Seatown vs IDS(Appeal of BK vs. IDS)

[John Dibble]

Your honors, as the judge presiding over the regional case, I wish to offer you my legal opinion. In regards to the matter of the law itself, you have already seen my interpretation.

More importantly, it is my opinion that Seatown does not have have grounds for appeal. Even if we accept that as an interested party he may appeal a case someone else started and lost, he has not given any indication as to why this is an issue for this court. As Seatown himself points out in his opening, the Supreme Court only has the authority to nullify laws that violate the Atlasian Constitution.

His only argument seems to be that somehow due process was violated, and yet I fail to see how - there was a lack of clarity as to the meaning of the law, the issue was taken to court, and the law was clarified by the court. If that is not due process, what is?

Furthermore, Seatown states that the federal constitution has no provisions supporting my interpretation of the law, and yet he has not provided a single provision which contradicts it either. If there is no federal law or constitutional provision which contradicts this interpretation of the law, then it is not a federal issue and as such there are no grounds for an appeal to a federal court.

This is naught but a transparent ploy for Seatown to disenfranchise the common rabble of their votes because they did not vote the way he wanted them to. This case should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

[John Dibble]

I believe a careful reading of the law will result in my interpretation, and said careful reading is required because of due process clause in the constitution.

This is a regional law, and you can't just take it to a federal court because you don't like how the regional courts interpreted the law.

Furthermore, you don't even appear to understand what due process applies to. The Atlasian Constitution states that "The Atlasian government shall not deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process, nor shall it deny any citizen the equal protection of the laws."

So, can you explain how my interpretation deprives a citizen of life, liberty, or property? Nobody's life or property was taken, so you could only argue liberty, yet your case for that is baseless. How does my interpretation take away liberty when it ensures that all the votes were counted? Their liberty to vote was not infringed. Which citizen, specifically, are you saying was denied due process?

Or maybe you think citizens were denied equal protection? I would fail to see how considering my interpretation applies to everyone equally and is quite favorable to the voters.