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

[cinyc]

Technically, the Atlasian Supreme Court hasn't yet agreed to hear my case.  They can still decline, as they have in many instances before.   That's one reason why I initially filed in the North Circuit Court - I thought I'd have a higher chance of the case actually being heard.  I also thought the Supreme Court would want me to start there, as the case is about a provision of the North/Lincoln Constitution, and that court would have jurisdiction.

But I acknowledge that that the Atlasian Supreme Court has the authority to hear this case in the first instance, if they deem it fit.

[cinyc]

Does the court allow lawsuits in languages other than English? dfwlibertylover vs. Peebs is just weird. It doesn't even make sense after Google Translating it.

What is the argument? That you're eligible to vote in a Federal Election as long as you're a member of a party? That's just stupid, and would discriminate against Independents like me.

Anyway, I hope the court tosses the lawsuit.

[cinyc]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

[cinyc]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

And the court likewise has every right to dismiss the case, especially if Fairbol fails to provide any evidence.

Disimiss the case? Yes. But it must be heard, first.

Section 8, Clause 5 of the Electoral Act says: "Lawsuits challenging the validity of certified election results shall only be valid if filed within one hundred and sixty-eight hours (seven days) of certification", which implies that a case questioning the validity of a certified election by a candidate within 168 hours is valid and must at least be heard.

[cinyc]

Yeah in every other election case the plantiff had to demonstrate how the ballots were incorrectly counted or disgarded- you can't just stand up and say 'the count is wrong' and then expect the Justices to work on it.

I also believe that certain established procedures regarding elections were, in this case, not followed.  As such, I hereby request the granting of a Writ of Certiorari, specifically concerning if the above election was properly certified, and if further review of the tally or a runoff election is warranted.

This is jibberish. What procedures? Why is a run-off relevant?

What should happen is the writ should be granted, Faribol be given the right to raise his argument, and if he doesn't have much of one, the case should be dismissed. But I think the court needs to hear the case as a matter of first instance. There is no other mechanism for disputing election results.