tack50 v. Lincoln Speaker Wulfric

[Former President tack50]

Greetings Honourable Justice for the region of Lincoln.

I am filing this case to declare the motion of no confidence against Lincoln Chancellor S019 as invalid as is has not fulfilled the requirements for a valid no confidence vote on the Chanellor of Lincoln, as specified in Article I, Section 12 of the Lincoln Constitution.

Furthermore, the no confidence vote as it was ran by Speaker Wulfric breaks multiple provisions of the standing orders of the Lincoln Council, most notably Section 3.A. The Chief Judicial officer of the region of Lincoln is empowered to make a binding decision as per section 7 of the Standing orders.

x tack50, petitioner

[Former President tack50]

Brief of the petitioner

Since Justice Bacon King has decided to give us 4 questions for the court to decide, I will dedicate this brief to simply giving my answer to those 4 questions, but I will add more content to this if prompted to do so.


1. Is a second to a motion valid if it occurs in a venue other than the legislature itself?

In my view, clearly not, at least not as things currently stand now. A second to a motion, just like every other kind of procedure, should be performed on the Atlas forum and not on any sort of parallel secret chamber. At the end of the day, Atlasia exists exclusively on the boards of the Atlas forum, with anywhere else being essencially irrelevant for official purposes even when it can have several informal purposes for coordination and what not.

This may not be formally codified on legislation (although some sections of the standing orders and the Lincoln constitution make references to threads), but it has been the norm in Atlasia since its inception. Atlasia is a game where all formal votes and activities should happen in public on the forum.

Furthermore, due to the nature of Discord being behind closed doors, we cannot even know for sure whether or not the room Wulfric alludes to even exists, or who is in it! It could be the case that, for example, the very own chancellor being kicked out of office was not in the know! Needless to say, opening the door to a "shadow legislature" unaccountable to anyone but its members is a very dangerous slippery slope.

If the court considers it in order, I am hereby requesting a list of the members of the Discord room where the respondent alleges the second happened; the name of the server and channel in question as well as a transcript of the conversation where it happened.


2. When a motion requires a second to proceed, can the motion proceed chronologically before the second is made?

In my opinion no; however that question is slightly irrelevant in the abstract.

In this particular kind of motion, the Lincoln constitution is extremely clear that in order for a vote of no confidence to be opened, there must be a sufficient second:

12. The Council shall have the power to declare no confidence in the chancellor’s government. A motion of no confidence shall require a sufficient second to be voted on by the Council, and if this is achieved, a majority of the membership of the Council voting Aye or Nay is sufficient to declare non-confidence in the government. If a loss of confidence occurs in the government, the governor must call a snap election or appoint a new candidate for chancellor.

The Lincoln Constitution makes it clear that without a valid second, there cannot be a motion of no confidence voted upon by the Council.


3. How broadly is "legislation" defined within the Rules of the Lincoln Council? Namely, if all legislation requires the governor's signature, what is the purpose of Rule 9.B?

Not all legislation (as debated by the Council) requires the signature of the Governor. I can think namely of at least 3 categories of legislation that do not require such signature:

a) Legislation to change the standing orders of the Council
b) Constitutional amendments
c) Non binding resolutions of the Council (generally these are meant to express the view of the council on a particular issue, but have no force of law attached and are just an opinion or an expression of intentions)

While it is customary for the Governor of Lincoln to sign these, his signature is not needed.

The purpose of Rule 9.B would be to specify that the legislation that requires the signature of the Governor (all which falls outside those 3 categories; generally everything with some "force of law")  shall be called a "bill" before being passed and an "Act" after passage. In my opinion it is perhaps a superflous rule but it is what it is.


4. Can a suspension of the rules by the presiding officer be implicit, or must it be announced as such?

In my opinion, a suspension of the rules by the presiding officer must be explicitly announced as such in most scenarios; since after all the suspension requires the consent of 2/3 of the Council, giving other councillors the right to object and call a vote to suspend the rules.

Speakers at the end of the day are human and sometimes they might, on accident, not follow the proper procedures; which could be retroactively justified as a suspension of the rules if no one objects if it came to court.

Given the great importance of this vote, removing the chief executive officer of the region of Lincoln, as well as the respondent's normally good disposition in serving as Speaker; I would be surprised if this was a genuine mistake as opposed to a scheme to rush things through.

However, even if we entertain that motion that this was an accident and retroactively allow it to stand as a rules suspension; a rules suspension cannot overrule the requirement for a sufficient second as established by the Lincoln Constitution; since the specific procedure specified by the constitution would overrule the standing orders.

[Former President tack50]

I think this is what I have to do now?

Gentlemen, as far as I am aware, this is the first Section 7.C hearing in the history of the Lincoln. I am cognizant of the significance of the precedent we will be establishing in this case. How far does the authority delegated to me by 7.C extend? I would very much appreciate the opinions of both the petitioner and respondent on this matter, as well as any friends of the court who happen to be following these proceedings.

It is worth noting that the South and Fremont as well as the Federal Congress if I am not mistaken have similar sections in their respective standing orders, though none of those has used a Section 7.C hearing either.

It is also worth noting I am not a sitting Lincoln councillor, so in theory I don't have standing to sue but the SC got rid of standing requirements a year ago so

I hesitate to unduly interfere with the internal affairs of the legislative branch, and if Section 7.C did not exist, I doubt I would have the authority to hear this case in the first place, considering the broad deference the Atlasian (and American) judicial branch must grant the legislative branch when it comes to the manner in which the latter handles its own internal affairs. Section 7.C is essentially a standing invitation granted by Lincoln's Council to this Court, to intervene and rule on matters of parliamentary procedure when and where it is necessary. How far does the invitation extend?

In theory the authority to hear this case would extend only as far as the legislature allows I imagine, as indeed the legislative branch is granted a big amount of leeway to handle its own affairs.

I think Section 7.C was intended as a last resort option to appeal rulings made by the presiding officer. Of course, nothing would stop the region from repealing that section if it so desired and having the presiding officer's decisions be non-appealable

On this topic, I have a question for the petitioner: if this court rules in your favor, is it sufficient to provide Lincoln's Council with the correct interpretation of its rules? If not, what additional steps must the court take (e.g. explicitly countermanding S019's removal as Chancellor?), and where does the Court derive its authority to take these additional steps?

Yes, the ultimate objective would be countermandering S019's removal as Chancellor. However, if the court decides it is not in the best interests of Atlasia and Lincoln to issue such a remedy because it would be undone by the legislature merely hours after issuing such a ruling I would be fine with some sort of advisory ruling to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself (of course, there is the question as to whether the court can issue such an advisory ruling, to which the answer normally seems to be no)

[Former President tack50]

I thank the court for this extremely comprehensive opinion. I am surprised it is this long but if the justice had fan in writing it, I am not one to have prejudices