Court Case #7 - OFFICIAL

[GodKing]

COURT CASE #7
Official

Please do not post here unless you are:
- a judge (notyoueither, Sheik, Nimitz, Togas and GodKing)
- a party to this suit (civman2000 or ManicStarSeed)
- a recognized advocate for one of the parties (jdjdjd for civman2000, “still looking” for ManicStarSeed)

As will become evident, this is not a TRIAL. This is a ruling to be made by the Justices. MSS and jdjdjd on behalf of civman2000 have agreed. This is being posted on the forums so that a) people are involved and b) it was cluttering up my inbox as I probably have at least 50 PM’s about just this.

All participants have agreed to let us use their PM’s. The following is based off of them. Several items have been slightly edited (typos). If people feel the need or desire to talk about this, PM me or another justice, and we will respond. If demand is sufficient, a second thread will be opened for public discussion. Any and all attacks of a personal nature will be dealt with most severally, so just don’t do any.

Myself or another justice will do a final write up, summarizing our conclusions. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation

GodKing


ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

civman2000 wrote on 17-12-2002 11:32:
I wish to file a complaint that Sentence 1, Section 1 of this bill is unconstitutional:

Quote:

We the Senate of the Apolytonian Republic waive rights to bring about any court action against any member of the Term 6 administration for entering into MMPs with Russia, Greece or Japan.

Argument:
1. This is taking away the court's authority. If a majority of the Senate could remove the right to sue on an issue, the Senate could effectively make a judgment before the court has an opportunity to hear a case. For example, the bill in question, if passed would automatically have teh effect of ruling in favor of the administration.
2. The majority may not take away the rights of the minority. Say, for example, the majority of the citizens were members of the DIA. They could then make it illegal for any non-DIA members to sue any DIA members, if the bill in question is allowed. Clearly that would violate the basic principle of judicial review.
3. Article III, Section 3, (a):

Quote:

The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen brings forth an Issue to the Court. Issues to the Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon. [emphasis added]

This clearly implies that non-judicial citizens have the right to bring an issue before the Court. That right cannot be taken away by the majority of the citizens.
4. Article IV, Section 8:

Quote:

No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.

Although it is not explicitly stated, a reasonable interpretation of this would imply that all citizens have the inalienable right to due process. This should include the right to bring due process of law against a bill or citizen before the Court. Furthermore, it could be considered a form of punishment to lose the right to sue. Thus this bill would punish every Senator without due process.
5. Article V, Section 1:

Quote:

Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.

The bill in question would remove the right to bring a case of impeachment for the MPPs signed with Russia, Greece, and Japan. This right is protected in the constitution and may not be taken away by a Senate bill.

RESPONSE BY MSS

Honorable Justice(s):

First let me say that I am honored to have piqued the interest of the court.

Second, I take no personal offense whatsoever. I am aware that the bill treads on the edge of the constitutional knife. I welcome an impartial ruling

I, however, am not in a position to defend the bill through a long process. I would appreciate an advocate (or at least some help) to defend the bill.

I guess in defense I put forth the only few points I have to make.

Democracy (by its nature) effectively denies the rights of the minority. Majority dictates to minority. This is unlike consensus where everybody is honored and no one is left wanting on an issue.

The bill states that the senate waives it right to press charges. If it is a right, it can be waived. Simple. Does the minority feel unheard and unsatisfied and powerless? Yes. That is the inherent of democracy.

This bill does not violate the constitution. It neither modifies it nor amends it. It simply states that in this ONE Instance "we the senate waive the right to prosecute in court."

The only 2 clauses in the constitution that relate to this issue are:

Quote:

Article II. The Senate ... (2g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws or Executive orders. 3 Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate. These are proposed in the same way as laws and follow the same rules. These carry the same authority as a law.

AND

Quote:

Article VI. Conflict of Laws ... 2 No law may be created that violates or changes the Constitution....

This law neither changes nor violates (TBD) the constitution.
The constitution simply does not protect the rights of a minority against majority decision.

Lastly, how is this for a twist, only the senate is limited by this bill. The court is limited by the constitution, the executive branch is not.
In short the senate may not bring the case to court, but someone who is not a senator can. The President, FAM, SMC and DM may still bring the matter to court.

Well I hope that is a good start.

Keep me informed.

And thank you for your attention to this matter.

Mss
Note – I edited the typo’s, GK

INITIAL MOTION AND RESPONSE BY JDJDJD

Your Honors and Minister ManicStarSeed:

I am proposing a way to resolve this matter in order to avoid a trial, which I feel is in the best interest of all parties and the Game in general. Basically, I ask for a summary judgment, in that part 1 of the bill violates the Constitution.

First, why would I want to avoid a trial?

1. Many of us and of the Game as a whole, will be enjoying our Holidays including New Years and may not have the time to give a hearing its proper attention. Also, in the spirit of the Holiday Season, it would be best to not "battle" this issue out publicly.

2. ManicStarSeed's intentions were good. He was trying to give the prior administration a vote of confidence and a "don't worry about it boys!" message, which I commend, but unfortunately it interferes with individual senator's rights. Besides I like the guy.

3. I think many citizens outside this group are tired of the "legal stuff". And a speedy resolution may be appreciated by the general populace.

So given that, and also given the fact that clearly part 1 of the bill is unconstitutional, I think we can agree that part 1 of the bill should be voided and the trial skipped.

The bill is
here .

It prevents any citizen from moving for impeachment or making any claim against that prior administration. Please see civman2000's original complaint for greater break down.

There are many reasons that I could argue, but the simplest argument is that the bill violates Article V, i.e. it takes away a citizen's (any Senator in this case) right to ask for impeachment. Taking away this right would also violate Article II part 2g dealing with Senate laws. The decision of 19 Senators can not prevent the entire Senate from carrying out a right the constitution gives them.

The Constitution is here.

So if all agree that the bill's part 1 needs to be voided, then we simply ask the Court to confirm this and write their decision to set the precedent, i.e., no Senate bill can amend the Constitution nor take away a citizen's rights. Only an amendment to the Constitution can.

Please respond whether this is agreeable.

Happy Holidays

Thank you,

jdjdjd on behalf of civman2000

MSS RESPONSE TO JDJDJD MOTION

ManicStarSeed wrote on 21-12-2002 10:47:

Honorable justices and jdjdjd:

In other words, Part two still stands and we do retroactively grant the permission to enter the MMPs?

If this is the case, I support this. I would like to here the court rulings on the entire bill however as I do not see the clear unconstitutionality of it. The justices have my "argument", But I concur, there is no need for a trial. I would like to here their judgment and am willing to live with it without fighting it out whatsoever.

Regards
Mss

[Togas]

It seems that both parties have agreed to submit this matter to The Court to rule upon. The Court would rule upon this matter solely on the briefs and arguments presented by each party.

That is my understanding. Both parties wish to waive formal hearing (i.e. Trial). If this is not the case, please let us know immediately.

The Court will begin debating this case amongst ourselves today. We will present our decision as soon as one is reached.

--Togas

p.s. Please excuse my posting a bit early. The confirmation will not be official for a few hours, but I am getting involved in this case early to help expedite the process.

[jdjdjd]

As some PM boxes were full, I attach the pertinent part of it, i.e. my understanding of a summary judgement motion.
From the PM

"I do not waive our right to a trial. We ask for summary judgement to avoid a trial. If you agree part 1 is unconstitutional, then we waive the trial and all agree part 1 is void. If you were to decide against us, or were not convinved, then I believe we would be entitled to a trial, where I could further argue the case. That is how I understand a summary judgement motion."

Basically, if everyone agrees it is to void part 1 of the bill, then lets short circuit the process and post the decision. If MSS and at least three court members do not agree, then I think we would be entitled to the trial so I could make civman2000's case in full.

Thank you

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
Basically, if everyone agrees it is to void part 1 of the bill, then lets short circuit the process and post the decision. If MSS and at least three court members do not agree, then I think we would be entitled to the trial so I could make civman2000's case in full.

Just a point, but quorum is three. That means three members of the court must be involved in any decision. That does not mean that those three need be unanimous. Two may agree and their opinions would hold over those of the other one.

In practice, we have often had more than three involved in many decisions. That would not be required though, as I understand 'quorum'.

This may be an important point in the future given that we have recently had a problem in finding even three to make a ruling.

[Togas]

If the parties can work out a resolution or narrow the issues, please let us know. That might help speed things up.

In my opinion, a motion for summary judgement filed by the petitioner is improper as it would deny the respondant a full and fair hearing. However, as there is no Constitutional Right to a "full and fair hearing", the Court may decide to rule on this matter with stated argument only and possibly over parties' objections.

As jdjdjd or MSS have not waived trial, if we decide to create a procedural right to a "full and fair hearing," we will create the appropriate thread and go from there.

--Justice Togas

[jdjdjd]

I would point out the case of Togas v. MWIA, where the parties to the case agreed on a decision. The court reviewed it and also agreed. The hearing was skipped and a decision posted. We were only looking for that same consideration here. I did not argue the case in full because there only needs to be one violation to the Constitution to make it unconstitutional.

MSS may not have seen my point, so I will clarify for his benefit:

The constitution states:

Article V. Impeachment
1 Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.

The bill states:

1. We the Senate of the Apolytonian Republic waive rights to bring about any court action against any member of the Term 6 administration for entering into MMPs with Russia, Greece or Japan.

The bill would take away the right to ask for impeachment, which is right granted in the Constitution. The Senate as a body can not waive, restrict, amend, etc. the rights of all its members, unless all members agreed they would give up that right. 16 said they would not, 6 abstained, and over 75 others did not vote. Only 19 agreed.

The con also says:

(g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws or Executive orders.

The bill would seek to change the Con for this case, and waive all Senators right to seek impeachment.

So, the bill seeks to change the Con for this case and not allow all Senators from seeking impeachment against the prior administration. The Senate can't do that as it would change the Con for this case. Each Senator must decide on his own. Therefore it is unconstitutional as it goes against the Con.

I hope that helps and we can all agree that no hearing is necessary.

[civman2000]

I think if any of the justices or MSS want to hear full arguments, for the purpose of fairness we should give them.

More details are in the PM i just sent.

[Togas]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I would point out the case of Togas v. MWIA, where the parties to the case agreed on a decision. The court reviewed it and also agreed. The hearing was skipped and a decision posted. We were only looking for that same consideration here.

That case sets a precident for allowing parties to settle a dispute on their own without the necessity for a full and fair hearing. That case has no bearing here where the plaintiff is asking for us to rule in his favor without a hearing, but if we decide not to rule in his favor, the plaintiff wants a hearing.

The defense is willing to waive a trial IF the plaintiff will waive a trial. Defense has agreed to, in his words, submit to "binding arbitration" of this issue. Perhaps the plaintiff, if he is so interested in speeding this issue up and saving everyone the trouble during the holidays, will agree to waive a trial.

--Justice Togas

[civman2000]

I agree to waive a trial.

[GodKing]

DAVOUT is helping out MSS.

He sent me an email - I was able to forward to jdjdjd, Togas & Nimitz as I have their email addresses. If anybody has the other justices addresses, please forward. I may be a little late to tonights session, but will stay at work late to be able to connect and chat.

GK

[Sheik]

you can reach me at:

Sheik040 -
@hotmail.com

[notyoueither]

Clean out your PM box, Sheik.

[Sheik]

Sorry my PM box was full. It is now cleared. Nimitz and NYE please re-send the message.

[jdjdjd]

Sorry for my confusion or any I caused. The following are the rest of the plaintiff's arguments for the Court to consider in this matter:

We have already shown how the bill would have changed the effect of the Con by preventing all Senators from excercising their right to move for impeachment, which itself is unconstitutional but also violates part 2g of Article II, which states:

(g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws or Executive orders.

and it violates Article VI part 2 which states:

2 No law may be created that violates or changes the Constitution.

Similarly, the bill would prevent all Senators from presenting any other type of claim to the Court. This would violate part 3a of Article III, which says:

3 The Court shall come together to rule on any issue that is lawfully before it.
(a) The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen brings forth an Issue to the Court. Issues to the Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.

The bill would change this part of the Con in this case, by preventing Senators, who are non-judicial citizens, from presenting Issues to the Court. Again, it is in effect a violation of Article II, part 2g, and Article VI, part 2 both quoted above.

The bill also restricts the right to free speech of any Senator who wished to speak to the Court and make a claim for impeachment or any other type of Court action. So it is unconstitutional and again violates part 2g of Article II and part 2 of Article VI. The right to free speech is in part 5 of Article IV, and states:

5 Freedom of speech shall not be denied to any citizen unless it violates Apolyton rules.

Additionally, part 8 of Article IV allows due process of law. It states:

8 No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.

Part of part 1 of the bill includes thefollowing language:

The senate may still pass bills officially censuring any or all members of the term 6 administration.

Censuring is a form of punishment and the Senate in effect is granting itself the power to punish members of the Executive, without allowing for due process of law. This is unconstitutional.

That part of the bill not only has the effect of punishing without due process, but it also takes away the power of the Court to decide such issues. Article III states:

1 The Court has the power to rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; and any other dispute of national importance.

The bill would take away that right, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Along the same lines, the bill would violate Article VI part 4, which states:

4 The Court shall resolve all conflicts of law. The Court’s ruling on an interpretation of law is of the same power and authority as that law.

The Senate can not resolve the conflict of law with this bill, only the Court has that power.

One last point, while there was a majority of votes by Senators, and a democracy is basically rule by the majority, all democracies seek to protect the rights, granted in their Constitutions, of the minority. The Senate as a body controlled by a vote of only 19 of its members, turn around and void the rights on the remaining members, no matter how small the remainder is. Even if it was one man, the rest could not waive his rights granted in the Constitution.

Thank you for hearing us and please feel free to let us know if you have any questions.

[Edited to fix my quotes]

[GodKing]

As both sides agreed to let the court handle this outside the course of a Hearing Thread - we did so tonight. I will do a write up tomarow (tue the 24th - if able) and will PM it to the other judges for their review and comments. Depending on how this works out, we will post it soon thereafter. If I hear nothign back by thursday the 26th, I will post.

The Court thanks all parties for their cooperation, and wishes all a happy holiday season. There is no need to add any more comments or arguements regarding this unless you so desire to do so. They will of course be looked at. The Official Statement will be placed into the topped court thread.

Again, thank you.

GK

[DAVOUT]

Answer to the rest of the plaintiff's arguments on the post dated 23 12 2002.


1st argument :
----------------
Similarly, the bill would prevent all Senators from presenting any other type of claim to the Court. This would violate part 3a of Article III, which says:
quote: 3 The Court shall come together to rule on any issue that is lawfully before it.(a) The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen brings forth an Issue to the Court. Issues to the Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.

The bill would change this part of the Con in this case, by preventing Senators, who are non-judicial citizens, from presenting Issues to the Court. Again, it is in effect a violation of Article II, part 2g, and Article VI, part 2 both quoted above.
------------------

The bill refers to the President faulty action and nothing else. We have already examined why no impeachment call could be made. This argument says that other type of claim could be made if the bill had not passed. We will be pleased to answer specifically when the plaintiff will provide us with a list of the other type of claim he is referring to, claim aiming the President behaviour.


2nd argument :
----------------
The bill also restricts the right to free speech of any Senator who wished to speak to the Court and make a claim for impeachment or any other type of Court action. So it is unconstitutional and again violates part 2g of Article II and part 2 of Article VI. The right to free speech is in part 5 of Article IV, and states:
quote: 5 Freedom of speech shall not be denied to any citizen unless it violates Apolyton rules.
---------------

In our understanding, the right of free speech is precisely the right for an individual to express himself, his thoughts, his beliefs, his political ideas, his loves and hates, freely, that is without risking any harm; it has nothing to do with the capacity to accomplish administrative formalities such as filing a claim, capacity which guaranteed by the freedom and security granted to all citizens by the Constitution. This argument misinterpreting the freedom of speech must be rejected.


3rd argument :
----------------
Additionally, part 8 of Article IV allows due process of law. It states:
quote: 8 No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.
----------------

This argument was included in the original complaint. We see no need to repeat it, since it was wrongly evocated.


4th argument :
----------------
Part of part 1 of the bill includes thefollowing language:
quote: The senate may still pass bills officially censuring any or all members of the term 6 administration.

Censuring is a form of punishment and the Senate in effect is granting itself the power to punish members of the Executive, without allowing for due process of law. This is unconstitutional.
----------------

In case 5, Orange versus Reddawg, The Court stated :
* Censure is not punishment. Censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.*
We therefore ask for this argument to be rejected.


5th argument :
----------------
That part of the bill not only has the effect of punishing without due process, but it also takes away the power of the Court to decide such issues. Article III states:
quote: 1 The Court has the power to rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; and any other dispute of national importance.

The bill would take away that right, and therefore is unconstitutional.
--------------

It has not yet been demonstrated that The Court would not have the power to decide on issues regarding violations of the Constitution, since it is exactly what The Court is currently doing.
We therefore ask for the argument to be rejected.


6th argument :
--------------
Along the same lines, the bill would violate Article VI part 4, which states:
quote: 4 The Court shall resolve all conflicts of law. The Court’s ruling on an interpretation of law is of the same power and authority as that law.

The Senate can not resolve the conflict of law with this bill, only the Court has that power.
--------------

Same answer as for 5th argument.


7th argument :
---------------
One last point, while there was a majority of votes by Senators, and a democracy is basically rule by the majority, all democracies seek to protect the rights, granted in their Constitutions, of the minority. The Senate as a body controlled by a vote of only 19 of its members, turn around and void the rights on the remaining members, no matter how small the remainder is. Even if it was one man, the rest could not waive his rights granted in the Constitution.
--------------------

We are here discussing only of one democracy, the Apolytonian democracy; we do not pretend to rule yet the entire solar system. Apolytonia is still a quite young democracy, and it is well possible that the future will make possible more sophistication in developing the fundamental principles of the democracy. But for the time being, all that we know about democracy is incorporated in our Constitution. For decision making, the authors of the Constitution have not found a better system that the majority, and it was approved massively by the citizens. The bill questioned passed with a majority of 54.2 %; the 19 Senators approving the poll are the legal majority of the Senate. There is not a single word in the Constitution regarding the so-called rights of the minority. There is not a word in the preamble referring to texts or principles dealing with the minority. It is quite surprising that a complaint aiming to defend the Constitution, attacks so violently its fundamental process.
We therefore ask The Court to simply disregard this argument.

Finally, this volley of seven arguments results in six totally new arguments :
- one cannot be answered without further details
- five should be rejected as not appropriate or irrelevant or against The Court jurisprudence.

ManicStarSeed is a fiery defender of our democratic Constitution and contends that the Constitution would not be harmed if the complaint was invalidated.

May I just personally add that a minimal organization of the Senate could have avoided all this trouble.

DAVOUT on behalf of ManicStarSeed

[civman2000]

The bill refers to the President faulty action and nothing else. We have already examined why no impeachment call could be made. This argument says that other type of claim could be made if the bill had not passed. We will be pleased to answer specifically when the plaintiff will provide us with a list of the other type of claim he is referring to, claim aiming the President behaviour.

The administration violated the constitutional requirement for all MPP's to be approved by the Senate. Even if they can't be impeached they can be sued for violating the constitution.

It has not yet been demonstrated that The Court would not have the power to decide on issues regarding violations of the Constitution, since it is exactly what The Court is currently doing.

From the Constitution:

The Court has the power to rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; and any other dispute of national importance.

There is not a word in the preamble referring to texts or principles dealing with the minority. It is quite surprising that a complaint aiming to defend the Constitution, attacks so violently its fundamental process.

From the Constitution:

3 The Court shall come together to rule on any issue that is lawfully before it.
(a) The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen brings forth an Issue to the Court.

Although it is not explicitly stated, it is quite clear from this that there is a fundamental right to bring cases before the court as long as they are about "legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; [or] any other dispute of national importance" (III, 1).

[jdjdjd]

[EDIT: crossposted with Civman, but I'll leave it up.]

To DAVOUT:

To answer your question: other claims to the Court include but are not limited to (they are only limited by the imagination of any plaintiff, I suppose):

1. claims for censure
2. claims for legal interpretation
3. claims to kick members out of the game
4. claims for interpretation of the Constitution

Note: We are not attacking ManicStarSeed and agree he is a "fiery defender" of our Game, and much more..he is an active and avid participant. The claim is to invalidate part 1 of the bill, not anything ManicStarSeed has done in the past or will do in the future. I hope he does not take this personal, the bill needs to be addressed by the Court, for future reference and consideration of the Game, not to punish ManicStarSeed. And we ask for no punishment, just invalidation of part 1 of the poll.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thanks.

[DAVOUT]

Thank you jdjdjd.

I understand now that the Senators have deprive themselves of the right to sue Aggie :
- in claiming for censure : I would be interested to read a decision of The Court on such a political matter when the Senate has just pardoned Aggie.
- in claiming for legal interpretation or for interpretation of the Constitution : I would be interested to see in which terms The Court would refuse such interpretation on the basis of the contested bill.
- in claiming to kick Aggie out of the game : not realistic, don?t you think ?
In other words, the Senators have really deprived themselves of the right to sue Aggie in claiming for censure, which, as you know now, is not a punishment. You will admit that people who have just pardon a fault, will not resent as a big loss the waiving of the right to get the culprit admonished.
This point, on which the whole case is build, cannot have any consequence in the present and will have no effect on the future of Apolitonia.

[civman2000]

- in claiming for censure : I would be interested to read a decision of The Court on such a political matter when the Senate has just pardoned Aggie.
- in claiming for legal interpretation or for interpretation of the Constitution : I would be interested to see in which terms The Court would refuse such interpretation on the basis of the contested bill.
- in claiming to kick Aggie out of the game : not realistic, don?t you think ?

For each of the three things, you essentially say it would be unlikely or strange for the court to accept such a case. However, it is still possible that any of these could happen.

[DAVOUT]

You know the saying : the excess of law denies law. We are in such a case. The bill is not perfect, but it was a serious and positive thing to do at the moment. The arguments you use to invalidate it are artificial, theorical at best, wrong most often. It was also possible that Aggie resigns and leaves, as he actually proposed, and this would have hurt much more the game that an hypothetical and in any case excessively tiny unconstitutionality.

[civman2000]

The bill is not perfect, but it was a serious and positive thing to do at the moment.

If it's not perfect, it has errors. I don't expect anyone to be able to write perfect bills, but if they are imperfect, they can be challenged. But you have been drawing this debate away from my main complaint. My main complaint is that it is against both the basic principles of a true democracy that the right to have their case heard in court as well as the Apolytonian Constitution. You may say that it would be unreasonable or whatever to sue in this case, but that does not mean that right need not be protected. As I have said, I support the idea of the law, but cannot accept the details. I rest my case (unless i find a compelling reason to say something I or jdjdjd haven't already said, which I doubt).

[DAVOUT]

Case #7 Appeal

1. Justice TOGAS was a member of the Cabinet at the time the Senate bill was posted. We believe that he should not have participated in the decision.

2. We understand that The Court went beyond the complaint which was asking only for the invalidation of the first part of the bill, and did so without, as stated in the decision, examining the second part. We believe that The Court should have either invalidated the first part only, or would have examined the second part before invalidating the whole bill.

[GodKing]

The court is looking into your request for an appeal.

[ManicStarSeed]

Whooooooo stop!
Right there.

For the record,
I can accept judgment as is, so long as the court Conciously decides that the poll is completely invalid because one clause is.
That is fine, I can accept that. All I ask is for the court to consider the fact that the complaint was not about part 2 so why touch it? Maybe a judgment on its merits and letting it stand with a warning for the future will work? Either way, I can accept it.

I know that DAVOUT is trying to defend this law (and me ) in this case, Thank you DAVOUT, but you should have asked me about this first. We could have discussed our real options.

I agreed to let the decision to be binding. I mean it "NO APPEALS".
Simple,

Mss

[edit] typo

[Togas]

Just a quick quote from the official decision,

The poll may be redone without the aforementioned (i.e. Unconstitutional) portions if so desired

We give no assurances that part II of the bill, the part which was unchallanged, is Constitutionally sound, however, as it was not challanged we cannot judge the validity of it and invite the defendant to resubmit it to the Senate as a new bill.

--Justice Togas

[DAVOUT]

Fine for me ManicStarSeed; the appeal was technical, it is why I did not ask.
Freed from your defense, I will start, in my own name, a case of impeachment for Aggie, Togas and Arnelos, who are no longer under the protection of the Senate bill pardonning the wrongdoings. I have of course nothing personnel against these remarquable citizens, but The Court has finally convinced me that I have the right to sue these honorable persons, and that no circumstances could depreciate that right.

Please, let me know if I have to file any formal request in addition to this declaration.

[Togas]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Fine for me ManicStarSeed; the appeal was technical, it is why I did not ask.
Freed from your defense, I will start, in my own name, a case of impeachment for Aggie, Togas and Arnelos, who are no longer under the protection of the Senate bill pardonning the wrongdoings. I have of course nothing personnel against these remarquable citizens, but The Court has finally convinced me that I have the right to sue these honorable persons, and that no circumstances could depreciate that right.

Please, let me know if I have to file any formal request in addition to this declaration.

Please create a new thread for this purpose and post your argument there. You'll want to review Art V of the Con for some procedural guidelines.

As I am named a defendant in these proceedings I cannot participate in the initial proceeding, although I do get to post my defense. Our fine Vice President Panag takes my place in The Court for the purpose of this proceeding only as per Art V, Sec 1 (b).

--Togas

[Sheik]

DAVOUT to start a case you will need to send your complaint to a judge by PM with exactly who you are suing and how you think they violated the constitution.

Thank You,
Sheik

[DAVOUT]

It is done Sheik, I opened a new thread. If something is missing, please let me know.
Thanks.