Request For Court Ruling

Joshua

Joshua

TNPer
I hereby request that the court rule on the current situation over the election results for WA Delegate and CLO. Due to the fact that Rhindon Blade and Tresville were ineligible at the time (less then 30 days in the RA).

I also would like the court to make a ruling on holding a new round of voting for WA Delegate and CLO. And that the period of voting be shortened to 2 - 3 days.

Thank you! :)
 
Request noted.

Associate Justices Byardkuria and Romanoffia should be notified about the request since this appears to be the sort of issue that requires all of the justices of the Court to consider as a panel.

Interested citizens of TNP are provided 48 hours to make submissions concerning the request. All submissions are to make reference to and quote the text of provisions of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Legal Code they contend apply to this matter.
 
Article 1, Section 3, Item 7

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin..
Click to expand...

Rhindon Blade posted his RA application on:

Aug 26 2008, 12:05 AM
Click to expand...

Tresville reapplied to the RA on:

Aug 5 2008, 06:00 AM
Click to expand...

Nominations started on:

Sep 1 2008, 04:39 AM
Click to expand...

Therefore, both Tresville and Rhindon Blade did not meet the 30 days of Regional Assembly membership that is dictated in our constitution.
 
Just for the record, the voting topic started on September the 8th, meaning Tresville had been in the RA for longer than 30 days when he was actually elected, if not nominated.
 
Sydia:
Just for the record, the voting topic started on September the 8th, meaning Tresville had been in the RA for longer than 30 days when he was actually elected, if not nominated.
Click to expand...

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin..
Click to expand...

Neither candidate had been in the RA for 30 days when the nominations began.
 
The Court must request that you provide a link to the actual posts from which you took the time stamps.

I have no way of knowing what time zone the time stamps you quoted t were taken from. GMT (or more precisely UTC these days) is the official time for the region, and we'll need to look at the posts themselves to verify the actual times.
 
I'll take a look at the evidence so far and do some research on the precedents that may be involved.

I would request that the plaintiff in this matter also cite the exact relevant items in the Constitution as part of the complaint as a matter of formality.

Addendum:

So far the question seems to be the specific criteria for eligibility for nomination being met at the time of the beginning of nominations, during nominations and at the time of the election. Also, the issue of when eligibility is to start at the time of RA application or from the time RA status is granted. I request arguments along these particular and relevant lines to determine whether those arguments are within the scope (covered by, specifically) the Constitution to help define the limits of interpretation after all evidence and arguments are heard.

R
 
I believe argument and reference to the organic documents of the current government is required on the question of who has the authority to determine a remedy for the perceived violation. I note that except for one law setting the months in which elections are to be held, and a constitutional amendment to address the parameters of the election process, no other laws have been enacted on election and voting procedures since the current constitution came into force in December of 2007.

Given the authority of the Delegate to assure that the organic documents of the regional government are executed, as well as his authority to appoint and supervise officials of the Executive branch, given the responsibility of the Regional Assembly to provide or to choose to not provide, statutory laws to address matters not contained in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and given the power of the Council of Lower Officiels to oversee Executive actions, and to initiate emergency legislation for vote in the Regional Assembly on such terms as the CLO sets as appropriate, the Court may well be presented with an issue to determine who is authorized to resolve the matter.

The plaintiff, and others who wish to make a submission, are specifically asked to address this responsibility issue.


Edited to add the following: By "organic documents," I am referring collectively to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code. I strongly encourage interested parties to make reference to the Bill of Rights since those provisions have equal weight to the Constitution.
 
I will note for the record that Associate Justice Byardkuria has received notice of this proceeding, and he is free to add any requests for submissions from interested parties. Interested citizens still have 24 hours to make submissions in this proceeding before the Court takes the case under advisement.
 
I cited the relevant part of the constitution as it pertains to this problem.

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin..
Click to expand...

So far the question seems to be the specific criteria for eligibility for nomination being met at the time of the beginning of nominations, during nominations and at the time of the election. Also, the issue of when eligibility is to start at the time of RA application or from the time RA status is granted. I request arguments along these particular and relevant lines to determine whether those arguments are within the scope (covered by, specifically) the Constitution to help define the limits of interpretation after all evidence and arguments are heard.
Click to expand...

At the time of nominations neither Rhindon Blade or Tresville were eligible. Rhindon applied on August 26th, so the issue of applying and being accepted is a non-issue, either way he would not fulfill the 30 day requirement, and if the re-vote happens before the 26th of September he will still not be eligible.

Tresville reapplied on August 5th, and therefore the issue of when he applied and when he was accepted he is also a non-issue. Either way he would not have been eligible at the time when the nomination period started.

The issue of when each candidate applied and when they were accepted is a non-issue. The constitution clearly states that a player must be in the RA for 30 days before the nominations begin. Their application and re-application date is the earliest time and even then they fall short of the 30 day requirement. The date that each candidate was accepted into the RA would of course fall at a later point therefore putting them even farther away from the 30 day requirement.

The issue is that we had two candidates run in an election that they were not eligible for. As I stated the fairest solution is to hold a re-vote (a shorter period of 3 days) for those two positions. If we are allowed to hold a re-vote, and depending on when that occurs it could effect if Rhindon Blade is allowed to be in this re-vote or if he would be disqualified.
 
I fully understand the necessity of complying with what is directed in the Constitution, and I do not dispute that rectification must occur.

A six-day wait may indeed be quite an inconvenient period of time. However, I would ask whether it would be right to deliberately disqualify a successful candidate - while choosing to allow another candidate (who was similarly illegitimate) the privilege of a second chance.

Perhaps both an RA resolution and a re-election period is necessary? The RA may 'band-aid' the situation temporarily by decreeing, within the next few days, that all successful candidates of the recent elections be admitted to their offices until a re-election has occurred (the date of which may be determined by the court, or by the RA resolution). On the 26th, TNP hosts a re-election (with Tresville and I having both fulfilled the required 30 days). As such, we would not have to wait the length of six days for a change of government - and neither my success nor Tresville's would be compromised.

I have full confidence that both Tresville and I will succeed in the re-election - as Tresville claimed victory by a very large majority previously - and there to be only three CLO candidates this time around (with Kharkistania announcing his absence).

Something to consider, at least.
 
Looking at the factual evidence and constitutional references right now.

Can you establish the appropriate thread for posting a decision?
 
I'll be certain to get a Bureflux cake ordered, then.

(The Court is fully aware of the date. Justice hastily rendered is only little better than none at all.)
 
There's a difference between "hasty" and "acting more quickly than continental drift". Especially because, unless the court is involving itself in the politics of this case, the legal situation is very simple.
 
Haor Chall:
There's a difference between "hasty" and "acting more quickly than continental drift". Especially because, unless the court is involving itself in the politics of this case, the legal situation is very simple.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with that assessment for the most part.

What we need to do (and this is being worked on) is to solve the problem in the most expedient fashion possible that is fair to all candidates.
 
Keep in mind folks that this is the first case submitted to the Court for decision under the current Constitution.

Take a look at the facts, as well as the Bill of Rights, the COnstitution and the Legal Code, and one can see why this isn't a simple yea or nay.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Keep in mind folks that this is the first case submitted to the Court for decision under the current Constitution.

Take a look at the facts, as well as the Bill of Rights, the COnstitution and the Legal Code, and one can see why this isn't a simple yea or nay.
Click to expand...
Justice is always as simple as a yea or nay.

The Court should only look at the facts as they exist in line with the Constitution. Everything else is extraneous and should not effect the outcome of the request.
 
We have three sources of law these days: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code.

And consider the possibility those sources do not give the Court the authority to impose a remedy.
 
It is simple, and the links provided make it evident. Tresville and Rhindon Blade were not eligible at the start of the nomination period (less than 30 days in the RA). And that is the one and only qualifier to being eligible for nomination. And they did not meet it at the time nominations started.

They are eligible now. Hold a quick re-election for their two positions.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
We have three sources of law these days: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code.

And consider the possibility those sources do not give the Court the authority to impose a remedy.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with your last point but must contend the first.

The Bill of Rights and Legal Code are supplemental to the Constitution. If they contradict the Constitution then the Constitution is the overriding authority. Therefore, shouldn't only the Constitution be considered in this instance?
 
Gracius Maximus:
Grosseschnauzer:
We have three sources of law these days: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code.

And consider the possibility those sources do not give the Court the authority to impose a remedy.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with your last point but must contend the first.

The Bill of Rights and Legal Code are supplemental to the Constitution. If they contradict the Constitution then the Constitution is the overriding authority. Therefore, shouldn't only the Constitution be considered in this instance?
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights is equal in weight to the Constitution if I remember correctly.
 
For GM's benefit:
Constitution Article I Section 3:
2. The Constitution and Declaration of Rights shall share full, constitutional authority with all the rights and privileges that come with that authority. The Legal Code is second only to the previous in legal force. In case of conflict in wording, the Constitution and Declaration of Rights take precedence. Any and all other regulations and guidelines are lower in authority than the Legal Code unless otherwise specified
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
For GM's benefit:
Constitution Article I Section 3:
2. The Constitution and Declaration of Rights shall share full, constitutional authority with all the rights and privileges that come with that authority. The Legal Code is second only to the previous in legal force. In case of conflict in wording, the Constitution and Declaration of Rights take precedence. Any and all other regulations and guidelines are lower in authority than the Legal Code unless otherwise specified
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks.

Well, that just doesn't make sense. How can you include separate legislation within the Constitution, label is as equal in weight and not provide for an avenue of recourse if there are inconsistencies?

However, I do not believe there are inconsistencies in this situation. The Constitution provides clear requirements for qualification to run in the election for Delegate. I do not believe the Bill of Rights to even be topical to this discussion.
 
The clause from the constitution about eligibility for nomination is the only part to consider. Which Rhindon Blade and Tresville clearly did not meet at the time of nominations.
 
Justice Byardkuria has notified the Court that he is recusing himself from this case, as he was a candidate for Delegate in these elections.

GM, it may not make sense to you, but an overwhelming majority of the RA at the time (3/4ths) wanted the Bill of Rights to be a separate but equal document to the Constitution; they then replaced the old Constitution with the Current one.

Joshua, take a look at the last three paragraphs of the Bill of Rights; they play a role here, as do Law 26 and Law 28, and otyher parts of the Constitution.
 
Oh I don't know, that could be the same thing. :P

But no, I want a rerun of the election not a revote. Considering the situation that would be, IMO, the most appropriate decision.

The Court may appear comatose but only because of its political leanings. The Constitution is quite clear and I don't believe there is any ambiguity in what should have been done. Apparently the court can only act when it's convinient to those it evidently favours.
 
Please keep in mind that the Court is, for the purposes of this case, a two-membered institution. As such, any action requires a consensus - they can't just arm-wrestle to see who has to be the dissenting opinion if they can't agree.
 
Ok, so what I said only applies to one member of the Court. Hmmm. :unsure:

Arm wrestling sounds like a good idea to me. Though as it is Gross and Roman we're talking about I think some kind of gladiatorial contest to the death would be more entertaining (and of greater benefit to TNP... :noangel:). And you could sell tickets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top