Government v. Chancery

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

NOTICE OF DECISION TO HEAR CASE

Domnul Ma la Mha, Baron Tepistà, Seneschal of His Majesty's Government, has filed a civil complaint alleging unlawful official actions on the part of Mick Preston, His Majesty's Secretary of State, and seeking injunctive relief. The Cort has consented to hear this complaint. The case will be styled:

Sieu Maxhestà sè Governamaintsch contra Sieu Maxhestà sè Cantzelería

The Government is ordered to post its complaint in this thread or to move (via e-mail to the Cort and the opposing party) to amend its originally-filed complaint within 72 hours.

Sir C. M. Siervicül
Justice of the Cort pü Înalt

[Hooligan]

Your Honours, Justices of the Uppermost Court, Azul --

For and on behalf of His Majesty's government, I beg leave to file with this Honourable Cort a complaint against the official actions of S:reu Mick Preston, Secretary of State to John, King of Talossa, in accounting and recording the ballots cast by members of the Cosa during the Clark concluded 21 July 2008/xxix.

Be it known that this complaint alleges that the Secretary of State did knowingly and willfully disregard the requirements of the enacting clause of 23RZ39 - The You Have Two (Read My Lips: Two) Choices Act, which mandates that the Secretary of State shall declare as null and void the votes on all questions before the Ziu cast in any Clark made by a member who fails to vote either YES or NO on the Vote of Confidence.

• MC Owen Edwards voted neither YES nor NO on the Vote of Confidence held during the said July Clark, submitting a ballot containing his votes merely for the two questions before the Cosa concerning whether to augment the statutory law. The government contends that the votes on the questions of 38RZ18 and 38RZ19 submitted by MC Edwards should not have been accounted or recorded by the Secretary of State, and should therefore be stricken from the record.
  
  
• MC Dreu Gavártgic'h, having initially offered a vote on the Vote of Confidence, did on July 17 during the session of the said Clark publicly repudiate this vote and explicitly ask that the said vote be taken off the record. The government contends that the Secretary of State was obliged to follow the wishes of this or any other member of the Cosa as regards his intentions expressed on the floor of the Ziu, and that therefore unless MC Gavártgic'h submitted a YES or NO vote on the Vote of Confidence at some later time before the closing of the Clark, this member's votes on the questions of 38RZ18 and 38RZ19 should likewise not have been accounted or recorded by the Secretary of State. The government further contends that indeed no such later vote was submitted in any way, shape, or form to the Secretary of State by MC Gavártgic'h, and the government thus stands on its contention that the votes should be stricken from the record as per 23RZ39.

The government humbly beseeches this Honourable Cort to sit in judgement of these allegations, and prays that it grant the relief sought herein.

For the government,
Ma Baron Hooligan
Seneschal

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

According to the current hearing rules of this Cort (which are somewhat different from the ones in the sticky thread in this forum, and which I will upload to the web site as soon as I can), this case is classified as a "hearing about applications of law," where the petitioner is seeking injunctive relief against a public official. In this type of hearing, any Talossan (including, of course, but not limited to, the official against whom the action has been brought) has standing to argue for a particular course of action.

Consequently, the respondent (the Secretary of State) and any other interested person shall have until noon TDT on Monday 6 October 2008/xxix to file (in this thread) a single brief responding to the petitioner's brief. Any requests for an extension of time to file must be made before the above deadline, unless good cause is shown both for the requested extension and for the delay in making the request.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Your Honours, Justices of the Uppermost Court, Azul

May it please the Cort:

I will address the heinous charges that have been leveled , and explain while the good Ma Baron Hooligan has the best of intentions, he is incorrect on the some specific points.

First, I accept as entered that the two instances that Ma Baron Hooligan are true, on the first part.

MC Owen Edwards voted neither YES nor NO on the Vote of Confidence held during the said July Clark,

MC Dreu Gavártgic'h, having initially offered a vote on the Vote of Confidence, did on July 17 during the session of the said Clark publicly repudiate this vote and explicitly ask that the said vote be taken off the record.

I would also like to enter into the record previous instances where this exact same event occurred

In the May Cosa, MC Sir Fritz von Buchholtz submitted a Ballot that did not contain a yes or no vote on the Vote of Confidence.

Sir Fritz’s non-Vote of Confidence votes were duly recorded, counted, and approved.

For the record, I would like to bring to the attention of the Cort that when submitted to King John, all votes were accepted without question , and all bills were recorded without change.

Now, I would a full reading of the Act in question:

23 RZ39 - The You Have Two (Read My Lips: Two) Choices Act
WHEREAS, the Organic Law specifies that one must either vote 'yes' or 'no' on the Vote of Confidence, so one can not abstain from the Vote of Confidence; and

WHEREAS, this has not been the case of many MC's in our Kingdom's history, who, despite the law, have abstained; and

WHEREAS, these abstentions are counted as 'invalid votes' and not considered, thus exemplifying an abstention; and

WHEREAS, we can not allow such mockery of the Organic Law;

THEREFORE, The Secretary of State will punish all Members of the Cosâ who cast invalid votes in the Vote of Confidence; the punishment being the declaration of said member's votes in the same Clark as null and void.


Please note, this Act addresses 3 voting situations. A vote “Yes”, a vote “No”, and a vote “Abstain”. It specifically addresses the penalties for voting “Abstain”. What it does NOT address is no vote at all being submitted. It does not offer a penalty, nor does it offer a remedy for actions should no vote be offered.


There is also no provision or remedy should the Secretary of State receive a Ballot that is incomplete. He is not allowed to enter a vote for the MC. He must go by the MC’s wishes. The Act is vague in it’s writing, and omits more than it addresses.


So, when I received these 3 ballots, I recorded the votes as were presented to me. In that none of them violated the wording of the 23 RZ39 Act , and I had no other remedy or action I could legally take, I entered them as received.

It is my opinion that these Ballots do NOT violate the 23 RZ39 Act, in that the 3 specific votes for mentioned in the Act do not appear on the Ballot presented for the Vote of Confidence. The MC’s did not vote yes, no, or abstain. They simply did not vote. I cannot take it upon myself to assume to know what they wanted , how they felt, or why they left it blank. What if they had merely voted ‘Present”, for example? Would that also have made their whole Ballot void?


It is also my stance that no vote is NOT an “Abstain”. It a moment of Silence, or perhaps Forgetfullness. We can not assume to know why the MC was silent.

Therefore, I believe that the Secretary of State did NOT disregard the requirements of the enacting clause of the "The You Have Two (Read My Lips: Two) Choices Act", because of the above reasons. If there was no violation, then the votes were properly recorded.


Capt. Mick Preston,
Secretár d’Estat

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Per section 3.3.5 of the Cort Rulebook, the Cort will now entertain any request by the Petitioner to amend the original complaint. "Such an amendment may, for example, narrow the scope of the question or broaden it or may modify the remedies being sought." Please post your amended complaint or indicate that you have no amendment by noon TDT on Monday 13 October 2008/xxix.

[Hooligan]

May it please this Honourable Cort --

The government amends its complaint by offering as part and parcel of the complaint the legal definition of "abstain" as culled from that friend of all Talossans, the Internet; to wit:

To abstain is defined as:

(1) To refrain from something by one's own choice.

The government alleges that Cosa members Edwards and Gavártgic'h are proven to have refrained from voting on the Vote of Confidence.

As to MC Edwards, the government contends that the Cort is within its rights to reasonably assume that this refraint was prompted by the choice of the MC, given the fact (a) that the MC is well aware (as are all MC's) of the fact that as a member of the Cosa is expected to vote on the Vote of Confidence in each Clark and (b) the MC intentionally cast votes on all other questions before the Cosa, which the government contends is sufficient proof that the intention not to cast a vote on the other question can only be deemed intentional.

As to MC Gavártgic'h, his own request to remove his vote from the record, as offered in evidence in the unamended complaint, stands as prima facie proof of intent to abstain, according to the definition provided the Cort above.

and

(2) To refrain from voting.

The government stands on the facts as presented by all parties to provide evidence that both MC's did indeed refrain from voting on the Vote of Confidence.

The government also wishes to call the Cort's attention to the derivation of the word abstain, from the Middle English absteinen, to avoid, from Old French abstenir, from Latin abstinçre, to hold back, and contends that the failure to vote on a question before the Chamber was equivalent to avoiding the question and holding back one's opinion thereon.

The government further wishes to amend its complaint in answer to the response of the defendant hereto, to indicate to this Honourable Cort that the counting of the votes cast by Sir Fritz von Buchholtz in the May Clark despite the failure of this august and esteemed Member of the Cosa to vote on the Vote of Confidence in that Clark should and must not stand as precedent for future actions of the Secretary of State. In point of fact, had the government (or any private citizen) chosen to bring suit against the Secretary of State for his action in the reporting of the results of that Clark, the government contends that this Honourable Cort would have been called upon to nullify the said votes. The government is loathe to amend its complaint to include the actions of the Secretary of State following conclusion of the May Clark, and does not do so, but does indicate to the Cort that it objects to the said action on the same grounds as laid out in this complaint, and petitions this Cort not to allow the said action to stand as a precedent for any future action of the Chancery to skirt or avoid responsibility incumbent upon that officer under the terms of 23RZ39.

The respondent indicated to the Cort that the royal assent given to bills reported by the Chancery as having been recommended to His Majesty by the Ziu stands as proof that the votes of the members as recorded are faits accomplis. The government contends that His Majesty is free to grant assent to any law passed by the Ziu regardless of the tally of votes Per and Contra, as long as this count stands in favour of the bill. Howsoever the votes are counted, the government contends that His Majesty was well-aware that the acts in question had passed the Ziu, regardless of whether the count iof the votes on these questions included or did not include the votes of the two MC's mentioned in this complaint, and that His Majesty had no choice, given this knowledge, than to grant or withhold his assent. His Majesty's action accepting the bills as passed should not be construed as his accepting the precise correctness of the reported votes thereon.

The government humbly requests that its complaint be amended with the information provided herein, and submits the said amended complaint to His Majesty's Uppermost Cort with the greatest of respect and esteem.

For the government,
Ma Baron Hooligan
Seneschal

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

The rulebook of the Cort does not cover replies to an amended complaint, but I think due process would require the opportunity for a respondent to respond to substantial new material offered by a petitioner. Therefore, the Chancery may, if it chooses to, supplement its brief to respond to the Government's amendment no later than noon TDT on Monday 20 October 2008/xxix. Please limit your additional reply to addressing new matters raised in the government's amendment, not taking a new crack at issues raised in the original complaint.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

May it please the Cort:

Upon reading Baron Hooligans amending the initial complaint, I would like to reply:

1. As to the definition of "abstain", I would like to offer my own, also found on the Internet:

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
Middle English absteinen, from Anglo-French asteign-, absteign-, stem of astenir, abstenir, from Latin abstinēre, from abs-, ab- + tenēre to hold — more at thin
Date: 14th century

: to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice <abstain from drinking>

Notice the key term "deliberately". It is my position that neither I, nor the Government, can ascertain if the "blank" box in the VOC column was left blank deliberately ,intentionally, accidentally, or by error. Therefore, the definition of "abstain" is not met.

2. As to the failure to protest Sir Fritz's vote in the previous Cosa , I do believe they must amend their complaint to include ALL instances of "blank" boxes for VOC, or none of them. Otherwise, The Chauncery will have to petition the Cort each and every time a MC submits a "blank" boxes for VOC, to see if it should be included or not.

3. The contention presented that by signing the Bills, the King recognized the legitimacy of the "Blank" box was to further forward the argument that there were many stages where this could have been resolved, questioned, or otherwise brought to light. In that the King, of all people (having once been a Secretary of State himself), could have raised objection after either session of the Cosa, bringing to light a violation of 23RZ39. In that The King did not object should be taken into account. With this in mind, should the King also be added to this case- as a defendant- for willfully and knowingly violated the very same act, by affixing his signature to the results?

I would like to thank the Cort for giving me a chance to respond, even though it was not required.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

The next step in this litigation is for the Cort to ask questions of the parties.

One key law at issue is Article XIII, Section 5 of the Organic Law, which reads as follows:

Vote of Confidence. The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. This reads as follows: "Do you wish the current Government to continue in its term of office?" Each MC must answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any month the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosâ and call new elections.

The other is 23RZ39, the operative clause of which reads as follows:

The Secretary of State will punish all Members of the Cosâ who cast invalid votes in the Vote of Confidence; the punishment being the declaration of said member's votes in the same Clark as null and void.

The Cort requests the parties to answer the following questions by no later than noon Talossan time on 12 December 2008:

1. Given the language of the texts quoted above, what is the relevance of the more active versus more passive definitions of the word "abstain"?

2. Under 23RZ29, how can a Member of the Cosa who fails to vote at all on the Vote of Confidence be said to have "cast" an invalid vote?

3. What is the purpose and effect of Article XIII, Section 5 of the Organic Law in the absence of 23RZ29?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

"The Cort requests the parties to answer the following questions by no later than noon Talossan time on 12 December 2008:"

1. Given the language of the texts quoted above, what is the relevance of the more active versus more passive definitions of the word "abstain"?

It is my opinion that the Active definition implies that a person is making a concentrated, obvious, and well thought out choice. They are taking a stand on an issue - to vote neither yes or no, but to express they are abstaining from voting on that issue.. They (often) will explain their action, of why they chose to be neither For or Against an issue.

A passive definition implies that there is no action, no response, and no explanation. There is a lack of choosing, and no reason is offered. They did not take a stance on the issue. It is more a "No Vote Recorded".


2. Under 23RZ29, how can a Member of the Cosa who fails to vote at all on the Vote of Confidence be said to have "cast" an invalid vote?


If there is no vote cast. the vote doesn't exist. There cannot be applied a definition of valid or invalid, if an object or thought does not exist.


3. What is the purpose and effect of Article XIII, Section 5 of the Organic Law in the absence of 23RZ29?

In that I was not a citizen of the Kingdom when 23RZ29 was passed, I do not know the discussion that occurred at the time. I can only surmise that MC's were actively voting "Abstain". There is no mention of a non-vote situation.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

The Government has requested a brief extension of time within which to submit its answers to the Cort's questions. Good cause having been shown, and given that the respondent has no objection to the request being granted, time to answer the questions is hereby extended to noon TST on 15 December 2008/xxix.

[Hooligan]

The government (though I no longer have standing within it, other than as Deputy Immigration Minister, I suppose, but I guess I am de facto Attorney-General on this one, at least) belatedly submits the following brief in answer to the questions posed by the Cort:

1. Given the language of the texts quoted above, what is the relevance of the more active versus more passive definitions of the word "abstain"?

The government contends that the fact that the word has multiple definitions with different shades of passivity is not relevant at all. This fact, maintains the plaintiff, is not germane to the case. All definitions of "abstain" define the same result condition, that no acceptable vote on a question was submitted. The government will stipulate to the Cort choosing any definition it wishes on which to decide this case.

2. Under 23RZ29, how can a Member of the Cosa who fails to vote at all on the Vote of Confidence be said to have "cast" an invalid vote?

The government humbly submits that the answer to this question is found in the act itself, and refers the Cort to the third "WHEREAS" clause of the statute, which states for the record that "abstentions are counted as invalid votes". The government stands on its claim that the intention of this act is to ensure that all members of the Cosa indicate either YES or NO on the vote of confidence, and any failure to do so should result in the discounting of the other votes submitted by the member during that Clark.

3. What is the purpose and effect of Article XIII, Section 5 of the Organic Law in the absence of 23RZ29?

The government contends that Article XIII, Section 5 of the Organic Law is clear in its language that

Each MC must answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no."

The statutory act 23RZ29 was enacted to give force to this requirement, and indicate action to be taken should any MC fail to act as Organically required. It is an Organic requirement that each MC must answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." The government maintains that any failure to do so, be it by active or passive abstention, is inorganic, and therefore the enacting clause of 23RZ9 should be used as the remedy to punish the persons failing to obey Organic Law.

The government (if I speak for it) thanks the Honourable Cort for the opportunity to present this brief, and should it be deemed too late in response to be considered, still rests on evidence presented, confident in the wisdom of the decision of the Cort.

Hooligan

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

The Cort thanks the parties and takes the matter under submission. We will deliberate and hopefully issue a ruling soon.

[Owen Edwards]

As a named party to the case, I hope it will not be considered inappropriate that I make an observation and a comment:

1) I don't remember being named in this - though I assume the Baron did in fact inform me at the time.

2) This stands as living demonstration of a need to either reform the Cort pu Inalt's system, or its membership.

[Hooligan]

Apr 17, 2012 11:50:40 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

1) I don't remember being named in this - though I assume the Baron did in fact inform me at the time.

Well, you are not named as a defendant. The government was -- and I suppose still is -- suing Mick, not you. You did nothing wrong. (I also made sure that I sued in a month where even if your votes were rendered uncounted, as they should have been, the outcome of all votes, per or contra, would not be affected).

2) This stands as living demonstration of a need to either reform the Cort pu Inalt's system, or its membership.

Oh come on, what do you mean? It hasn't even been four years wait yet!!

Hool