Ben Kenobi vs the IDS

[Wisconsin+17]

I hereby sue the Imperial Dominion of the South, and coparties, Bacon King and the entire Labour Party for abuse of the recall petition.

Given that the recall petition issued by Bacon King himself states that the justification for issuing the recall was the "declaration of sovereignty" issued and subsequently redrawn, no such justification for my recall remains. Bacon King has managed to cobble together an alliance of Labourites to attempt to overturn, once again, the lawful results of the October election and deprive those voting of their electoral representation in the IDS.

I must demand the following:

1, that this court issue a temporary injunction on the named parties from issuing recall petitions for the period of 7 days, and that the present recall attempt be halted in order to clarify the justifications by which an official may be recalled.

Thank you for your time.

*grovel grovel grovel*

-Ben Kenobi
 

[Wisconsin+17]

I am certainly, not joking, dear Wolf and Toad. Bacon King himself issued this recall for this reason, and the reason he has listed in the petition no longer exists. Ergo, the petition itself is fradulent and no longer applies.

If Bacon King wishes to issue a recall petition under other auspices, he is certainly free to do so. Just that this particular petition is no longer valid. You cannot, under atlasian law, issue a valid petition unless all the particulars within the petition are true.

[Wisconsin+17]

"However, the language Kingman invited people to sign, which told them about your secessionist attempt, is irrelevant."

No one can legally sign a document knowing that the particulars of said document are fraudulent. This is basic contract law.

[Adam Griffin]

My party is not going to be dragged into this sort of chicanery. I will simply point out that the amendment in question was proposed and passed by the Imperial Bloc and Whig Parties in the Legislature. I voted against the amendment in question because I did not believe it was a good idea for our region. It was subsequently voted upon and approved by the people of this region, at which point I cast a ballot of absention.

You guys made your bed, now lie in it.

[Bacon King]

Regional law only stipulates that, for a recall election to occur, (1) a certain number of signatures be attained (2) within two weeks (3) in a thread dedicated to the purpose (4) located on the Fantasy Elections board. Intent and language of the recall petition is irrelevant under the law.

As the recall petition met all four requirements specified by the law, this case should plainly be dismissed as frivolous.

*Grovel Grovel Grovel*,

-BACON KINGMAN: ATTORNEY AT LAW

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the Labour party chooses not to defend itself?

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the Labour party chooses not to defend itself?

I'm not familiar with the Labour Party.

[Velasco]

It seems that this issue will be an inexhaustible source of amusement. At least it's entertaining me in these hours of insomnia (I'm almost done, I´ll go to sleep soon). Keep on, let's wait for the following episode!

*groove!, groove!, groove!*

[Donerail]

As the author of the Amendment, I would point out that the specific language states: "[the petition] must have the signatures of 50% of the number of voters in the last election for that position". As Boss Tweed and nolesfan2011 were not voters in the last election for the position in question, I must urge the court reject the petition as illegitimate. Given my familiarity with the author, I can also testify that the Amedment is worded in such a way so as to specifically only allow it to be used when the majority elect a particular individual who then ignores his duties enough to engender the opposition of the majority of those in the last election, including at least one of his voters. It serves as a check on undeniably bad officials, not as a way to recall Legislators on what was basically a party-line vote.

*grovel grovel grovel*

-Speaker and Amendmenteer SJoyceFla.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is sufficient to establish that the purpose of said petition was the articles of secession for the state of Texas, which I delivered to the IDS legislature. In subsequent consultation with the citizens of Atlasia, and of Texas and of the IDS, I withdrew the Texas articles of secession on December 06, 2012, 02:40:03 pm.

It was at this point, that the recall petition initiated by Bacon King was no longer valid. All signatures collected after the secession motion was withdrawn were collected under fraudulent auspices.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that this petition is simply a party line collaboration to remove a partisan rival, as evinced by the list of signatures, and testimony given in this thread, which is also contrary to the intent of the recall act as stated by SJoyce. This also constitutes abuse of the recall process.

[Barnes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that this petition is simply a party line collaboration to remove a partisan rival, as evinced by the list of signatures, and testimony given in this thread, which is also contrary to the intent of the recall act as stated by SJoyce. This also constitutes abuse of the recall process.

Speaking on behalf of my party: that accusation carries no legal standing and will not be accepted in court.

[Adam Griffin]

This is just a mess.

If amendments to the Constitution are no longer valid as worded and passed by the electorate, then we might as well close up shop. This amendment outlines a specific protocol, and cannot be construed to include circumstances that are not otherwise worded in the text.

The only legitimate concern expressed here was:

"[the petition] must have the signatures of 50% of the number of voters in the last election for that position". As Boss Tweed and nolesfan2011 were not voters in the last election for the position in question, I must urge the court reject the petition as illegitimate.

There is, however, no specification in the amendment that the number of individuals in question is directly tied to having to be here prior to the last election. It states that the petition "must have 50% of the number of voters in the last election", not "50% of the voters in the last election.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The votes themselves serve as testimony. Perhaps you should scrub them out?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That the vote is wholly partisan, is compelling evidence for abuse of the recall process.

[Bacon King]

As the author of the Amendment, I would point out that the specific language states: "[the petition] must have the signatures of 50% of the number of voters in the last election for that position". As Boss Tweed and nolesfan2011 were not voters in the last election for the position in question, I must urge the court reject the petition as illegitimate. Given my familiarity with the author, I can also testify that the Amedment is worded in such a way so as to specifically only allow it to be used when the majority elect a particular individual who then ignores his duties enough to engender the opposition of the majority of those in the last election, including at least one of his voters. It serves as a check on undeniably bad officials, not as a way to recall Legislators on what was basically a party-line vote.

*grovel grovel grovel*

-Speaker and Amendmenteer SJoyceFla.

"Fifty percent of the number of voters" is not "fifty percent of the voters"; the language makes the distinction clear.

Also, I must question your argument of the amendment's intent when it states, in plain language, "The Citizens of the Imperial Dominion of the South may recall any regional official." This successful recall petition is simply an exercise of our Constitutionally guaranteed right.

[Wisconsin+17]

Then why did you lie to them in the petition? You stated that your intent to remove me was the secession bill. You did not file the petition until after I filed the secession bill. Now you are seeking to remove me from my duly elected seat in the IDS legislature.

Why, Bacon King? It's transparently obvious that this is just a way to get what you've been denied through the elections, removal of me as IDS representative in my seat.

As such, your petiton was filed under false auspicions, as you did not withdraw it once the secession bill was done. Ergo, all the signatures of this petition are invalid.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For the record, I opened the voting booth without seeing this case. I entrust the decision to the Judicial Overlord and did not intend my action to be viewed as an opinion on the validity of the petition.

[Napoleon]

I'm surprised to see someone misinterpret his own amendment. I'm completely baffled by it.

[Bacon King]

     For the record, I opened the voting booth without seeing this case. I entrust the decision to the Judicial Overlord and did not intend my action to be viewed as an opinion on the validity of the petition.

You legally did the correct thing. Under the terms of the amendment you're required to open the voting booth in the (IMO unreasonably short) time frame of 24 hours. This remains true unless the Judicial Overlord issues an injunction to stop the vote (or prevent it from starting).

[Donerail]

As the author of the Amendment, I would point out that the specific language states: "[the petition] must have the signatures of 50% of the number of voters in the last election for that position". As Boss Tweed and nolesfan2011 were not voters in the last election for the position in question, I must urge the court reject the petition as illegitimate.

Funny thing is, I thought this too. However it is incorrect. "The Citizens of the [IDS] may recall any elected official" is in there. There is no mention that one must have voted in the last Regional Election, rather, this is just the number used to proportion the number of signatures required. So Tweedybird and Nolesfan's votes were in fact valid.

Number is defined as "the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units"; in the wording of the Amendment, the aforementioned "collection of units" is the "voters in the last election for that position". To have 50% of that number of voters requires that they be comprised of the voters in the previous election.

As for "The Citizens of the Imperial Dominion of the South may recall any regional official.", that is an explanation of what the Amendment does. It then goes on to explain how the Citizens may go about recalling any regional official. It is a simple statement of intent.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"However, the language Kingman invited people to sign, which told them about your secessionist attempt, is irrelevant."

No one can legally sign a document knowing that the particulars of said document are fraudulent. This is basic contract law.

This isn't a contracts case.  There's no offer.  No acceptance.  No promisore.  No promisee.  No promsie.

[Wisconsin+17]

I've worked with petitions before. The petitions are only valid should what they sign be true at the time they were signing.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Ben's protest is valid. Simple as that Bacon. When he withdrew his petition to have Texas break away this recall became moot.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

execpt that enough people have decided to recall Ben. If you think its unjustified, then people will vote for Ben in the election itself, or they will keep their vote, and Ben will be recalled, there is no legality in this lawsuit