Office of 'PGH & Associates' Law Firm

[DemPGH]

Hello, and welcome to the office of the former Attorney General and Vice President, DemPGH. I am now operating my own law office, so come in and sit down. Have a drink if it's after 3:00 p.m. or so. I will take cases that have merit and may from time to time, if nothing is going on, publish opinions on legal matters in Atlasia.

The door is always open, so feel free to ask any questions or report any problems you would like to have reviewed!

[Napoleon]

Mr. Attorney General, I regretfully bring to your intention a violation of our constitution. The most recent election in the Imperial Dominion of the South was certified with the disenfranchisement of Dolph McCrungus. I do not believe that the IDS has the authority to do this given the Court's ruling in Atlasia v. Southeast. Here is the ruling:

(Justice Marokai Blue delivered the majority opinion of the Court which Chief Justice Sam Spade joined.)

Opinion

At issue before the Court here is the Southeast's "Fair Voting Requirements Act" and the constitutionality of the clauses therein.

Barnes, representing Atlasia, argues that the Act violates the High Authority for Ethics in Voting and that, due to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, a regional voter roll, independent of the federal voter roll, is unconstitutional.

Jbrase, representing the Southeast, argues that the laws made in regard to activity, office-holding, and further, that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly forbidding the creation of, or contradicting the creation of, regional voter rolls.

We agree, and disagree.

Un: The Supremacy Clause and Federal Authority.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of Atlasia states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first part, "This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every Region shall be bound thereby," clearly bounds the Southeast to federal law and the stipulations of the federal Constitution.

The Southeast cannot disregard federal activity requirements or criminal proceedings whenever it suits it's fancy. The Supreme Court has ignored or struck down regional laws or constitutional provisions that conflict with the Constitution, in cases such as Atlasia v. Southeast (April 2009) or Atlasia v. Libertas for two examples. The second part of the clause, "anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding" does not grant regions the ability to defy the federal government with anything they do not like.

Furthermore, as Jbrase argues, the Court has never in recent times held that regions are impervious to federal standards when it comes to elections. As held in Atlasia v. Libertas, the federal government's election standards are, partnered with the Supremacy Clause, law of the land no matter the election.

Deux: Clauses 1, 2, & 4.

With Section Un out of the way, we must address Clauses 1, 2, and 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act, which state:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We cannot agree that these clauses are constitutional. As federal voting and office-holding restrictions are law of the land throughout Atlasia, there is no rationale in which these clauses are defensible.

It further deserves stating that, in Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3 of the constitution that states, in part: "The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation" we believe the Senate has the exclusive authority to determine voter registration rules and activity requirements, and that no region may subvert them.

Also, as we held in previous rulings and earlier in the opinion, the federal election standards are uniform throughout Atlasia unless the lack of certain wording specifies otherwise. In the case of office-holding and voting restrictions, however, the law is uniform throughout every level of government, and the Southeast's actions contradict that.

Further, Attorney General Barnes states: "Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region?

And, again, the answer is no."

We agree.

Citizenship in Atlasia is determined by voter registration. Removal from the rolls constitutes, in the current interpretations of citizenship, revocation of citizenship entirely. Such being the case, the Southeast region, or any other region, cannot allow individuals who are not citizens of Atlasia to vote in their elections or hold office.

Therefore, we strike down Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act as unconstitutional.

Trois: Maintaining a Separate Voter Roll

Clause 3 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jbrase, in his defense of the Act, states "The Constitution of Atlasia does not specify whether or not regions are allowed to create voter rolls thus the right to do so is reserved for the regions. As per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 which delegates powers not prohibited, to the regions."

The Court happens to agree with his interpretation. There is nothing in the constitution expressly, or anything in the constitution which would imply, that maintaining a regional voter roll is unconstitutional in the slightest.

The Southeast region, or any region of Atlasia, has the ability to create regional voter rolls if they so desire. However, such a voter roll must comply entirely with the rules and regulations of the federal voter roll, be maintained in compliance to federal election and office-holding regulations, and must be entirely consistent with the federal voter roll maintained by the Secretary of Forum Affairs.

Thus, we uphold Clause 3 and subsections 3a and 3b of the Fair Voting Requirements Act as constitutional.

Quatre: Conclusion Summary

Section Un The Court affirms that the Supremacy Clause detailed in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution maintains federal office holding and voting requirements as the law of the land throughout Atlasia, and the Court expressly disagrees with the notion put forth by Jbrase that the federal government has no ability to apply federal election standards to the regions.

Section Deux Clause 1, 2, and 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act are struck down as unconstitutional, as the Court holds they violate the federal election laws and the High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act applied uniformly by the Supremacy Clause.

Section Trois The Court has decided that Clause 3 and the following subsections (3a and 3b) are constitutional, as nothing in the Constitution of Atlasia denies regions the ability to create their own voter rolls, as long as those voter rolls are held in complete compliance to all federal election laws exactly as the federal voting roll is.

Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the Court strikes down Clause 1, 2, and 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act as unconstitutional, and maintains Clause 3 and all included therein as constitutional.

I ask that you bring this before the Court and request an injunction from seating Legislator Hashemite until a proper ruling is issued. Thank you.

Signed,

Senator Napoleon

[Bacon King]

One quick note before I look into the specifics of the case- I'm fairly certain that Hashemite has already been seated in the legislature, so an injunction preventing it wouldn't be possible.

[DemPGH]

Oh, interesting. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Senator. The court's reasoning is obviously sound (a region can create a roll, but it must abide by federal rules, essentially), and of course, there are both federal registration and actual voting / participation requirements that would override regional stipulations. In essence, I now need statements. To start:

1) Who is Dolph McCrungus, and how / why was he disenfranchised?

2) Who is Hashemite, and how is he involved to the extent that it affects Dolph McCrungus?

[Napoleon]

Dolph McCrungus is an eligible voter whose vote was not counted because he only had 31 posts. The federal Constitution requires 18 posts; the IDS constitution requires 50 posts.

Hashemite is the candidate Emperor PiT certified as having won the election. If Dolph's vote is counted, SPC wins the election.

[DemPGH]

Dolph McCrungus is an eligible voter whose vote was not counted because he only had 31 posts. The federal Constitution requires 18 posts; the IDS constitution requires 50 posts.

Hashemite is the candidate Emperor PiT certified as having won the election. If Dolph's vote is counted, SPC wins the election.

Very good. I'll research and get back soon, but based on this the IDS constitution is in violation of the federal Constitution. There is one further matter: 51-3, the "End to the Zombie Apocalypse Act" stipulates that in order to be active for an election, one must have posted ten [10] times in the eight [8] weeks prior to an election. In Dolph's case, I have checked, and he has had this many posts and more in the last eight weeks. So, based on what I have heard he should be eligible to vote, he should be active, and his vote should not have been counted. If so, Hashemite was improperly certified.

I shall review the IDS Constitution, contact Dolph McCrungus if need be, and advise everyone ASAP. If everything as said checks out, and if nothing can be done, we will minimally go to court over the IDS constitution violating the federal one.

Again, thank you for bringing this up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I admit it makes me happy to see my work cited.

[DemPGH]

In the event that VIII.11 of the IDS constitution is struck down, as head of the DoJ I intend to instruct the IDS to conform its voter laws to standards set forth in the Constitution, certainly in the cited case, and to reschedule its March 2013 regional elections. I think we would all like to move expeditiously on this since there is business to be handled in the IDS.

How the IDS performs its business is up to the IDS, but its protocols must be "by the books."

[DemPGH]

Sure, Nix - I'm actually not sure how to add Notes because the page doesn't seem to give me an edit for it, but I'll experiment a little. Everything else is really self-explanatory. Also, I take it that the information for the notes comes in the threads in which the legislation is discussed and passed?

Now, a general update on the Wiki from my seat: there are massive gaps in the resolutions, and I at least want to account for all of the senates that have existed. I want it chronologically complete, and in the event that no resolutions were passed by a senate, we'll just put "none."

Then I'll turn my attention to the court cases 2011-present. I aim to work on this over the next couple days, but of course, especially the court cases, it will take a while to complete, but getting the ball rolling is the objective now.

[DemPGH]

This sort of drifted out to sea, so I'm going to pull it back in with a couple updates.

1) Could someone at some point who knows how to do charts, graphs, colors, and visually appealing graphics get an entry for the 55th Senate in the Wiki? Maybe someone on the commission? I know this is an extremely busy time for a lot of you, so I'm just throwing it out there as something to be done before too awfully long. It doesn't need done now.

2) I've been thinking about a way to make repealed or struck-down statutes leave the main list of statutes more in tact. What happens is, when something is repealed or struck down it simply gets deleted and then listed in repealed statutes. So you end up with gaps on the main statutes page. For instance, it might jump from FL 31-3 to FL 31-7 or something - that's just a random example, and I think, "I wonder what was in that gap?" So what I'm doing is: rather than just deleting the repealed statute, I'm taking out the link to it and replacing it with "such and such bill was repealed by or struck down by" and then putting the link on the repealed statutes page. That way there aren't the gaps.

Of course I've not been real crazy about a separate page for repealed statutes, so I think the way I have started to do it leaves everything in tact as much as possible. And I have a few more to move, so I will get to them before long.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Attorney General,


Is the Gov't Atlasia looking at or possibly planning to sue the Pacific Government over legal issues stemming from the dissolution of their regional government, at this present juncture?

[DemPGH]

Mr. Attorney General,


Is the Gov't Atlasia looking at or possibly planning to sue the Pacific Government over legal issues stemming from the dissolution of their regional government, at this present juncture?

Of course. We're going to talk about it and figure out a course of action. But moreover I want a swift, comprehensive plan to attack that chicanery that is the "Final Pacific Constitution."

In the event that there is a new Const. convention, though, it would nice, and I'm also considering Marokai's recent case, to spell out guidelines for when the federal government can assume jurisdiction when individuals attempt to sabotage a region or it falls into inactivity.

[Хahar 🤔]

What Pacific Government will be sued? No such body exists.

[Dereich]

What Pacific Government will be sued? No such body exists.

They could sue the former Pacific council for unconstitutional actions; people sue dictators even though the offices they held no longer exist.

[DemPGH]

Oh, boy. I'm going to prioritize the Pacific situation and try to complete my brief soon, as in within the next 24 hrs., hopefully.

Annexation advocates should be wary of Article I Section 7 Clause 1 of the Constitution (I.7.1) as well as the fact that there are five regions encoded in the Constitution.

It also seems that we have people opening votes, writing half-assed constitutions and all KINDS of things as well, so I'll move soon on my brief to try to get this settled, and hopefully the Senate moves soon too.

[opebo]

What Pacific Government will be sued? No such body exists.

That has not been decided yet.

[minionofmidas]

What Pacific Government will be sued? No such body exists.

That has not been decided yet.

Nobody is claiming to be such a body. You'd strictly speaking need to have sued the people who used to accept their being the pacific government until very recently. It's a fairly minor point in practice, however.

[DemPGH]

I think I see an omission, which I will address soon (today). Right around when I was being confirmed there was the Presidential Succession Amendment (II.3.1 of the Constitution) which I believe passed all the regions, and what got me wondering about this was, of course, the possibility of an injunction against Senator Nix and me taking office. If there is an injunction, who will be President-- We may have to address that since a significant portion of the cabinet shall be vacant.

I've mentioned to a couple people that I lose track of the amendments due to the layover from passage to ratification and all the voting going on, so if I ever miss one and anyone notices, post here.

[DemPGH]

Announcement From the A.G. and V.P.
Nyman, D.C.

Atlasians, hello. Not being an attention whore, I'll make this here. . .

It is obvious that now more than ever a consistent rule of law is necessary, and that undemocratic oversights of infractions must no longer be allowed to continue unabated. This is the event horizon.

A two-point announcement follows:

1) The Pacific revolutionaries and NM-AM are at this time not considered terrorists by the Nix / DemPGH administration. Rather, the DOJ is conducting an investigation into the roles of the NM-AM / revolutionaries in formal Rebellion as defined by the Criminal Justice Act. This is mostly due to their open desire to restrict the Pacific Region from governing itself, their feud with a prior governor, and their past illegal attempts to shut down the region.

2) Further, we are announcing that we will not tolerate the illegal existence of paramilitary organizations and armed factions within the regions. The Constitution makes quite clear that regions are not to house such organizations in I.7.7.

Further, it is my belief that one region acquiring or "annexing" another is illegal as per I.7.1, IV.1, and IV.2 of the federal Constitution.

You will know more as we do.

-DemPGH, A.G., V.P.

[DemPGH]

There's certainly what I would characterize as disappointment and a degree of negative surprise surrounding the decision in Atlasia versus Militarized Forces, as the Court's decision was probably about as cautious as it could have been, but the issue will be revisited at the appropriate time. There is at least some idea of a standard that may address the issue.

Staving off the Pacific crisis was an obvious and quite unheralded, unacknowledged success, and one we are proud of regardless of the impressions surrounding those events.

Wiki updates continue; statutes and court cases are to date from the start of my tenure and the Constitution is steadily proceeding. The appointment of a D.A.G. will be a big help - hopefully he will have Wiki access soon.

Of a minor note, I have switched for the time being to the Pacific region - it is my hope that the disaster of a constitution that prevails there can be fixed if region consolidation does not first fix the problem. Currently, the Pacific cannot appoint a magistrate, and it is my hope that the council and the governor will attempt to address and resolve the situation, if they have not begun to yet.

[DemPGH]

Just a note that activity will be intermittent or otherwise light probably through Sunday 8.25 due to late summer festivities, company, visits, functions, etc. That means more than anything that I won't be reading as much as normal, so if something needs my attention as A.G. or V.P. and I miss it, PM me.

[Poirot]

To the Attorney general

The content of executive order 016 is darkened. I would like to know if citizens can see the content of this document under freedom of information. Citizens should have access to government documents and records.

[DemPGH]

Thanks for the question, Poirot.

The darkened exec order is of course the sanctioning of the use of dungeons to conceal our political opponents.

No, just kidding.

It's actually nothing. It was just a test to see how well something could be blacked out. That's all.

[DemPGH]

Guys, it would be nice if there could be a way or a format to let the attorney general know the status of Constitutional amendments, especially if we're going to single out the attorney general and require him or her to record things within a specified time limit. The PPT and the V.P. let the regional execs know when an amendment has passed, so I think it's fair that the status of the amendments be passed on then to the A.G. by the execs. That streamlines information.

I believe there's an amendment on committee impeachments? I thought we did away with the committees and also I don't see a voting booth for the NE or the Pac with regard to this amendment, but I could be glossing over it.

With the Wiki, it's not recording stuff that's a problem - it's going looking for it amid all the rubble and the inactivity and so forth. Along these lines, we used to have a Wiki commission, and Tyrion contacted me about starting up something like that again. I'm completely all for it, but what we need more than anything is just communication, a process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It gets back to the decision about whether to minimize confusion or minimize structure. The former sometimes leads to structured standards being established, the second sometimes opens the door to confusion. I tend to tilt more towards the former consideration as opposed to the later.

That said establishing a working system of communication between the AG and the Execs, regardless of the specific setup is most certainly a good idea.