Lawsuit

[Sam Spade]

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

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[Sam Spade]

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

I assume that you argue the government's case.

I don't think I need to tell you more, since arguing seems to be a forte of yours, but if you need the cursory outline of a brief that we provide, please ask. 

[Sam Spade]

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.

Same as filing a normal brief, really.  If you want to skimp on the statement of facts, it's up to you.  However, since the case relies a lot of the facts, such things may be helpful to your argument.

[Sam Spade]

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.

So noted.

[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.

Bump again.  This is quite important, as that day of reckoning is almost upon us (unless you want to challenge the validity of the statute, or something   )

[Sam Spade]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

If we think we will not have a decision by swearing-in time, we'll place a temporary injunction on that.  However, we intend to complete this as soon as possible.

[Sam Spade]

     I notice that it says the deadline is Tuesday, July 1st, but July 1st falls on a Wednesday.

Since Tuesday has already passed, July 1st it will be.

[Sam Spade]

Just a word in before respondent replies, if what I read is correct, I believe you have asserted two claims, the main claim re: Marokai Blue and a claim in the alternative re:Gustaf.  Is that correct?  If so, I dont think you need to amend/edit your brief, but you clarifying here would be helpful.

     I am arguing against treating their votes differently. So yes, I am basically asking to either count Gustaf's vote or invalidate Marokai's.

     Also, I PM'd the Supreme Court & the Attorney General about this matter, but I would also like to publically state that I intend to call Senator Franzl as a witness.

What is your argument that the Court should hear this challenge to Gustaf's vote, given the fact that it is not in the complaint?

On the Franzl witness thing, since this is an appeal, I am inclined to not allow the calling of witnesses.  Inclusion of an affidavit from Franzl attached to the brief would be allowed.

I would like to hear Brother Bullmoose88's thoughts on this.

[Sam Spade]

I agree with Brother bullmoose88 on the questioning of the plaintiff by a non-party.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to point out that while the letter of the law says that Marokai's vote should be invalid, the spirit of the law would disagree with that.

That is your opinion, Petitioner.  We have not found anything to that effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Gustaf's votes were cast both in the absentee booth, and it appears uncontested that this vote actually did appear, whereas Marokai's vote does not appear, on its face, in the absentee voting booth (we can argue whether the vote in his post record is a vote in the booth, but that is an issue in front) and his second vote was not in the absentee voting booth, but rather in the normal voting booth.

So, on its face, there appears to be a much wider gulf between comparing the two votes than your brief states.

[Sam Spade]

Your honor, should I simply post a statement in this thread now? I would like to provide my view of the circumstances surrounding Gustaf's vote.

I am ok with that, but I would like to get bullmoose's ok too.

[Sam Spade]

The clarification is accepted, afleitch.

[Sam Spade]

Does the SoFA or the AG wish to present a brief in defense of this case?

My next order is quite important and will be noticed to ALL parties.

[Sam Spade]

COURT ORDER

First:

From the respondent in this case (either the SoFA or the AG)

The court mandates submission of the following evidence:

1) All posts on this forum that concern the votes of Gustaf, Bacon King, Andy Jackson or Marokai Blue or any aliases made by the posters SoFA EarlAW, Gustaf, Bacon King, Andy Jackson or Marokai Blue or any aliases.

2) All correspondence between SoFA EarlAW and Gustaf, Bacon King, Andy Jackson or Marokai Blue or any aliases.

The respondent shall submit this evidence within 48 hours from receipt of notice or face contempt of court.
Second:

The court issues a temporary injunction prohibiting SoFA EarlAW from certifying the final election results concerning the election of President and Vice-President only.  The court also issues a temporary injunction prohibiting Lief from taking the oath of office as President and Bacon King from taking the oath of office as Vice President.

We will attempt to finish this matter as soon as possible so as to not prohibit the functioning of our government more than necessary.

So ordered.

Chief Justice bullmoose88
Justice Sam Spade

[Sam Spade]

EarlAW:

The thread will work.  I'm just going to post the relevant posts on this thread.

Are there any other threads of relevance?

PMs to and from you and Andy Jackson, Bacon King, Gustaf and Marokai Blue are all we really care about.  The PM's from other people are irrelevant to our examination.

[Sam Spade]

Up to Page 13 (I may have missed a post).  More later.

All persons who have had their votes mysteriously vanish will be allowed to re-post their votes.

Bacon King's vote is there, did he re-vote, or did it magically re-appear again?

Weird.

And why did Gustaf vote twice? His vote(s) won't count.

Well, voting twice is against the law.

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.

I think there's no way to prove that and he voted less than a minute apart. Myself and others noticed this pretty much as soon as he voted so we would be taking a huge leap of faith to assume that. We'd basically only have his word, as opposed to witness accounts of the others.

This is confusing; I had just assumed the first post didn't submit or something.

I'm going to try to deal with this the best way I can.

I told Mr. Jackson that he could post another vote, and it would count based on the circumstances. Based on this, I will not disallow his second vote. I'm sure given this extraordinary circumstance, such a move would be deemed legal. As for Gustaf, I cannot in good faith count it. Both votes are slightly different in terms of how many preferences he gave, and while extremely unlikely, could theoretically affect the outcome of the election.

I suppose. If his claims are consistent with what has been going on, then an inquiry could be held, however, he could easily make a fraudulent claim. I would give Gustaf the benefit of the doubt though, he doesn't seem to be a dishonest person.

Hi all.

I am on a train trip around Europe and am currently in Budapest. I did not have much time writing  my vote being on an internet cafe with little time. After making my first post I got an error message saying I had got timed out. My post seemed gone so I hurriedly made a new one with the same content. I did not see my first post, but I was in a hurry so it could have been a mistake.

I recieved a PM sazing I should delete one of the posts in order to have it count so I deleted the second one which was more of a patch-work. I hope my vote will count since my intent was clear and the mistake was innocent and due to technical problems.

Well, that seems reasonable, I suppose. I suggest unless anyone has any objections, that I will allow Gustaf's vote to stand.

Someone has objected, so I will make a decision on this at some point. I'll need some time. Feel free to debate the issue here, I would like to hear people's opinions.

Oy, I feel no matter what my decision, someone will be unhappy. Those who are opposed to Gustaf's vote however, are noticeably absent from this discussion. I, understand though.

For what it's worth, I support Gustaf's vote counting.

It seems like I have fallen victim to the vote-eating booth. My vote for Lief & Max disappeared from the Absentee booth. You can still see it if you view my posts from my profile:



https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=2249;sa=showPosts;start=105

Marokai, you will be permitted to vote again.

And, yes, Conor's vote wont count. That means Senator PiT has won the state of Maine. Meanwhile, he also picks up the state of Michigan with all precincts reporting.

[Sam Spade]

Folks, we are discussing it at the moment, but given the confusion we're going to give a short summary order as to Presidential status.

Until that happens, Jesus (bgwah) remains President and ignore Keystone Phil.

[Sam Spade]

Look, folks, we're 30 minutes into a new term.  Relax.

[Sam Spade]

Much appreciated

I think it's obvious from my maps as to whether or not I will count Gustaf's vote. I was hoping someone would catch that

Each of the other instances had witness accounts or evidence that there were technical errors (such as the vote appearing on the profile posts but not in the actual thread) but there were no such documented evidence or witness accounts for Gustaf. We're essentially taking his word for it, and in the close nature of this election, that would be unwise.

Listen, I don't want to play the bad guy here, and I wouldn't be offended if you all take this to court. It's best to get some precedent on this issue.

[Sam Spade]

Decision should be handed down this evening, folks.  If not then, definitely tomorrow.