Case #9 -- Untimely Veto?

[Togas]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
I object...

Point of order..
A judge ask the defense a question. I ask to let the defense answer the question posed without interuption "by a person of intrest" for the plantiff.

I ask that the previous four posts, by MJW be stricken from the official record (at least ignore them in this case) as they are out-of-order. The plantif shall have their chance to respond.

I would have overruled this objection, however I see that MJW has already removed the arguments and reposted them in his original rebuttal post.

Due to the number of parties in this action, it would be unwise to require parties to wait to respond until a question has been answered, and this court thread would take far too much time.

Parties may respond to each other while questions are pending, however, The Court will look very unfavorably on a party who posts without first responding to a question directed to him.

And if you have nothing new to say, please do not repost your old argument again. The Court will review this entire thread before we make our decision. Your argument will be seen and considered.

--Judge Togas

[adaMada]

Judge jdjdjd, Judge GodKing, and The Court:
This is the defense’s explanation for the timing of the events that lead to the veto and the way that ‘Real Life’ interfered with the Veto process.

First, let me say that I'm sure real life affected all of the members of our cabinet greatly during this period. ManicStarSeed has informed me that he was around for very little time from 12/31/02 to 1/2/02 due to the holiday and New Years. Though he was not absent altogether, his time was greatly restricted. I haven’t spoken to the other defendants about this, but I’m sure that their time was similarly restricted by the holiday season.

Having said that, I do not suggest that it was any absence on the part of any of the Ministers or the Vice President that delayed the Veto. As the court is perhaps aware, President Arnelos was forced to take an unannounced two-day leave of absence during the vetoing period due to a situation that developed in Real Life. To quote his post upon his return:

Originally posted by Arnelos
My apologies on my nearly 2 day absense.

It is related to the same issue which caused me to cancel the chat on Sunday and my absense for most of that day.

Just to let people know a bit of what's up, it's that a college friend of mine was riding her bicycle last week and was killed in a hit-and-run car accident. I found out JUST as the chat was about to start on Sunday, which is why I cancelled it on only a moment's notice.

Since I was unable to travel the 2000 miles for the funeral having found out so late and what little I could do in terms of condolence has already been done, it shouldn't affect my time in the future.

Somewhat unrelated, I am planning to head out to see friends and others out there probably within the next month or so, but that will likely be a weekend during the next term. If I'm still in office then, I'm sure whoever is my Vice President or Vice Minister can handle stuff just fine.

Thanks for understanding.

No one can fault Arnelos for this. Indeed, the plaintiff himself responded to the post with "We forgive you". This sudden, unexpected, and tragic occurrence was more than enough justification for turning away from this mere game for two days. This leave, however, was primarily responsible for the veto not being passed on time.

Before Arnelos was forced to take his two-day absence, he discussed the Veto with Spiffor. They agreed that a veto was appropriate, and Arnelos recalls that they even went as far as to settle on most of the basic wording that would be used in the veto itself.

By the time Arnelos had to leave unexpectedly, his discussion with Spiffor was basically complete. He had decided to sponsor the Veto, and was nearly ready to send it to the other members of the cabinet when this occurred. There is every indication that it would have been completed very shortly thereafter had Real Life not intervened.

To further answer the court's inquiries, I've put together the approximate times that various events in the life of the veto occurred. The timing isn't perfect -- Apolyton's clock is too buggy for that -- but I believe these times are close enough to accurate that the court can make decisions based upon them. All times are in EST, as that is Apolyton's standard time.

16:34 SPIFFOR RECEIVED VETO BALLOT
16:36 MSS RECEIVED VETO BALLOT
16:36 E_T RECEIVED VETO BALLOT
16:43 MSS APPROVED VETO
16:55 ARNELOS POSTED APOLOGY FOR ABSENSE THREAD
17:40 SPIFFOR APPROVED VETO
20:41 E_T REJECTED VETO
22:46 ARNELOS POSTED VETO

NOTE: We do not have the times from Panag, but Arnelos remembers that he was neither the first nor last cabinet member to reply.

Looking over the results above, several key timing points are evident. Arnelos sent the veto as soon as he returned and was able, even before he informed the nation that he was back and the reasons for his absence. Each cabinet member returned his or her vote in record time, and there was no unreasonable wait in posting the decision once the last vote was in. Considering these factors, it is easy to say that the veto would have been passed within time had Real Life not called Arnelos away from the game. This is the basis by which we petition the court.

Please let me know if this does not fully answer Judge GodKing and Judge jdjdjd’s questions. It does not directly address some of the questions in Judge jdjdjd’s post, which we would be happy to address if he feels it is necessary, but I believe that we have properly explained the nature of our argument.

Counselor adaMada

[Kuciwalker]

I have a question. Did panag approve the veto before or after Spiffor?

[MJW]

For people who did not see what Togas was talking about:

The veto is invaild because it came after 72 hours.

1. That is the old con. ,and it did not matter because both sides agreed. And no one spoke up.
2. The intent does not matter, what it says matters.
3. I say that is true. But it does not matter 'cause no one will inpeach them. SkyWalker might not agree.

In the new con. it says "real life" only for inpeachment...

I said in that case it did not matter because no one sued over it so the compareinson is not vaild. And real life is not said in the con. so nothing can be done in its name that goes agaisnt it. Beacause nothing going agaisnt can be vaild. We really should be focusing on "what" not "why" when looking at the new con. Because "what" is the law that must be followed.

What happened to Skywalker???

Option: B, I am questioning that! The con. is more important the real life when looking at the law.

[MJW]

I will end with the words of MMS, a defendent, I posted everything so no one can say I changed it to much: Altough it is clear what I do not agree with...


Aggie, I agree with you regarding precedent. I just want to see the problem solved by the Senate, not the Court. You had the right idea don't push it, let the issue be resolved in time and let people get a plan together.

Skywalker, Spiffor as DM as the POWER to sponsor a senate bill which directly affects his duties as DM and that bill CAN repeal another law. As for the illegality of the veto, it is not illeagal, just ineffective as if it (the veto) never happened.

There is NO reason for a court case as NO law was violated, yet. If the DM or Prez assimilated foreign workers, then the law would be violated and there is a case. THERE IS NO CASE HERE. Just an argument of wheather the law will (note... will) stand up in court if it is violated. I can pretty much assure you that it will.

You are RIGHT, the veto is INVALID, TOO LATE and MEANINGLESS. The law stands as the VETO NEVER HAPPENED. Are you asking the Court for a ruling on it, go for it. There is NO real counter argument that can be made.

Again if the pres or DM want to push the issue, they will assimilate some foreign workers this next turn chat and BREAK THE LAW. Then there will be a case. Untill then we have an ambigous situation. There have been no laws or rules broken, just a missed deadline and some ensuing confusion.

The court can rule on the veto, but it seems simple...IT NEVER HAPPENED, deadline missed, the law stands. My suggestion is let the senate fix the standing law.

Nuff said

Mss

PS. It seams that I am shouting, but I am just empahsizing some points.

Have fun...
_____________________________
And I did

Dumb cross posts...

[adaMada]

Originally posted by skywalker
I have a question. Did panag approve the veto before or after Spiffor?

I am unsure. Arnelos doesn't have PMs from that far back, and Panag's box is full, so I can't contact him. Arnelos does remember that Panag's reply came in the middle, but he cannot say if it was second or third -- and, as such, before or after Spiffor's. If there is some reason why it especially matters, I will obviously step up my attempts to find out what happened, but I can't really think of any other way to determine the time unless Panag sees this post and can give the time he sent his reply.

Counselor adaMada

[MJW]

And I did

[MJW]

Cross-Post
Nooooooooooooooo!

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by skywalker
I have a question. Did panag approve the veto before or after Spiffor?

Neither Spiffor nor panag was aware of the other one's vote, but I think panag approved it before Spiffor. I think panag was the second vote in, but my memory is admitedly fallible on that issue. I haven't saved the PM's, so only getting the time from panag if he saved the PMs would be definitive proof.

That said, this is a rather minor issue regarding this case unless I've missed something that made it important (I haven't read much of the above).

[MJW]

hey the order is odd...

[MJW]

...the order of the "plaintiff" and the defenedent

[jdjdjd]

Thank you Counselor adaMada - I am satisfied.

MJW - please immediately stop the multiple one line posts - they are becoming disruptive to the proceedings. Thank you.

[Togas]

In the opinion of this Judge, this is a clear-cut factual issue as the defense admits that the Veto was completed after the proscribed deadline. I think there need be no further debate about that.

Defense has created a novel idea ... they are asking The Court to create an exception to the Constitutionally proscibed deadlines, deadlines that were added at the specific request of the people in the critiques of the first New Con draft. It is this issue that should be debated. Why should or shouldn't we find that the law allows us room to create such an exception?

For the Defense -- Can and should The Court create this new judicial exception that "Real Life" events can be exceptional circumstances that can excuse missed deadlines? What power do we have to do so? What authority? Under what limited circumstances should we do so? What will happen in the future if we decide to set this precident?

For the Plaintiffs -- Why can't The Court find that there's good cause to allow the cabinet time to post their veto if "Real Life" circumstances get in the way? What prohibits us from doing so? Would it be illegal or simply bad future policy? If such an exception were granted, would you still argue that the present circumstance doesn't fall within the exception?

Please consider your arguments before posting, and feel free to respond to each other's responses to these questions.

--Judge Togas

[MJW]

"Real life" is not said in the new con.. So nothing its name can be done that goes against the new con.. So making an expection to a deadline would be invald. This is a deadline.

Also it should be noted that I am not the "real" plaintiff.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Arnelos


Neither Spiffor nor panag was aware of the other one's vote, but I think panag approved it before Spiffor. I think panag was the second vote in, but my memory is admitedly fallible on that issue. I haven't saved the PM's, so only getting the time from panag if he saved the PMs would be definitive proof.

That said, this is a rather minor issue regarding this case unless I've missed something that made it important (I haven't read much of the above).

hi ,

first vote

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by MJW
-

hi ,

since this is a courtcase thread its not nice to see "edited" post's , .....



have a nice day

[MJW]

I did that when MMS asked for them to be killed.

[GodKing]

MJW - it looks like you are not using quotes right. type before the quote ]quote[ and after ]/quote[ to get the blue text and so forth. I reversed the ][ so you can see what I am doing.

adaMada and Arnelos, am I reading this correct in that Arnelos and Spiffor discussed and concluded to go ahead and veto this PRIOR to your unexpected leave Arnelos? Please clarify for me.

Thanks, GK

[Kuciwalker]

Sorry, I haven't been on for 24 hours. I'll post my arguments now.

It seems to me that you've already decided that the vote was taken after the deadline. This is in clear violation of the NewCon. That is all well and good, but we need to address the issue of whether or not an exception would be allowed.

I think that real life is a perfectly valid reason for an exception. I would defend anybody being charged for something that was beyond their control. However, it is apparent that real life was NOT the cause of the delay in this instance, because the veto could have been posted prior to Arnelos' return. So real life is not a reason to grant an exception in this specific case.

The other reason for an exception, frivolty, has its own problems. While I agree that five hours is "frivolous", I contend that we must follow the limits EXACTLY or they will slowly degrade into nothing, a few hours at a time.

[adaMada]

Judge GodKing,
You are indeed reading this correctly. Arnelos and Spiffor had discussed the issue at length, and Arnelos was very close to being ready to release the veto ballot when Arnelos was forced to leave the game temporarily.

Judge Togas,
I'm working on preparing the arguments that you asked for. It's a complicated issue, and I want to do it justice, so I can't honestly give it an exact timeline other than "as soon as possible" -- ironically enough, my own real life is interfering a little bit . (Nothing serious, just a busy day). I will do my best to get these arguments to the court as soon as possible -- most of them will be taking the arguments I've already posted and refocusing them on that specific issue.

So as to not delay the process any further than is absolutely necessary, however, please let me address one specific point skywalker makes which (I believe) may be incorrect, that he may clarify for the sake of the court (or for my own sake) should he desire to do so. I ask the court to forgive me for leaving Togas' question temporarily unanswered, as this is a small point, which I can reply to now.

However, it is apparent that real life was NOT the cause of the delay in this instance, because the veto could have been posted prior to Arnelos' return. So real life is not a reason to grant an exception in this specific case.

The Veto couldn't be posted before Arnelos returned for several reasons. First, the vote wasn't taken until Arnelos came back -- Spiffor and Arnelos agreed to ask for a veto from the cabinet, but Arnelos was not able to take a vote before he left. As the vote had not been made, the veto couldn't be posted – legally, it didn't exist outside of the realm of discussion. Secondly, as far as I know, Arnelos wasn't able to tell anyone that he was leaving before he left. As such, the only cabinet member who knew about the Veto (Spiffor) couldn't be expected to send it around in Arnelos' place. Finally, Arnelos was the sponsor of the Veto. As only one other knew it existed, and no one knew Arnelos was away, no other member of the cabinet could be expected to send the veto proceedings out.

Thank you.

Counselor adaMada

[Nimitz]

MJW - Do you think RL in no way takes precident over the game and if so why?

adaMada - Why do you think the court should allow excuses for missing a dead line, why should something take precident over the Con?

Both - Also do you think the court has to follow the letter or intent of the law and why?

[MJW]

The new con. is the law that MUST be followed. And not over turning a veto that was late is invaild because it goes against the new con. if you follow the letter. We should follow the letter beacuse it is the law. The letter is the law because in the con. Because the con. does not give any power to the intent of it.

[Kuciwalker]

adaMada,

The argument of the plaintiff is that the vote could have been taken without Arnelos, and so RL is not a sufficient reason for an exception.

MJW,

Please stop. You're not helping our side.

[Nimitz]

skywalker in the future could you please be more polite when addressing the other parties.

[Kuciwalker]

Ok.

Post edited.

[Nimitz]

The court thanks you.

--Justice Nimitz

[adaMada]

Judge Togas,
Our argument would be that there's a general preexisting understanding that Real Life is an acceptable excuse for missing artificial in-game deadlines. Just as we have a general preexisting understood law that Apolyton rules are supreme in all cases -- even where it is not explicitly defined in the CoL -- we also have a general preexisting understanding that Real Life is a supreme force. Both are similar - practical - concerns. Who would play a game that interfered with the lives of the participants? As such, this has always been accepted by all, and never challenged in Court. In the rare places that it has surfaced in any legal fashion, the populace and the court have always excused it -- such as the case I quoted in my introductory argument, where Captain excused UnOrthOdOx for a breach of procedure rendered necessary by Real Life.

For the first time ever, we now see this concept challenged in court. The defense contends, however, that this concept has always existed, and the only novel thing we ask is that it is legally recognized. In the past, such cases have simply never come to court -- no one has been willing to press them.

The people did ask that such a deadline be added in this case, and I do not ask you to rule that the deadline itself is invalid. I strongly believe that the deadline is a good thing, but I don't believe that either the ConCon OR the people wanted a deadline so that a veto under these circumstances would be turned down -- it was mainly intended to prevent abuse and ensure that aspects of the bill were not carried out before the veto. As for precedent, I don't believe it would be a problem with any such ruling, as it would be up to the defendant charged with a crime to make his case to the court, assuming the prosecution was either successful or uncontested in arguing that a breach of protocol occurred. Considering that this concept has been functionally in place since the conception of the game, the court acknowledging it would not place any undue stress on the game itself. As long as the court judiciously applies this precedent in the few cases it concerns, I don't foresee any future problems. If the court is concerned about abuse, it could always rule that it only applies to unexpected and unavoidable situations, which would serve the same utility -- in fact, I myself would personally prefer this ruling to another (less restrictive) one.

Why do I believe that the court has the right to enact this ruling? Mainly, the court would merely be establishing that such an overruling law already exists rather than enacting such a law themselves. In addition, however, there is always the clause in the impeachment articles that allows for such a plea to the court in the case of a missed deadline, which would be constitutional precedent for this case. Finally, the court has the power to rule upon "issues of national importance" -- which this case clearly is. The court is also allowed to make interpretations of the Constitution (Article 6, Section 4), which gives it the power to rule that the makers of the Constitution considered Real Life emergencies above the game issues dealt with in the Constitution itself.

Justice Nimitz,
In addition to what I've posted addressed to Togas above, there is also the second issue I've presented. I believe the seventy-two hour statement's true meaning and intent is that the Cabinet must produce the veto in a timely manner. The Constitution does go as far as to define a timely period as three days. Having said that, it is up to the court as to weather the constitution means literally seventy-two hours or if it means that the cabinet must release the veto within a reasonable time (roughly three days of the bill passing). I won't repeat my full argument on the issue here unless you desire that I do, since it's basically what I've posted above and in my opening statement . Having said that, why do I believe that the court has the power to rule on this issue? Quite simply, Article 5 Section 4 of the constitution says:

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.

Should the court decide to interpret the clause in question as having the intent of insuring timely vetoes, the power is certainly theirs to use.

Thank you. If you have any further questions, or if I have missed any point of any of the ones you have asked, please let me know.

Counselor adaMada

SIDENOTE: I'm writing the actual text of my answer rather late at night my time, so please excuse any stupid mistakes .

[Kuciwalker]

adaMada,

Again, I agree that RL is an acceptable excuse for a delay - but that's not the issue at hand. I am arguing that the delay was not cause by RL, and therefore the court should not make an exception for it.

[MJW]

There is no amendent to the con. that says the rights or people and things that are not stated in the con must be honored. In other words the con does not give any power to the spirt of the game. Also it is a preexisting noation that the law is more imporant the spirit. In the classic Redwang vs. Mr. Orange...

Minority opinion regarding the issue of Libel by Sheik. I do believe that Reddawg’s comments where rude and were not within the spirit of the game, however I find that he in no way broke the Code of Laws. Everyone has the right to free speech and that right is only limited by Apolyton rules.

Skywalker I should have PM about our arguments so something dumb like this would not happen.

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
adaMada,

Again, I agree that RL is an acceptable excuse for a delay - but that's not the issue at hand. I am arguing that the delay was not cause by RL, and therefore the court should not make an exception for it.

hi ,

and just how can you prove that its not an RL event , .....

have a nice day