| Review Request (overturn a decision by a government institution or official) [2206.HR] Review of the Chair of the Assembly's Decision to Mark a Vote Invalid |
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION I, im_a_waffle1, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered. REFERENCE NAME Review of the Chair of the Assembly's Decision to Mark a Vote Invalid ARGUMENT At 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, Legislator philipmacaroni requested that their vote be changed to abstain. This is after the mandated deadline of 5 days as outlined in the Legislator Procedure Act, but before the displayed deadline of 9:30 PM Eastern Standard Time. To resolve this dispute, Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands invalidated Legislator philipmacaroni's vote, which is not an option under Section 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act which outlines the Chair of the Assembly's responsibilities and actions they can take with voting and debate threads. Legislator philipmacaroni's vote should be counted as "Aye" as was originally intended by the legislator. There are no legal processes for the Chair of the Assembly to invalidate a vote or for the Chair of the Assembly to change a Legislator's vote after the voting period as ending. Therefore, the Chair of the Assembly's "Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes" should be overturned by this Court, and Legislator philipmacaroni's vote should be set back to its original value of "Aye", as it was before the ending of the voting period. REQUEST "Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes" Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture ![[Image: rank_trainee.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/rank_trainee.min.svg){kind=icon} ![[Image: updates_lifetime_1.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/updates_lifetime_1.min.svg){kind=small} ![[Image: detags_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/raw/master/mod/spsf/150w/detags_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
I would like to request that my argument be replaced with the following:
At 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, Legislator philipmacaroni requested that their vote on the Assembly Resolution to Call a Great Council (Modified) be changed to abstain. This is after the mandated deadline of 5 days as outlined in the Legislator Procedure Act, which would put it at 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, but before the displayed deadline of 9:30 PM Eastern Standard Time. The deadline was displayed incorrectly due to issues in the code of a local time formatter, which automatically rounded its inputs up to the next half-hour. However, the poll itself closed automatically at the mandated deadline. To resolve this dispute, the Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands, in a press release given to the Assembly, ignored Legislator philipmacaroni's vote (acknowledging their presence but not recording an "Aye", "Nay" nor "Abstain" vote) and then declared that the Chair would make a casting vote. The petitioner requests that these two actions should be reviewed. The first action, to ignore the Legislator philipmacaroni's vote, is not something the Chair has the legal power to do. The Chair's responsibility, in regards to voting, is to create voting threads and to record those votes [1]. The Chair does not determine the length of these votes – this is already set in stone by the Legislative Procedure Act, which declares the length of the vote on constitutional laws to be exactly 5 days [2]. This is the previously mentioned "mandated deadline". There is no provision allowing the chair to rectroactively change votes after the deadline, and it stands to reason that the Chair should not be able to do this, therefore such a request after the mandated deadline should be ignored. The second action, to declare that the Chair shall make a retroactive casting vote in order to settle the resulting draw, is an action that the Chair has no legal power to do. The Legislative Procedure Act already clearly gives a stated length for a vote [2], and nowhere in the law is there such a provision that allows a vote to be changed or added retroactively, and it would be clearly absurd for such an ability to be given out of the Chair's responsiblity to maintain "order and decorum" [3] as the Chair claims in their statement regarding the situation. The petitioner also notes that declaring these two actions null and void would lead to the vote by Legislator philipmacaroni to be recorded as Aye. References: [1] Legislative Procedure Act, Article 2, Section 1 [2] Legislative Procedure Act, Article 1, Section 3 [3] The Charter of the South Pacific, Chapter IV, Article 2 --- Thank you. "After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture
Amicus Brief
By Ryccia If it pleases the court, I wish to submit my opinion on this matter for your consideration in order to challenge the logic behind this petition. What is a "day"? One could say it is the time period when exactly 24 hours pass. However, in practice, this term is more vague than most people would assume. Allow me to bring your attention to the Legislative Procedure Act. Nowhere does it specify what a "day" is exactly in mathematical terms, and so there can be more flexible and reasonable interpretations of what it even constitutes. Furthermore, the LPA does make use of hours for other procedures, clearly distinguishing between the concept of an "hour" and a "day". These are two separate concepts in this document, and while the former is a strict mathematical measure of time, the latter is more vague. To illustrate my point, I shall set two timers for the court's perusal: one ending two minutes before this post and another ending at around two minutes after in five days. Now, as we let those clocks tick, consider what you would tell me after the timers end. Would you really say "oh, four days, 23 hours and 58 minutes have passed", or "five days and two minutes have passed"? No, that would be absurd. It flies in the face of every single notion of common sense. It is technically correct, but that is not remotely what we would often think. Wouldn't you reasonably say instead "five days have passed", even though the timers were not set for an exact interval of 120 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds, 0 milliseconds, 0 nanoseconds and what other miniscule subdivisions of time have you? Another instance of such uncertainty can be illustrated by the following: say you are in an 18 hour, 3 minute and one second flight starting at 6:03:04 AM and ending exactly at 10:06:05 PM. While it is perfectly reasonable to say "man, I spent 18 hours on that flight", and it would be technically correct to state that "oh man, I was on that plane for 18 hours, 3 minutes and one second!", would it also not be perfectly logical and acceptable to also say the following? "I was on that flight the whole day!" These examples demonstrate the flexibility and hazy edges of the term "day". As the law doesn't specifically define it mathematically, there can be more than one perspective to it. 118 hours can be "five days". Seldom is it "four with 22 hours" in almost all contexts. 120 hours and 22 minutes can be "five days". 122 hours can be "five days". There is a certain vagueness to it, isn't there? It is not one point that solely and only defines the concept in question, but a myriad of points in time that can be true or false depending on the circumstances and the context involved. Therefore, as the timer was set at a reasonable hour despite the unorthodox length of the vote, it remains a valid and reasonable interpretation of what can constitute "five days". The legislator @philipmacaroni changed their vote at the legal and reasonable time period designated by the Chair, which can logically fall under the definition of "five days". This change is valid, and so the vote in question stands at 25 Ayes, 17 Nays, and 9 Abstentions.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF - AMENDED ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS I submit this brief in support of @im_a_waffle1's submission. I shall admit the unimportant details of the case and jump directly into the case's merits. The Legislative Procedure Act clearly states that "[c]onstitutional laws, constitutional amendments, resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law, and treaties will remain at vote for five days.” Therefore, the only legitimate question is when the Chair opened the vote, not what a day means because a "day" is a clear and precise term in the context of the law, it is 24 hours. Therefore, the answer is simple: when the Chair created the forum thread and voting was physically opened via forum poll at 09:08 PM EDT on 05/13/2022, voting closed five days after that date, 09:08 PM EDT on 5/18/2022. As for the deadline given in the post of “Wed May 18 2022 21:30:03 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)” as dictated by the Time's Act, this date is superficial because the Times Act is not constitutional law and the Legislative Procedure Act is. Surely constitutional law trumps all other laws but the Charter and other constitutional laws. Despite the Chair's agreement on this finding of facts, the Chair has decided to accept this illegal change of vote contrary to the laws of The South Pacific. Furthermore, the Chair has unilaterally decided that the Chair gets the tie-breaking vote, thus usurping the power of the Assembly. No law has granted this power to the Chair, yet the Chair attempts to exercise such authority. This unauthorized and illegal use of power is not grounded in The South Pacific; a proposal either reaches the threshold or not. The Chair has done this in the name of “fairness” to @philipmacaroni but has done a grave injustice to the region's majority who support a Great Council. Moreover, the argument that we should ignore our laws in the name of “fairness” is feeble and dangerous to the countenance of the rule of law in The South Pacific. Therefore, this court should discard @philipmacaroni's change of vote outside the deadline as null and void, and his vote at 09:08 PM EDT on 5/18/2022 of “Aye” on the relevant matter be counted as such in the final tally. This court should admonish the Chair’s decision to grant themselves the tie-breaking authority. ARGUMENT ON THE IMPORTANCE This case is of particular importance and should be heard with all due haste and speed because of the following:
In summary, this court should hear this case because the questions presented profoundly impact The South Pacific. They are whether the Chair or any official can grant themselves power, the interactions between constitutional law and regular law, and involves a sensitive topic for some which must be treated with utmost care. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2206.HR] REVIEW OF THE CHAIR OF THE ASSEMBLY'S DECISION TO MARK A VOTE INVALID SUBMISSION 19 MAY 2022 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2206.HR REFERENCE NAME Review of the Chair of the Assembly's Decision to Mark a Vote Invalid APPEAL Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than , but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2206.HR.NR | Issued 19 May 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Honorable Justices of the Court,
I rise before the Court to explain that they must make a speedy decision in this case because of the historic and consequential gravity of the case. This case is about the status of two votes, one by honorable Chair Cryo and another by legislator philipmacaroni, which can decide whether the Coalition of the South Pacific will hold a Great Council, such an occurrence the region has not experienced in years that can reform the fundamental structure of our government for years to come. Furthermore, this case is a test of what constitutional powers and limitations the chair of the Assembly has. It is imperative that the High Court makes a speedy decision in this case for the aforementioned reasons.
Your Honour,
I believe this case is necessary and justiciable. It concerns an important, recent, and clearly controversial action. This action also clearly occurred inside The South Pacific, and the laws involved are all within the jurisdiction of the High Court. ![[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.703640759.6162/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg)
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2206.HR] REVIEW OF THE CHAIR OF THE ASSEMBLY'S DECISION TO MARK A VOTE INVALID SUBMISSION 19 MAY 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 20 MAY 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is found justiciable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2206.HR.NR. EXPEDITED TREATMENT This case shall be subject to expedited treatment and shall be managed accordingly with respect to all relevant deadlines in compliance with the Standards for Case Management. SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than , and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 10:00 UTC. Any such requests should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse. RETENTION OF RIGHTS The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case. It is so ordered.
2206.HR.DJ | Issued 20 May 2022 Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Honorable Justices of the Court,
Status of philipmacaroni's vote
I submit an amicus brief in support of the petitioner's argument to record legislator philipmacaroni's vote as an aye on A2205.02 "Assembly Resolution to Call a Great Council (Modified)". Before the deadline of 13 May 2022 at 18:08 Pacific Daylight Time, legislator philipmacaroni cast their vote as an aye and did not change their vote. It was not until after the deadline that the legislator requested their vote be switched to an abstain, a request made on 18 May 2022 at 18:21 Pacific Daylight Time. Honorable Chair Cryo, without providing any legal justification, decided that legislator philipmacaroni's aye vote on A2205.02 would not stand but instead be recorded as "present". Again, there is no legal pretext for this action, which the petitioner rightfully points out. Retroactive votecasting by the chair
I also submit this amicus brief in support of the petitioner's argument to nullify any attempt by the honorable chair, Cryo, to cast a retroactive vote on A2205.02. As the petitioner rightfully argues, there is no existing provision in the Charter or any of the Coalition's laws that allows the chair of the Assembly to cast a vote after the deadline. Since Chair Cryo did not cast a vote in the five days that A2205.02 was at vote, the only legal conclusion to make is that the chair did not cast a vote and has no legal authority to make one after the deadline. Interpretation of time
In this response to legislator Ryccia's amicus brief, I ask you not to entertain their interpretation of time. There is nothing vague in the duration of five days. If you were to use Google to convert five days into different units, you would find that it converts five days into 120 hours, 7200 minutes, 432000 seconds, and 432000000 milliseconds. All of these units are precise figures that interpret five days as five days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds, and zero milliseconds and not a millisecond more or less. When the voting thread for A2205.02 "Assembly Resolution to Call a Great Council (Modified)" was created, it was done so on 13 May 2022 at 18:08 Pacific Daylight Time, and in this instant, the poll opened for legislators to cast their votes. As petitioner im_a_waffle1 points out, Article 1, Section 3 of the Legislative Procedure Act states, "Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law, and treaties will remain at vote for five days." In pursuance of this law, the poll remained open until 18 May 2022 at 18:08 Pacific Daylight Time. Legislator philipmacaroni attempted to change their vote on 18 May 2022 at 18:21 Pacific Daylight Time, which is roughly thirteen minutes after the poll automatically closed due to having been open for exactly five days. Legislator philipmacaroni could argue that the deadline mentioned in the thread was 18 May 2022 at 18:30:03 Pacific Daylight Time, and while it is true that this was the deadline specified in the post, it conflicts with the timestamp of the thread in which the poll was created. Cryo, the honorable chair of the Assembly, stated that the discrepancy was accidental. As such, the true deadline was 13 May 2022 at 18:08 Pacific Daylight Time. The Legislative Procedure Act stipulates that resolutions such as A2205.02 must be voted upon for the duration of five days, not five days and twenty-two minutes. It is for this reason I ask you not to accept legislator Ryccia's interpretation of time.
Your honors,
Brief amicus curiae on the Chair of the Assembly's decision to mark a vote invalid The submissions so far in this case have focused on matters such as the definition of "day" in the hope of resolving this case. I do not believe it would assist the Court were I to rehearse these arguments. However I wish to draw the Court's attention to Chair Cryo's statement regarding the voiding of Legislator philipmacaroni's vote. In this statement the Chair acknowledges that the discrepancy in the voting deadlines occurred due to their own mistake. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that Legislator philipmacaroni was acting in good faith when they attempted to change their vote. The question the Court must resolve, therefore, is whether the legislator in question should be denied the right to change their vote as a result of an honest mistake by the Chair of the Assembly. The right to vote is protected by Article III, Section 4 of the Charter, thus the Court must consider carefully the implications of any decision to count Legislator philipmacaroni's vote in a way other than they intended. I am in agreement with other submissions that allege that Chair Cryo's actions in nullifying Legislator philipmacaroni's vote, and purporting to submit a casting vote themselves, are ultra vires. There is no explicit provision in the Coalition's laws that allow such a course of action. Chair Cryo justified their actions with reference to their responsibility to maintain "order and decorum" in the Assembly, pursuant to Article IV, Section 2 of the Charter. However, these provisions do not come close to enabling the kinds of powers alleged by Chair Cryo. The Court must therefore strike down Chair Cryo's actions. In the interests of resolving Assembly proceedings in a timely manner, I would invite the Court to put themselves in Chair Cryo's shoes and remake the decision in a constitutional manner. In brief, the options for the Court would be:
I remain at the Court's disposal for follow-up questions and clarifications. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |