Office of Oakvale, attorney at law

[Oakvale]

Friends,

This office thread will serve as the platform for all my public statements and comments as I settle down to resume practice as Atlasia's premier attorney-at-law.

A lot has changed since I was last active in Atlasian public life, and yet so much has remained the same. Many of the familiar issues that have faced the nation for decades continue to present challenges. My old friend and law partner Bacon Kingman has ascended to the Supreme Court in recognition of his unparalleled legal mind. The regional and political landscape has shifted... but, however, not quite unrecognizably.

In my advancing years I have departed New York City for the somewhat more relaxed environs of sunny New Hampshire, but my doors are open to all, regardless of partisan affiliation - if you need legal representation, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Former Justice Oakvale contemplates truth, justice and the Atlasian way in his modest New Hampshire law offices.

[Oakvale]

Statement on recent events

Like all Atlasians, I am deeply perturbed by the shocking events of today, where Atlasia's democratically elected President, Windjammer, refused to take office, elevating his running mate, Sestak, to the presidency.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the former president-elect's declaration that other commitments proved too pressing to ignore. Indeed, such honesty, rather than serving out an inactive and inattentive term, is commendable and noble. Likewise, I have every faith that President Sestak will discharge his duties with dignity and integrity.

Nonetheless, Atlasians must be confident that their democratic will has been respected and that we are not sliding into a dark and murky era where voters can no longer safely trust that the political establishment will abstain from 'bait and switch' maneuvers with no forewarning.

I wish President Sestak and the chief justice well.

[Oakvale]

Statement on recent events

Like all Atlasians, I am deeply perturbed by the shocking events of today, where Atlasia's democratically elected President, Windjammer, refused to take office, elevating his running mate, Sestak, to the presidency.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the former president-elect's declaration that other commitments proved too pressing to ignore. Indeed, such honesty, rather than serving out an inactive and inattentive term, is commendable and noble. Likewise, I have every faith that President Sestak will discharge his duties with dignity and integrity.

Nonetheless, Atlasians must be confident that their democratic will has been respected and that we are not sliding into a dark and murky era where voters can no longer safely trust that the political establishment will abstain from 'bait and switch' maneuvers with no forewarning.

I wish President Sestak and the chief justice well.

Such is what happens when you run for President without actually desiring to be President. While doing so for party maintenance operations might be beneficial internally, it becomes difficult when you accidentally win.

It would seem to me that, if nothing else, we could surely have been provided with some advanced warning, as a courtesy. I woke up this morning ready for the beginning of the Windjammer era and was fairly stunned when I realised what had transpired.

[Oakvale]

Had I been advising the former president-elect, I would have urged him to announce his decision not to take office in advance to avoid possible legal and constitutional complications.

Traditionally, an officeholder's tenure has been thought to begin when they swear the oath of office. For the Presidency, this is prescribed in the Constitution in Art. IV, §5 c.5 -

Upon the commencement of their term in office, the President shall swear the following oath: "I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the Republic of Atlasia, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia."

However, the Federal Electoral Act (2019) states, in §2 c.4 that -

4. All candidates elected in any regular federal election as described within this section shall begin their term of office at noon Eastern Daylight Time for terms beginning between the second Sunday in March and the first Sunday in November, and noon Eastern Standard Time for all other terms, on the first Friday in the month after the scheduled month of election.

The slight ambiguity presents some difficulty: a plain reading of the text would indicate that the term of an elected officeholder would seem to begin precisely at noon, Eastern Time on the first Friday in the month after their election. Immediately upon their term having thus begun, the new President is constitutionally instructed to swear an oath.

Naturally, the Constitution takes precedent over statute, but it would not seem that the texts of the FEA or the Constitution are actually in conflict in this instance - the FEA defines when a term begins, while the Constitution defines what a President must do when that term has begun.

As such, it would have been preferable both from a good government perspective and legally to have declared such intention - effectively a late 'concession' as per longstanding precedent prior to the apparent automatic beginning of the presidential term. As was the case, the former president-elect did not renounce the office until the scheduled presidential term had already began.

This is, of course, entirely technicality. The only practical difference adherence to the strict letter of the law would have made was that Windjammer would technically have been, briefly, president and thus had to formally resign before Sestak could ascend to the office. But it's an interesting aside and highlights the inherent problems that can arise in these unprecedented moments.

An added wrinkle is, of course, that the former president-elect was - and remains - an incumbent officeholder at the beginning of the presidential term. This raises the question of what happens in such an instance: if we read the FEA at face value, it would suggest that terms of elected officials begin at noon, Eastern Time, regardless of the intent of the elected party.

Would this similarly suggest, following this logic, that one elected to federal office vacates, automatically, their current office (should such be incompatible with simultaneously holding federal office), upon their elected term's commencement, without the need for resignation?

This issue would benefit from statutory clarification in the future.

[Oakvale]

I think it has been taken as precedent (for most offices) that once the oath has been taken, the term is retroactive from noon on the the specified day. However, by not taking the oath, the term is forfeited in its entirety.

I agree that that would seem to be the most prudent way to approach this (certainly I would imagine that this is how I would have done so during my time on the Supreme Court).

However I would humbly suggest the Congress may consider clarifying this point when the FEA is next considered for amendment.

[Oakvale]

Statement on the Congress Should Serve The People Act

I am calling on the Senate to reject the cynical changes to congressional salaries in the infantile Congress Should Serve The People Act. The bill proposes to slash congressional pay by over two-thirds in a hollow populist gesture that will only serve to ensure that the independently wealthy - or those bought and paid for by wealthy benefactors, legal or otherwise - are willing to pursue elected office.

While this may appeal a small handful of well-entrenched members of the political establishment, doubtless bankrolled by crooked labor unions or shady corporate donors, the perversity of this myopic form of gesture politics is obvious and harkens back to the dark days of Communist misrule that nearly destroyed our nation.

Remarkably, debate thus far has apparently focused nearly exclusively on the Senate discussing which of their old cronies they wish to immortalize with busts in the Capitol. Nonetheless, I trust that the majority of our elected representatives will resist the impulse of pandering to cheap applause and sensibly reject this ill-advised legislation.

[Oakvale]

Statement on Beck v. Atlasia

I have today filed suit before the Supreme Court of Atlasia arguing that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2020 is in gross violation of the Constitution of Atlasia and asking that the law be struck down in its entirety.

As this is only the first of several lawsuits I am considering, I have embodied the case with a certain narrative flair as has historically been the practice in some notable petitions so as to avoid multiple Oakvale v. Atlasias, or, God forbid, a roman numeral. I would like to give my thanks to the fine people of the 'random surname generator' website for their invaluable assistance in preparing this case.

I am hopeful that the Court will take the opportunity to reestablish constitutional precedent in this area and grant certiorari without delay.

[Oakvale]

Statement on tack50 vs. Lincoln Speaker Wulfric

I am following with interest the lawsuit filed against the Lincoln legislature alleging that the no confidence motion passed against Chancellor S019 was invalid.

As with the potential illegalities surrounding Windjammer's refusal to swear in, the fundamental issue in this instance is that I don't understand the practical consequences of this lawsuit. Even if the motion as passed were to be ruled invalid, the majority of the Council would presumably nonetheless simply vote again to appoint a Chancellor that represents the democratic will of the people of Lincoln, as expressed at the ballot box. Clearly it would be perverse to attempt to install the former incumbent as the head of government through legal trickery when this has been rejected by the people.

However, it is true that the vote, as carried out in haste, raises constitutional questions. The defense argues:

A majority of the membership - in fact, a supermajority thereof - did indeed vote Aye on the motion. Further, nowhere in this text does it require that the "second" happens on the forum. I am happy to share discord DMs on the subject should the Court take this case. Further, as the text does not specifically require that the second happen before the vote begins, AGA's Aye can be considered a second - the text only really serves to prevent a 1-0 (or 1-1 with the Governor tiebreak I suppose) vote of no confidence. This vote was 4-1.

The logic of this argument seems tenous. The relevant regional Constitutional provision reads:

A motion of no confidence shall require a sufficient second to be voted on by the Council, and if this is achieved[...]

Any reasonable interpretation of this clause would surely conclude that a second is required prior to the vote of the full Council, hence "and if this is achieved,". The defense's further argument that there is no requirement that such a second takes place on the forum proper is audacious but uncompelling.

The defense's strongest argument is that the lopsided majority in favor of the motion represents a de facto second, followed by a vote of the majority of the Council. Let us consider the possibility that the introduction of the motion, followed immediately by an indicative "Aye" from the proposer, and then a second "Aye" from a Councillor, constitutes an introduction and seconding of the motion, prior to the vote proper having begun.

This was then followed by three votes cast - one opposed, two in favor. This thus constituting three members voting, and a simple majority of the Council having voted - regardless of how one approaches the prior introduction and seconding - the motion was therefore valid and passed.

As such, while the implementation of the motion left something to be desired, and the Council would be advised to take greater care with such business going forward (if there had been just a single member who failed to vote, depriving the vote of a majority if one excludes the proposer and seconder, the petition would be far stronger) there seems to me to be no practical case for the petitioner.

Were I the responsible Justice, I would decline to hear the case.

[Oakvale]

I wonder if you're interested in Wulfric's claim that legislative actions can occur on Discord, that fees pretty sketchy. That's worse than what you prosecuted Ninja for, right?

That is clearly an absurd argument, yes.

Fortunately for the defense their position is strong enough without relying on such a suggestion, but obviously the idea that anywhere outside The Forum Proper exists in Atlasia for such purposes would be damaging to the rule of law. Perhaps legislators can vote via Zoom call? WhatsApp texts?

[Oakvale]

Further statement on tack50 vs. Lincoln Speaker Wulfric

I am pleased to announce that I have been retained as defense counsel in tack50 vs. Lincoln Speaker Wulfric and have submitted a brief to the Court in line with my above reasoning.

I believe the case in this instance is airtight - while it would certainly be preferable that the Council more specifically highlight their adherence to the region's Constitution to avoid such questions arising in the future, there can be little question that the motion of no confidence as passed was entirely valid.

[Oakvale]

When it comes to things like amendments and final votes for that matter some degree of what we use to fondly care Bacon Kings Patented Loophole Abuse^TM is acceptable as long as requisite majorities are achieved. We often start votes if a couple days passed since a final vote motion even if no one called for objections. On votes of extreme consequence though, you generally should make sure to keep all the Is dotted and the Ts crossed.

The best and easiest way is to keep the relevant guidance be it constitution/rules what have you tabbed and review it as you go.

Well, given Bacon King is going to be the justice issuing a rule here I guess this is going to get dismissed then

When I sued the Marokai administration I made sure to gratuitously mention the relevant precedent, which just so happened to be a case that the then Chief Justice had brought several years prior and thus included his name.

In an amusing reversal of this, I am currently suing the state in Beck v. Atlasia based in part on the precedent set by a case in which the unsuccessful defendant's counsel was a certain Labor politician by the name of Windjammer.

[Oakvale]

Statement on the retirement of Scott

I was sorry to read this morning that Scott has stepped away from Atlasia. Too often those of us who enjoy it can forget that the whirlwind of bickering and political combat that arises from this game can sometimes drive good people away.

This is a sad day for our nation. I have had my share of disagreements with Scott over the years, but he has always been someone who epitomizes, even to his opponents, decency and integrity, and I look forward to the day, hopefully not too long away, when he can return to his rightful place in public life.

[Oakvale]

Victory in tack50 vs. Lincoln Speaker Wulfric

The Court has ruled in our favour in this complex case, on the grounds that the Court has no authority to overturn the results of a motion of no confidence. The democratic will of the people of Lincoln has been upheld.

I would like to thank the defense for retaining me as counsel, and, indeed, tack50 for bringing an interesting and precedent-setting case in the first instance.

I would also recommend that everyone read Justice Bacon King's engrossing and exhaustive opinion, which is evidence that he remains one of Atlasia's finest legal minds. We are fortunate to have him on the Supreme Court. While I, as one might expect, disagree with some of the Court's interpretations, the opinion in full is highly worth a read to anyone with even the slightest interest in Atlasian constitutional law.

I hope that the Council will heed the ruling of the Court and show care in such important matters in the future, so that we may avoid these murky constitutional questions going forward.

[Oakvale]

Statement on my candidacy for the Senate

I have watched with growing dismay as the field of candidates in my home region of Lincoln has remained stagnant, with partisan but little clear ideological distinction. So with the filing deadline hours away, and no further candidates emerging, I have declared as a candidate for the Senate seat representing Lincoln. I hope that my presence on the ballot will, if nothing else, broaden the choice of representative available to the people.

[Oakvale]

If elected, will you vote to pass the unicameralism plan?

I will have to see its ultimate iteration but certainly, although I have misgivings, as it stands I believe it's a novel and interesting proposal that would be an improvement over the status quo.

[Oakvale]

Wow, so nice to see some old friends still active in this game. It seems like a brave new world out here.

I only recently returned as a lockdown era distraction but it's very much a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same. Good to see you again, old friend.

You know very well that certain ideologies cannot win. You paint me and Blair as marxists, which is simply not true (at least IG). You bypass certain procedures, and even haven't participated in the debate, while you know very well for a few weeks you wanted to run, as i've heard the rumours two weeks ago.

I find what you're doing pretty much disrespectful especially towards me. I feel like i get much more respect by Blair (think about labor what you want), but Blair is an honourable person. You (and Ishan who probably encouraged you to run) treat me as a bag of sh**t, spreading dishonest information about me further, which is why I'd endorse Blair for second preference, and why i'm encouraging everyone who votes for me to second preference Blair after me, as Blair is clear that he puts Atlasia and Lincoln first, while you only run because of some personal grudge towards some persons.

What on earth are you talking about? I basically have no idea who you are and certainly haven't "spread dishonest information" about you?

[Oakvale]

Debate questions - some answers

I am unclear as to what exactly is transpiring with my erstwhile opponent. I think it is probably best if I ignore whatever is developing in that respect.

Regardless, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to some of the questions that had been posed in the Lincoln Senate debate. I thank the Vice-President for the chance to share some of my thoughts on the issues facing Lincoln and Atlasia more broadly.

As we all know, Atlasia has been ravaged by COVID-19, and thousands of Atlasians have perished to this virus. As the end of the pandemic appears near, how would you support transitioning back to normal life? What safety measures do you believe are still justified? What role do you believe the Atlasian government has in continuing to fight against the social and economic effects of COVID-19?

I am in broad agreement with my opponents on the response to Covid - our vaccination programme has been a success and provide a path - the only path - back to normal life. Likewise I am supportive of the federal government stepping in an emergency situation to provide the necessary  financial firepower to address the worst impacts of the pandemic on our people. When our vaccination targets have been met it is similarly in our best interest to share our surplus supplies with other countries.

I am not in favor of any federally mandated public health measures when our vaccination program is complete, but would view this as fundamentally a responsibility of the regions.

There are two points I would highlight as central to our response as we emerge from the pandemic period: first, I am in agreement on the urgent necessity of keeping schools and, to a lesser extent, universities open by whatever means necessary, and, second, over the longer term, the need to restore the Atlasian public finances to a credible position. There is a role for the state in any economy, but if we want to enter into a new era of unprecedented public expenditure as the new normal than this will, inevitably, have to be funded. I would be wary of the implications for this on our tax burden: too often in Atlasia we have viewed businesses and the very wealthy as a limitless source of free dollars from whom extracting funds has zero negative consequences.

While a broad-based economic recovery, when we have brought this crisis to an end, will, yes, do much in restoring the public coffers to health, we will need to take a cold, hard look at where efficiencies and, indeed, privatizations can be implemented to shore up our fiscal buffers for the next black swan event.

Recently in Lincoln, two controversial legislative initiatives - one introducing further restriction on late-term abortions, and one regulating 'diversity training' - both passed in a relatively low-turnout election. In your opinion, did the people of Lincoln make the right decision? How will you address these issues as a Senator?

I voted against both these initiatives and would rather they had not passed.

I was sympathetic to the aims of the regulations on 'diversity training' - I have little patience for the cult of hyper-woke race science nonsense that has become fashionable in HR circles in recent years. But the bill included what seemed to be an excessive reward for 'whistleblowing' that would have, ironically, awarded money to people who claimed their feelings were hurt. What could be more in tune with today's HRification of society than that? Had this clause not been present I would likely have supported the legislation.

People can disagree on the abortion issue in good faith. My own view was that the legislation was ill-conceived and would have little practical impact - a case of signalling. I would note that my own personal views on this matter have not prevented me from, in Roe v. ZuWo, ruling that the federal government has no jurisdiction in abortion (a decision that has been to an extent reversed, in my view, erroneously).

With a recent bill recognizing Taiwan passing Congress, tensions with China appear to be once more increasing. What is your take on the China issue? How do you believe Congress, and Atlasia as a whole, should handle China? Are you concerned about further animosity between the governments of the two nations potentially encouraging anti-Chinese-American xenophobia?

China is the single most significant bad actor on the world stage, and an opponent of basic Atlasian values. Our predecessor state fought Soviet communism for decades and was a shining light of freedom and opportunity for oppressed peoples throughout the world. Our moral imperative is to do the same today. Of course, the economic power of the Chinese Communist Party is vast. Its tendrils are intertwined with many of our businesses. We have all witnessed the dismal displays of professional athletes and Hollywood producers bowing to Beijing.

This is to say nothing of the criminal act that China committed in its willful misleading of the world on the current pandemic. It is not exaggeration to say that the present misery we have found ourselves in is the fault of the Chinese state. I fully support the Congress' actions in recognizing Taiwan and condemning human rights violations, most notably the ongoing holocaust against the Uighur people. I am confident that, in the unlikely event that I were to prevail in this election, I would find allies in the Senate on further sanctions against the Chinese state and businesses who deal with our geopolitical enemy.

To be as clear as possible: any decent person is repulsed and horrified by xenophobic discrimination against Asian Atlasians. But we cannot let this frankly tenuous correlation, which is promoted by the Chinese disinformation media, to prevent us from taking action. I would finally note as an addendum that I am skeptical of the utility of Senator Blair's suggestion of a federal task force on this issue. This should be dealt with on a local, regional level, as with any local crime.

Many in the center and right have accused Labor dominance of perpetuating legislative stagnation. Do you believe this take is correct? Is there a dearth of meaningful legislative activity? How will you, as Senator, address this issue, if it even exists?

This is correct, objectively correct. But, to be fair to Labor, this would happen - indeed, has happened - regardless of the specific ideological hue - any time one party drains the life out of the game like some blood-sucking wraith by - if you will - gaming the system to ensure total systemic dominance. There is simply little incentive for people to participate when the natural party of government, inevitably, runs the country like a low rent mafia family.

I am optimistic that the plan proposed by the President et al. will provide a framework for discussing how to address this issue.

As for how I would address this issue were I to be elected to the Senate: people have accused me of many things - some of them true - over my long career in Atlasia. One thing I don't think anyone can accuse me of is being a party line man. The activity question, the "economy of Atlasia", as I have called it before, has been the issue most important to me for many years.

To quote myself, I have said on many occasions that the problem with our concept of 'activity' is that we as citizens tend to see it as a moral, individual failing, rather than what it really is - which is a fundamental structural flaw in our system of incentives, not character defects on the part of anyone who lapses into inaction and sloth. The dominance of one party is a structural problem that needs to be addressed. I hope we can make some progress in doing so as we debate the current reform proposal.

Recently, there have been significant concerns regarding the onset of offsite recruiting. What's your take on this issue, and do you believe that offsite recruiting's increasing prevalence is a threat to the game's survival? Do you believe regulations on new registers should be passed, to combat this?

I have been thinking about this a lot in recent weeks. We have entered into a grotesque situation whereby the electorate has been massively inflated by brutal mathematics, on both sides, yet the proportion of 'active players' has remained largely stagnant.

In most countries, the 'active players' and the 'electorate' are one and the same. This is not the case in Atlasia. Let us refer to the electorate - the voter rolls - and the citizenry - those who are at least somewhat involved with Atlasia and are aware of the issues and personalities of the day etc.

This perverse development means that the electorate has been detached from citizenry. It was ever thus, and this has been a fundamental structural problem that Atlasia has struggled with since its inception. "Campaigning" in Atlasia, in the sense of making lapel-clutching speeches or participating in debates such as this, has never mattered so much as the ability to send dozens of PMs to your legion of wiling zombies. This has meant that bad, inactive people get elected while credible and talented people are consigned to electoral irrelevancy.

But the shameful activities of those who recruited masses of meaningless, empty vessels to our voter rolls has made the problem spiral out of control. The size of the "zombie" electorate is now, quite simply, a danger to the sustainability of Atlasia as a meaningful and worthwhile democracy.

Win or lose this race, I will not stop fighting this problem. We must analyse our response with the urgency that it merits, and we must respond. If we don't, this will be how things work from here on out. People will win elections by recruiting five hundred gomers off Stormfront and shipping them to Lincoln. And our debates and policy discussions will mean precisely nothing.

What is your proudest achievement in Atlasia?

Some of the decisions I had the opportunity to author while I was on the Supreme Court had profound ramifications and were based in a fair and objective understanding of the Constitution - which resulted in many of them being unanimous rulings despite an ideologically diverse Court. So I would have to say that part of my career is my proudest accomplishment.

[Oakvale]

In the debate, I said the following on the electorate crisis:

Recently, there have been significant concerns regarding the onset of offsite recruiting. What's your take on this issue, and do you believe that offsite recruiting's increasing prevalence is a threat to the game's survival? Do you believe regulations on new registers should be passed, to combat this?

I have been thinking about this a lot in recent weeks. We have entered into a grotesque situation whereby the electorate has been massively inflated by brutal mathematics, on both sides, yet the proportion of 'active players' has remained largely stagnant.

In most countries, the 'active players' and the 'electorate' are one and the same. This is not the case in Atlasia. Let us refer to the electorate - the voter rolls - and the citizenry - those who are at least somewhat involved with Atlasia and are aware of the issues and personalities of the day etc.

This perverse development means that the electorate has been detached from citizenry. It was ever thus, and this has been a fundamental structural problem that Atlasia has struggled with since its inception. "Campaigning" in Atlasia, in the sense of making lapel-clutching speeches or participating in debates such as this, has never mattered so much as the ability to send dozens of PMs to your legion of wiling zombies. This has meant that bad, inactive people get elected while credible and talented people are consigned to electoral irrelevancy.

But the shameful activities of those who recruited masses of meaningless, empty vessels to our voter rolls has made the problem spiral out of control. The size of the "zombie" electorate is now, quite simply, a danger to the sustainability of Atlasia as a meaningful and worthwhile democracy.

Win or lose this race, I will not stop fighting this problem. We must analyse our response with the urgency that it merits, and we must respond. If we don't, this will be how things work from here on out. People will win elections by recruiting five hundred gomers off Stormfront and shipping them to Lincoln. And our debates and policy discussions will mean precisely nothing.

Happily, a development in the last few days has given a crystal clear illustration of the depth of the plague. Some of the endorsements in my opponent's campaign thread:

Endorsed. only here so i get validated

Endorsed

Endorsed

GL OSR

Endorsed

Fully endorsed

The average post count here is 49. I would especially draw attention to a good example in the form of this this poster, who as far as I can tell has literally never made a post above about three words.

To be clear, Senator Blair is still, in my estimation, the favorite to win this election. And, certainly, the Labor Party are just as culpable in creating this crisis too, and the Senator will benefit from his own army of dead-eyed zombie voters being shipped to the polls. But it is disheartening to see the Federalist Party generally, and my opponent specifically, who have quite rightly criticized the Labor dominance of our politics for its vampiric effect on activity and manipulation of voter rolls, shamelessly engaging in unethical behavior this blatant.

I will repeat myself - the electorate and the citizenry hold an increasingly weak relationship to each other. This is a menace to our democracy. It is imperative that we dramatically strengthen voter eligibility requirements. Unfortunately given that the two big parties benefit the most from the zombie voter base arms race, I fear this is unlikely to happen.

[Oakvale]

Statement on election results

My first duty is to congratulate Senator Blair on his re-election. Blair has been one of the better senators and I'm sure he will continue to be so in his new term. I also must thank the people who voted for me - this was a symbolic candidacy. I did not campaign or whip votes, so it was a pleasant surprise to learn that some lent me their support nonetheless.

I achieved what I set out to do when I placed my name on the ballot in protest at the homogeneity of the field - ultimately, we had an ideologically diverse election in Lincoln, where voters were not disenfranchised through a lack of choice, and that can only be a good thing.

Finally, I was also grateful for the opportunity to clutch my lapels and sound off on various topics in the debate. The election highlighted some serious issues, not least on the electorate crisis, which I intend to continue working on.

[Oakvale]

Statement on the ongoing election

Due to being preoccupied with matters in the bizarre dream state some of us have referred to as 'real life', I have not been as active as I would have liked in the past several weeks. I was disheartened, if not surprised, to see that the people have chosen a proto-fascist Prussian flag as our national banner.

Nonetheless, I was delighted to cast my ballot for my friend Ishan for my local Senate seat. Ishan is one of the outstanding figures in Atlasian politics and will make a terrific addition to a too-often homogenous Senate.

I have also voted for the Federalist nominee, LouisvilleThunder, for President. While I respect the Labor candidates, and, indeed, our incumbent president, I think it is bordering on the self-evident that it is time for a change after a very long period of uninterrupted socialist government. LT and Ninja have run on the clever slogan: 'had enough'? Yes, I think we all have.

It is foolish to ever bet against the brutal political machine of the 'party of power'. But it would be fantastic to see an unlikely upset in the presidential race: with LT in the White House we would have, if nothing else, an opportunity, to begin to shake free from stagnation and restore our activity levels to something above the comatose. I hope that I can do my own part to contribute.

[Oakvale]

Is a vote a post? Thoughts on a relevant edge case

Atlasia's Federal Electoral Act sets out a farcically low bare minimum activity requirement for a voter's ballot to be valid - a user must have made at least eight posts (!) in the eight weeks (!) preceding the beginning of the election. Despite this requirement being generous to the point of absurdity, the ever-increasing bloating of the 'zombie voter' base means that there are nominal citizens who struggle to meet this threshold.

Eight weeks prior to the beginning of the recently concluded federal election, the federal House election was ongoing. As such, an edge case emerges: a poster could have -

1. Voted in the House election (which was within eight weeks of the commencement of the current election)
2. Made seven further posts in the intervening period
3. Posted a ballot

The question then arises: is a vote a post?

The rock bottom floor requirement imposed by the FRA has a clear, if extremely weak, motivation: to ensure that, to some minimal standard, voters are active on the forum and do not simply exist as a bank of drones to be wheeled out at each election. Eight posts in two months is, surely, more than enough scope for even the most inactive poster to meet.

But the de facto effect of counting a ballot as a post is to reduce even this requirement - down to, in a best case scenario, seven 'posts' in the forum proper. Such an interpretation thus defeats the very spirit of the legislation. It would thus seem to me that it would be incoherent to consider previous votes cast as 'posts' for the purposes of meeting the activity requirement.

A cursory scroll through the voting thread has already provided me with two examples of posters - one who cast their ballot for the Labor nominee, one for the Federalist nominee, who only met Atlasia's 'race to the bottom' low of an activity requirement if one considers their prior ballot as counting toward that minimum.

I'm not immediately aware of any existing precedent on this issue. It would seem it may benefit from legal clarification.

As I've said many times, it would be trivial to avoid the thorny legal questions surrounding this increasing amount of edge cases by simply increasing our activity requirements to something above that of the residents of your nearest cemetery.

[Oakvale]

Yes, a vote is a post, counselor. It is a more meaningful expression of activity in Atlasia than posting on some unrelated board. It shows the poster attuned to Atlasian politics, not real world stuff.

That might be the case in theory, but hardly in practice: we think of the traditional 'zombie' as someone who only shows up in Atlasia to vote while being relatively active on the forum at large, but surely the registered voter who votes, spams "endorsed" seven further times in eight weeks when directed and then votes again could not reasonably be argued to be 'attuned to Atlasian politics'.

I don't see how a vote isn't a post. The activity requirements don't exclude votes. They could if they wanted to. Therefore, votes must count as posts.

Suppose the Congress was to reduce the posts in eight weeks requirement to just one (at the current rate they may get there) - a voter's ballot would then be eligible under this interpretation simply by virtue of having voted in the previous federal election. Is this 'activity' in any meaningful sense?

[Oakvale]

Mob rule in the Supreme Court - an alarming trend

In my advancing years, I must confess I have come to enjoy my time summering in Florida. Ready and rested after a relaxing vacation away from Atlasia, I expected - or, at least hoped - to return to a nation at ease with itself and where the impartial rule of law, interpreted by a prudent and wise Supreme Court, is a self-evident truth.

Unfortunately, I was deeply troubled at what instead awaited me: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court debasing his office by openly threatening his critics in the most outrageous political terms after condemnation of a farcical car crash of a judicial process that would be more appropriate to a banana republic than one of the world's great democracies.

Few will admit it, but it's surely little secret that the Supreme Court - although consisting, by and large, of highly talented and upstanding jurists - has, over time, become in large part a vehicle for the affirmation of Labor Party policy through judicial means. That is, to be sure, a shame, but it's the culmination of a years-long strategy, oft abetted by unwitting allies, to transform Atlasia's most important branch of government into an adjunct of the politburo. I have watched in dismay the slow decay of the Court, but even I was stunned at this outburst from the party boss who has served as the Court's leader:

I will certainly not beg for mercy after 8 years of loyal service to this party. I have saved this party countless times from destruction, . And to all these worthless and ingrateful laborites who are seeking my demise, my vengeance will be terrible.

I will screw up your career.

Is this the language of a Supreme Court justice or of a mob boss? Are those who criticise the clumsy decisions of the Court to have their legs broken? Is someone going to end up at the bottom of the Potomac?

I was appalled to watch many people I respect from multiple parties and political persuasions close ranks and defend this behaviour as a minor lapse of judgement rather than a profoundly alarming warning sign (a red flag, one might say?) as to the sheer scale of the Court's collapse into party thuggery. I can only imagine the primary motivator for those who did so is fear of political retribution. What an utter tragedy.

If the Supreme Court is to retain the people's faith as the impartial guardian of the Constitution, there is no place for obnoxious threats and partisan hooliganism on the bench. That this even needs to be said, and that there are those who disagree - or, at least, feel compelled to publicly claim to do so - reveals to us in stark relief that we are sleepwalking through a real and serious threat to the moral legitimacy of the judicial system and the constitutional order of the Republic.

[Oakvale]

Oakvale,
You have spent all your atlasian career violently harassing people through the IRC. If really you were so concerned about "violent mobs" or whatever bull**** point you are trying to make, you should have first acknowledged how s*itty you behavior was when you were still active and ask for forgiveness.

Like you I'm certainly no stranger to rough and tumble politics (with a caveat - I don't think I ever sounded so much like Tony Soprano). Indeed, if I'd seen your, er, statement, in any other context I doubt I'd have so much as batted an eye.

But what we have here is a situation where the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court threatened like a low-rent thug, from the bench, to destroy the careers of those who dared to criticise the Court's handling of a politically prominent case.

How on earth could anyone possiblynow believe the Court is impartial and operates without prejudice? How are any of your internal critics ever going to bring a case to your Court without constant fear of bias or brutal retribution? Do you really not comprehend the problem here?

[Oakvale]

The evidence mounts.

“I’m going to fight hard....”

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Well to be fully Frank with you, I did enjoy it quite a bit lol.

My God...