Election fraud & ESB prosecution

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

(Split off from "Hooligan on the final leak" thread)

Jul 27, 2014 13:53:53 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I have looked through every incorporated law of the Wisconsin Codes, and have not found any punishment, or law against election fraud. There is a law in the whole codes, but that specific law is not one of the incorporated ones, so not applicable to Talossa.

Zooks! Too bad we all didn't figure that out in time to pass a law before the impending election. But just because there's no specific law on election fraud doesn't mean casting a fraudulent ballot under a false name is legal. You might want to consider whether election fraud can be charged under one or more of the following statutes:

• Lexhatx A.16.2, Using another person's identity or an identity that creates the impression of another person to post or convey messages via email or on any public forum
• Wisc. Stat. 943.201, Unauthorized use of an individual's personal identifying information or documents
• Wisc. Stat. 943.38, Forgery

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

(also split off from "Hooligan on the final leak" thread to a more relevant topic)

Jul 28, 2014 3:31:21 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Now, if I receive a vote for the ZRT and change it to the MRPT, it could either be a data entry error or a conspiration.

If a person says he voted by email and I don't enter it, is it because it didn't reach my server? Is it because the person lied about sending it? It is because I ignored it?

To prevent against that, I actually send a confirmation email back to the voter. If they voted for the ZRT and I enter MRPT, then they will know it.

Plus, with their PSC, any voter can review their own vote even after the election.

That's true, in most cases there is an innocent explanation for a vote being overlooked or misrecorded. But I agree with Miestrâ, tampering with votes after they've been cast probably should be a crime. We'd just have to make sure "knowingly" is included as an element.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I will look into them, thank you very much!

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Now that the amended charges in the ESB case have been filed, I see another issue that was raised in the past (at least in my Beric'ht article) but has remained unchanged in the latest filing. It actually relates to an issue raised by the infamous terpelaziun asked of A-G Asmourescu, and another terpelaziun asked of the current A-G: the duties of the Ministry of Justice in relation to the Crown and the Royal Household.

The complaint consists not only of criminal charges against S:reu Börnatfiglheu, but also what is essentially a Government action against the Royal Household, alleging that the Chancery illegally issued a citizenship termination. This raises the following questions:

1) Was any thought given to how the Royal Household's interests will be represented and protected in this matter?

2) Has the Chancery been served in this action?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

That's a good point about representing the Chancery. The Chancery would normally be defended by the Attorney-General, as with the rest of the Household and Government. But if the Government is suing the Chancery, then the A-G can't very well do that. I can see a few possibilities:

The Chancery could bring in outside counsel. That would be a strange precedent, though, since it would essentially mean that the A-G has abdicated his responsibility in the matter and left the Chancery to fend for itself. The current A-G seems to agree that his office has a duty in the matter (as we saw with Asmourescu v The Chancery), too, so I don't think he'll do this.

The A-G could appoint someone competent from his office to defend the Chancery. Unfortunately, I think there's no one else in the A-G's office at this point, and even if there was, it might be awkward litigating against your boss. There'd be a question of whether or not you'd represent your client to the utmost.

Lastly, the A-G could hire outside counsel. This would probably be the best option, from what I can see.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

You raise a consideration I had made Sir Cresti. My plan was/is to invite the Chancery to file an amicus brief on the issue before issuing a ruling. Thoughts?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It seems improper to allow a suit to seek a holding against a party that is not named, was not served, and has no representation. But I think I'd better let the A-G and Kildow's attorney discuss the matter before you, properly, rather than pretend to be engaging in anything more than idle commentary.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

It does seem like the Chancery is more of a party in interest than an amicus curiae, as it is the Chancery's action that is sought to be enjoined and therefore it is the Chancery that will be the actual subject of any resulting order (that will actually be ordered to do or not do something).

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Might I add my thoughts to the main post here, on the laws regarding election fraud, we know that in all countries across the world that is a serious crime, which generally carries a prison sentence I believe. and just because there are no laws in the state of Wisconsin governing election fraud, doesn't mean there aren't any that governs it, as something as serious as election fraud would probably be what I think is a federal crime (?) in the united states, therefore wouldn't the law be a federal law instead of a state law?

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Didn't Sir Mick find a passage on election fraud the other day?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jul 30, 2014 4:29:02 GMT -6 Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir said:

Might I add my thoughts to the main post here, on the laws regarding election fraud, we know that in all countries across the world that is a serious crime, which generally carries a prison sentence I believe. and just because there are no laws in the state of Wisconsin governing election fraud, doesn't mean there aren't any that governs it, as something as serious as election fraud would probably be what I think is a federal crime (?) in the united states, therefore wouldn't the law be a federal law instead of a state law?

I have never said that there are no laws in the Civil Codes of Wisconsin. They're just not incorporated into Talossan law, therefore unenforceable.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

However as there is no specific laws right now, that doesn't mean it is entirely unenforceable, as organic law does say that we follow the principals of Anglo (I cant recall the second part of this) law? And as election fraud is actually a big principal this type of law, therefore could we not cite precedence from the principals of this type of law until we can draw up our own? As I think that is a practice of courts if there is no specific law in that country, but is still deemed wrong, and unlawful by the courts, I may be wrong here, but that's just my thoughts.

[Owen Edwards]

The OrgLaw and the Law Code stand in place of US Federal law which is not binding upon us (though it offers an interpretive lens for the Wisconsin Code). A prosecution can not take place under US Federal law.

(That said there are almost certainly sections - as described by Cresti above - that could be made to serve here.)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I couldn't find any, myself. I really don't think there are.