Lawsuit

[bullmoose88]

Reminder that Plantiff's brief is due at 5pm eastern (daylight) today...roughly 3 hours and 30 minutes from my count.

[bullmoose88]

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.

[bullmoose88]

Can I ask a few questions of the plaintiff?

*Order*

With all due respect, regardless of the form the rest of this proceeding takes, I'm fairly certain that a non-party or non member of the court will not be allowed to directly question witnesses or parties.  Certainly if my brethern disagree with me, they may hold a private vote in chambers to allow such a procedure.

[bullmoose88]

I remind non-parties that they are certainly free to send amicus briefs to the court clarifying their positions etc, but direct participation in the controversy is prohibited.  Thank you.

[bullmoose88]

I remind non-parties that they are certainly free to send amicus briefs to the court clarifying their positions etc, but direct participation in the controversy is prohibited.  Thank you.

Thank you.

However I do find it objectionable that the Judge has chosen to make a point of order based solely on the amicus asking a question of the Court.

It was this judge's understanding, that you wished to ask the plaintiff questions, although now he views the question as pointed at the bench.  This judge probably was a bit too hasty in making his point of order and apologizes, however, he felt the need to remind the gallery at large that the role for non-parties is rather limited before the genie was let loose from the bottle.

[bullmoose88]

We're working on a draft, if all goes well, hope to have it up by tonight.  Sorry for the delay.

[bullmoose88]

Oyez Oyez

A ruling will be forthcoming shortly (just editing it, not very long). 

[/s]Ray S. Judicata

[bullmoose88]

The Chief Justice delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

I.  THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THAT THE SECRETARY OF FORUM AFFAIRS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IN HIS DECISION TO COUNT THE VOTE OF MAROKAI BLUE.

Plaintiff has failed to prove that the "vote" in question (Marokai's alleged absentee vote) existed.  In overturning an agency determination, such as that of the SoFA, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the agency was arbitrary and capricious in its determination.  Here, Plaintiff has only demonstrated that a vote possibly existed in the absentee booth.  At best, he has proved a possible internet goblin spoiled a citizen's ballot.  Assuming Plaintiff could have proven a valid absentee vote, Marokai Blue, in our opinion, merely voted again in a good faith belief that his last vote disappeared.  We think that no other reasonable fact finder could find otherwise.

We believe that the intent of the voting act was to prevent/remedy dirty dealing in the elections process, not to disenfranchise voters who may have voted again in the honest belief their vote was lost.  Regardless of our opinion about the true intent of the act, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving a violation actually took place and that the SoFA was arbitrary and capricious in his tabulation of the vote.

II. PLAINTIFF’S CHALLENGE IN THE ALTERNATIVE FAILS FOR LACK OF NOTICE PROVIDED TO RESPONDENT.

Plaintiff PiT's appeal in front of this Court placed the single issue of the validity of Marokai's vote for our examination.  However, in his brief, PiT also brought the validity of Gustaf's vote.  Since this is not a proper method of bringing a court challenge to a vote in an election before this court, we deny his challenge of Gustaf's vote.  With some as yet undefined exceptions, a challenge to a vote (or votes) in an election must be brought in the original complaint or in a judicially-approved amendment to said complaint, not the appellate brief because of the lack of notice that it provides respondent.  While the court may encourage the Plaintiff to clarify what is already written in his or her brief, it cannot do the Plaintiff’s job for him or her.  It cannot create an argument that the Plaintiff neglected from his/her complaint nor can it provide the respondent with notice.  These are the Plaintiff’s tasks alone.


Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Secretary of Forum Affairs, lift any and all injunctions against the certification of the election of President of Atlasia, and Vice President of Atlasia, and the duly certified winners of the election may take their offices forthwith.

So Ordered.