is the United States and its legislation can be carried over if Atlasia does not adopt new legislation.. It is possible in the USA for an individual to take action to be removed from the voters list. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows the removal of a registrant’s name from the list of eligible voters, provided that this information is confirmed in writing by the registrant.


II) In the Atlasian constitution, Article I, Section XIII states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can view deregistration in a few ways that suggest that the court should view deregistration as a natural right that we can assume to be unlisted.

It's probably worth pointing out that Article 1 Section V of the constitution specifically references "life, liberty, and property," which considering those things are the hallmark of Lockean political philosophy, We can assume that the founders of Atlasian meant to enshrine the Lockean principles of natural and inalienable rights in the constitution.

Article I, Section V: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

And something that is essential to Locke's inalienable rights is the ability of individuals to protect their own life, liberty, and property, so long as it does not deprive others of their own lives or liberty.

For example: "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." - John Locke

When we're thinking about the concept of participating in Atlasia, the foundational decision is the decision of whether or not to join the game in the first place. When someone signs up for the game (assuming they meet the very lenient standards of posts and account age), they can join freely and participate. Participating often means being indirectly involved in campaigns and elections, polls, and other Atlasian activities. For example, when someone joins Atlasia, they are put on the voter rolls on the census so people playing the game know to include them in private messages for campaigns, polls, and the like.

To consider the choice of registering for Atlasia to be a one-way ticket as opposed to a roundtrip with the possibility of leaving the game and withdrawing the consent that was freely given to be a part of the game and receive private messages would be to fundamentally miss the point of the original choice. It was an act of free will, an act of giving explicit consent to join the game and to be put on the voter rolls to receive PMs. The idea that consent, once given, can be freely withdrawn, should fall under the umbrella of natural, inalienable rights. Anyone should be able to withdraw their name from the voter rolls if they choose.

It's also worth noting that while there may be no law explicitly granting the right of deregistration, there is also no law explicitly denying such right and that perhaps the reason for this is that the right is assumed under Article I of the constitution as an inalienable natural right.


III) The right to leave one's own country is enshrined in international law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and also mentioned in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - both of which Atlasia is a party to.

ICCPR Article 12

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx


I disagree with the interpretation that there "is no statute allowing voluntary deregistration we can construed that the individuals do not have the ability to do so." The federal electoral law cited is specifically about the case of inactivity (not voting) and the consequence of deregistration. It doesn't mean there is no right for individuals to voluntarily leave the voter roll, it's the freedom to choose.
 
I thank the Court for reading this and the person who worked on this brief.

[windjammer]

Thank you Poirot.


The Court has waited long enough for the defense to post a brief and will now deliberate.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/justify]

Natural rights shall be interpreted as negative rights (legally, guarantees against government power).  Natural rights are natural because they are inherent to the person and cannot be granted by the government; only taken away. The Supreme Court considers the right to deregister as a natural right. Thus, the deregistrations were legal.

The Supreme Court would like to thank 1184AZ and Poirot for their full cooperation

[/quote]