[APPEAL] Request for Review

Welcome to the forums of the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features

[APPEAL] Request for Review; Regarding the court's ruling on my inquiry.
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 23 2017, 01:25 PM (190 Views)
The Church of Satan	Jun 23 2017, 01:25 PM Post #1
I HAVE CHORTLES! Posts: 861 Group: Accused Member #7 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Lazarus CoS	While I respect the authority of the court and I intended to accept its ruling there is a startling flaw in its decision. Specifically, the court ruled that a proposal in the process of being voted on could be withdrawn. This directly contradicts The Legislative Procedures Act which states that a proposal may be withdrawn anytime before it goes to vote. Additionally the court ruled that Lamb had voided and closed the vote. However the truth is he did not. As you can see here he suggested that it be closed. Sure the thread was closed but at the time, five days after the vote began, nobody made mention of the vote's closure. More importantly, the law states that the voting period can last either two or four days. More than four days passed and the thread wasn't closed until after the voting period ended. Legally speaking the vote concluded with a unanimous decision to elect me as a prelate.



Capercom	Jun 23 2017, 04:02 PM Post #2
Lazarene Posts: 96 Group: Accused Member #623 Joined: Jun 13, 2017 Political Views Independent Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Nation in Lazarus Capercom Discord Capercom	Using Lamb's own logic below, I agree with your point CoS. Lamb argued previously (about a different topic) that votes did not count because they were after the allotted voting period. And he did "suggest that the Convenor close this thread." Which technically seems to go against The Legislative Procedures Act which states: Quote: 4: Debate.... (2) The citizen who introduced the proposal shall have the sole right modify or withdraw it at any time before a vote. 5: Voting... (3) The citizen who introduced the motion to vote may withdraw it any time before the vote. The Voting Thread for this topic: Topic Started: Jun 9 2017, 10:09 PM Lamb's Suggestion: Jun 14 2017, 10:46 AM Which, since Lamb wants it to be to the second, the voting thread should have been closed Jun 13 2017, 10:09 PM (but conveniently you didn't see him chastise anyone for not closing it on time as he has in the past), thus would have rendered Lamb's suggestion moot for the time being and would have required a different legislative process (that our laws dictate) to challenge that vote. From the way I see it, CoS voting thread should have stood and he was a Prelate while Lamb brought the challenge/issue up with the court to make a ruling on. The fact that it was withdrawn after the vote ended, CoS was kept from being a Prelate, and a ruling was made based on the illegal withdrawal is absurd to me. The vote was over, per the laws of the region and Lamb's opinion. The thread should have been closed since the vote was over, preventing further discussion (which since Lamb isn't Convenor, is he even allowed to further discuss an issue in the voting thread?) from any party. Lamb should have brought this up to the court outside of hijacking the voting thread and performing an illegal withdrawal of the vote. Quote: Lamb - Last Wednesday at 2:40 AM ...What it does legally state is what votes count (Aye, Nay, Abstain) and how many days voting is to be opened.... Quote: Lamb - Last Wednesday at 2:43 AM Let me break it down for you. One second hunny When the law states how many days a voting period lasts, that's how many days to the second. A day is a pretty clear set time. If something is determined to "last" a specific amount of time, when that time is over, that's when it's done"lasting" as in, is over. There is no procedure that claims that a vote is open until a Convenor specifically tallies and closes the thread...



Lamb	Jun 23 2017, 06:09 PM Post #3
Posts: 884 Group: Regent Member #387 Joined: Aug 7, 2016 Alignment Chaotic Neutral Military Stance Raider Political Views Anarchist Nation in Lazarus Scum	I understand your interpretation, but the vote was invalid. That's like me putting up a vote for the heck of it, without it being motioned or anything. Just because it is up doesn't make it valid. The context and intention of the vote directly contradicted the procedures outlined in the Mandate, which is why it wasn't "withdrawn" (even if those words were used) it was declared invalid, unlawful. If we required officials to go to the court any time anyone directly contradicts a law for the purpose of declaring they're contradicting the law, we'd get nowhere. It was marked as invalid and the court has ruled in favor of the obviousness of that. Additionally, I request the thread be closed, not the vote, since legally the vote was never "real". The court has also acknowledged there is no clear definition on procedure of an official closing of a vote, as we've addressed in our discussions regarding this. Your perspective is under the assumption the vote was lawful. It was not and therefore shouldn't be treated as such.



The Church of Satan	Jun 23 2017, 11:13 PM Post #4
I HAVE CHORTLES! Posts: 861 Group: Accused Member #7 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Lazarus CoS	The vote was brought before the Council as procedure states it should be. Afterwards it concluded as law states it should. Therefore it is legally binding.



Lamb	Jun 24 2017, 12:56 AM Post #5
Posts: 884 Group: Regent Member #387 Joined: Aug 7, 2016 Alignment Chaotic Neutral Military Stance Raider Political Views Anarchist Nation in Lazarus Scum	The Church of Satan Jun 23 2017, 11:13 PM The vote was brought before the Council as procedure states it should be. Afterwards it concluded as law states it should. Therefore it is legally binding. The vote was for reconfirmation. A reconfirmation can't be held until one of the renewals. It wasn't a renewal. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.



The Church of Satan	Jun 24 2017, 02:58 AM Post #6
I HAVE CHORTLES! Posts: 861 Group: Accused Member #7 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Lazarus CoS	It was referred to as a reconfirmation, yes. However due to the timing it is an election. EDIT: I would also like to note that while my vote was labeled a reconfirmation, I was nominated by lamb himself despite the fact that he places the blame for the initial problem that caused all of this because even he could not deny my capabilities as a prelate. The vote was not simply put before the Council. I was nominated and the nomination was seconded. My nomination was motioned to vote and it concluded. He can claim it was invalid but he himself began the vote as regional law dictated. Edited by The Church of Satan, Jun 24 2017, 05:40 AM.



Amerion	Jun 24 2017, 11:43 AM Post #7
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	The Court notes this request for an appeal of 10 [CIC] 2017 and has begun deliberations as to whether to accept the request.



Omega	Jun 27 2017, 06:28 PM Post #8
Star Lord Posts: 272 Group: Accused Member #192 Joined: Sep 12, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Omega Ambassador 1 Discord Omega	Due to the ongoing concerns about the legality of 10 [CIC] 2017, and the legality fo the currently sitting Court, we will be differing this until the Cosmic Council is able to determine the best course of action for the future of the composition of the Court.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Court Archive · Next Topic »