Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Poirot]

There is a case following a tie vote on for the nomination of a Vice-President. The Senate PPT broke the tie. The case is about if the PPT has the right to break the tie or not.

If there is a situtation of two groups of senators that can't agree or a group of five who doesn't want to nominate a VP, would it mean there is no VP for the rest of the term? Maybe it would show the VP role is not that important.

Should there be a tie-breaking mechanism for VP nomination to resolve the issue? If the PPT can't break the tie, should the President break the tie? The VP breaks the tie in the Senate (maybe under the hat of President of Senate) and he is someone picked by the President, they run and campaign together.  If there is no VP to break a tie maybe the President could have the power to break it in this special circumstance.

What will happen if the Court decides the PPT is not allowed to break a tie and doesn't say who can break it. We are in paralysis.         

[Poirot]

In the case accusing Lebron Fitzgerald of doing something on IRC, it doesn't surprise me there is no written proof taken at the time it happened because I doubt the chat mod are always looking at IP. I had a personal experience in IRC. A chat mod, for some unknown reason, decided I was Simfan and banned me. I imagine my IP can't be mistaken with Simfan's. Also using the name of other Atlasian and impersonating them was something that happened, or just entering and using a name and then keep changing it to another. So I think there is a reasonable doubt about the identity.

Also from the tiny bit of conversation shown, it doesn't look like there is pressure to a voter to go quickly edit your ballot (with the malicious intent to force editing after the deadline). It is more an opinion like: I think your ballot will not count because you did this thing.

I hope there is no banning of people if during a conversation one tell the other, I think your ballot is invalid because you edited after 10 minutes and the real limit is 20 minutes.

The voter is not a newcomer. He probably knows you can't edit your ballot after a few minutes. I haven't seen a study of time showing when this happen in relation to the vote and the editing period.

The information given in the few lines shown is not correct but maybe it's not deliberate and certainly not done "in order to prevent casting of a valid ballot". There is no asking a voter to edit a ballot after the allowed period.

[Poirot]

In reading the sentencing, I see "attempted to convince Gustaf to invalidate his ballot" and "Had Gustaf heeded Fitzgerald's suggestion" and I see interpretations because I don't view the suggestion to go invalidate a ballot. The proof is a 11 lines of chat over 30 minutes. He says he thinks there is an error and explains what he thinks it is.

http://pastebin.com/8YqugZAH

I'm worried what people can spin out of a conversation if it's enough to get someone banned. I remember sending a pm to someone thanking a voter for a high preference vote even though  I thought the vote would not count because of a mistake done by the voter. The person could have gone to court and claim I tried to make them modify the vote and get me banned.

[Poirot]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

[Poirot]

It's not about a general party bias or support of one candidate. A Justice is a canddiate involved in contested election results. It's hard to argue a Justice is independent in that case.

Furthermore, the SoFE who oversaw the election is also a running mate of the Justice.

(As I said after the Justice kept his role as party chair, the appearance of independance of the court is not preserved and he could have to recuse himself from cases because he is party chair at the same time. I would ask he recuse himself automatically from electoral cases because as party chair he has an interest in election outcome but the current situation is even more problematic on the independence of the court.  

[Poirot]

Will there be a decision on Justice NCYankee recusing himself before the Court decides tp proceed with cases. There is conflict of interest in hearing the case(s) or not, so he shouldn't even participate in the decision to hear cases. 

The only decision to be made is by NCYankee himself. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge recuse himself and unless he declares that he will do so he has to be counted as a decision-making justice.

This is an example of why I have lost trust in our institutions.

Maybe the court will decide not to hear cases like it did when I wanted them to rule on something.

[Poirot]

I'm glad the Court has speed up its process. It gave permission to proceed in half a day. When I wanted the court to rule on something, it took them seven days before telling they decided not to hear the case.

[Poirot]

Kingpoleon, if uou want to say something to the court, you don't have to wait for the court to ask you to testify, that might not happen. Just file a brief in the court case thread if you want to advocate for your ticket (unless there is an official lawyer representing your ticket and he asked not to make public statement).

[Poirot]

In the Poirot vs SoFE Peebs case, the defense stated

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm trying to find what law required the SoFE to open the booth August 4.

The reason for the 72 hours public notice is for a minimum time for the public to be aware an election is coming, for people to make decision to run and officially declare because declaration must happen at least 24 hours before the start of the election and not sure if it's required by law anymore but ideally post a sample ballot so there is time to correct if there are mistakes.

Announcing an election about 8 hours before it starts is candidate suppression since it's too late to be on the ballot at the time the public is informed.

When the proposal for House was introduced in the constitutional convention it specified special elections shall begin within ten days of the vacancy occuring.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 10 days covered cases when the vacancy occurs too close to the Friday to have a proper election. It is legal to skip one Friday to have the election the following one. I don't see a debate on the provisions for House special election in the pages after that but the 10 days vanished and is not in the final version in the constitution. I guess it was a victim of trying to keep the constitution as short as possible.

[Poirot]

How does the jury work? I think every juror post a verdict so it doesn't have to be a unanimous decision. After all sides have pleaded, do jurors have discussion or have to keep to themselves, individual thoughts and decision so there is no influencing between them.

[Poirot]

Maybe Justice Gass will have to recuse himself from the 1184AZ v Peebs case on party merger. He is quoted in the filing suit when he changed back registration to Labor and didn't like the automatic party change so it's difficult to look impartial.

Almost four months after the merger is kind of late to make it illegal, it's been ok for many months but it's not anymore. Maybe it's a case in theory for fututre mergers. 

[Poirot]

But anyone who felt wronged or found it illegal back then could have started a court case. Maybe there is a time limit for court case like there is for challenging an election result.

[Poirot]

Would a court case resulting from challenging the result of the Fremont election be heard by the Fremont regional justice since it's a regional election and you need to know regional election laws or all the justices ? 

[Poirot]

I don't recall any time in which a grand jury was employed. Whether this was game practicality, different set of laws at the time or just twenty years of prosecutorial misconduct I cannot really attest to from my phone at work.

Not sure when it was, maybe when the criminal laws had to be adopted after the reset, I asked why there was the grand jury in the law. If we don't have one remove it.