Louisistan
•
Legislator
Posts: 573
Likes: 66
Gender: Male
Nation: The Spirit of Louisistan
Discord ID: Louisistan#9874
|
Post by Louisistan on Oct 2, 2022 15:40:18 GMT -5
1. Name of Plaintiff: Louisistan2. Name of Defendant: Feirmont3. Please explain very briefly what the case is about: Defendant failed to record the July Delegate and Legislature elections as required by The Electoral and Legislative Records Act 4. Which of your legal right(s) do you believe has been violated?: Through defendant's failure, I seem to be legally required to clean up after him. Defendant violated my right to easy access to electoral records. Defendant violated my right to a government that works as required by law 5. What remedy are you seeking (leave blank if unsure): Defendant to be ordered to provide the required records. 6. Does any evidence in this case need to be submitted in private because it is classified or highly personal?: No.
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Oct 2, 2022 22:12:09 GMT -5
The case is accepted and before the full Court with the Chief Justice presiding. Note that this is not due to unusually high complexity, but merely the fact that the Court is bored. I have seen on Discord that the Attorney General is going to represent the (current) government. Mr. Mont has not yet indicated if he wishes to represent himself, or avail himself of counsel, either of which is his right.
First of all, I find standing. Whether Plaintiff or Defendant are to perform the instant task directly impacts both parties, and that is all we need in a civil case. We also seem to have jurisdiction. This is an enforcement action not unlike what we've already seen in the past, and ELELERA is Spiritus statutory law which we are constitutionally tasked with interpreting. (For the purpose of pre-trial rulings I commonly accept as true the assertions in the complaint; that does not preclude findings to the contrary later on when everything is properly examined and argued about.)
Plaintiff has until Friday October 7 to submit an opening statement. I also ask Defendant to indicate by then whether he wishes to represent himself, or name counsel. Afterwards Defendant may present his defense. What happens then depends on whether both parties agree on the facts of this case, and we only have to concern ourselves with the legal side of things, or whether evidentiary proceedings will be required.
|
|
TimS
•
Citizen
Posts: 219
Likes: 23
|
Post by TimS on Oct 6, 2022 17:18:57 GMT -5
May it please the Court, Section three of The Electoral and Legislative Records Act ("the Act") states that "The Chief Executive is mandated to create a post in an appropriate place on the forums which is accessible to at least every citizen of Spiritus that contains a record of every vote occurring during or after the date of January 1st, 2019." A post does exist that contains a record of most of these votes. 1 In July of 2022, Legislature and Delegate Elections occurred and the Legislature election involved a vote. 2 The Election Records post does not contain even a mention of this election occurring. This is on its face a violation of the Act. In July of 2022, the defendant was the Chief Executive. 3 The Chief Executive was responsible for ensuring the Election Records post contains a record of every vote, including the votes of July of 2022. As the defendant was Chief Executive during the time of these elections, the defendant is responsible for updating the Election Records post, but he did not. While the Act does not provide a specific timeline for when the records must be updated, surely some reasonable time limit must be in place or else the law would be rendered without real effect. Three months is far too long to be considered reasonable. Further, even though defendant is no longer the Chief Executive this does not automatically excuse him of responsibility. The Act created a specific duty that the defendant must perform, and the defendant is legally required to fulfill that duty so long as it is practical to do so. Otherwise, the Act could also be rendered without real effect as a line of Chief Executives simply pass on all their duties to their successor while experiencing no repercussions. It could be argued that the duty created is on the position of Chief Executive and not the individual private person who holds that role at any time, and thus it is up to only whoever the Chief Executive is at any given moment in time to fulfill that duty at that moment. However, while there have been some arguments and perhaps references implying a distinction of some kind between the position of Chief Executive and the private citizen holding that role, a hard defined line between the two entities has never been defined in statute or case law. Further, no immunity has been created shielding the private citizen from lawsuits involving actions they took in their official capacity. Without a clear protection or distinction of some kind, the private citizen holding the role of Chief Executive cannot distinguish between which specific duties they personally hold and the duties held by their position that they must perform but, if they fail to perform those specific duties, that they can simply give up and ignore as soon as their term ends. For the foregoing reasons, we request the above-specified injunctive relief. We thank the Court for its time. 1Election Records2Nomination Thread; Legislature Vote3See July Chief Executive Election; October Chief Executive Election
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Oct 7, 2022 0:40:52 GMT -5
Specific performance, how positively Twitter! Thank you very much. Mr. Mont? You have the same amount of time for your defense, until Tuesday October 11 Wednesday October 12.
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Oct 11, 2022 21:11:39 GMT -5
Order Mr. Mont has informed the Court that he is unable to make above deadline. The Court has always been very generous with its own deadlines. This is in no small part because I believe we should all try to avoid letting Spiritus-related things become a hated chore. And an extra measure of consideration should be extended to defendants, who did not choose to be involved in a court case, and for whom the timing might be very inconvenient. It is in the nature of court cases that they often can't be fun for all parties involved, but there is no need for us to make it worse than it has to be. But there is a but. In deciding the appropriate pace of Spiritus litigation I have to weigh the above against other factors, namely the plaintiff's interest in a speedy resolution of his lawsuit, and the fact that delays make the whole court experience less fun and more boring (albeit more realistic) for all the other people involved. Cf. this Court's Procedural Rule 4. Hence I have warned Defendant in the last case wherein he defended himself, Civil Case 002, that "there are limits to presuming the Court's generosity" (id. on page 1, emphasis in original). And an announcement to the effect of "no time, sorry", without any indication to the other involved parties as to when we might be able to proceed, after having already been warned in the past that the Court's timelines are in no way advisory or optional, does seem to qualify as presumptive. In light of the foregoing, and in an effort to err on the side of user-friendliness, this is what we will do: I construe Mr. Mont's statement as a motion for a continuance, which is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the time to plead a defense be extended one more week, until Wednesday October 19th. It is further ORDERED that after that, there will be no further continuances in this case unless they are predicated on a real-life emergency (which always take precedence over this Court's proceedings irrespective of the history of the instant case, in accordance with Procedural Rule 4 and the universally accepted principles of NS). Rogamark, Chief Justice
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Oct 23, 2022 16:38:42 GMT -5
Everybody has run screaming from this case. Plaintiff has indicated that he does not wish to pursue it, which is entirely his right. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
|
|