Steffke v. The Primate (CLOSED)

[Malliki Tosha]

COMMONWEALTH COURT

Claimant
Harvey Steffke, Nelaga Territories

v.

Respondent
Erik Mortis, Primate of the Small Commonwealth

Heard under: Section 4, Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court

Claim

1. The Claimant poses a question regarding a common section of many Small Commonwealth treaties, namely:

8. This treaty may be modified by the agreement of 3/4s of signatory nations.

The Claimant poses the following question:

does the Court see this line as requiring 3/4 of ALL signatory nations in agreement for a modification to pass, or just 3/4 of the votes from signatory nations that bother to show up and vote? Or, said another way, if a nation doesn't vote at all, is it counted against the quota of agreement?

2. The Claimant also poses a second question, on the subject of proper voting procedures in the Small Commonwealth Assembly.

All of our charters are silent on what proper voting procedure is, which has worked well enough until now, but it does leave room for doubt that perhaps the Court can shed some light on.

I have always viewed an abstain vote as the vote assigned to a party that doesn't issue an actual vote, and to actually enter an abstain vote is the political equivalent of saying "I see this and I am not going to vote on it, and I thought saying so in this way would be nicer than just ignoring the voting process and not voting at all." However, in several micronational governments in the past, based on the way quotas based on active populations were set up, an abstain vote was a functional nay vote, in the sense proposals needed a certain quota of active citizens approving to pass, and not voting or issuing the abstain vote was the equivalent of voting against it since the procedures only counted votes in approval vs. any sort of vote not in approval, including not voting at all.

What is the Court's stance on this, and how does this stance interact with the first question, above?

Pursuant to III, 2 of the Commonwealth Court Regulations, the Claimant may now continue to present his case, or he may yield the floor to the Respondent.

[Harvey Steffke]

Hmmmmm.

So, what, I take a stab at how I feel those questions should be answered, and then the Primate does, which may or may not be roughly the same interpretation, and then the court decides which one of us is right and that becomes policy? I suppose that is the format on how a lawsuit is run, but this isn't really a "me vs. them"-type situation: I have no penalties I want to see enforced or damages to recover. I'm much more interested in policy clarification than being right.

I know, as a passive organization I'm not sure you're equipped to deal with the law directly even if asked to, but I can't shake the feeling there should be a less roundabout way of doing this.

[Arviður]

COMMONWEALTH COURT

Claimant
Harvey Steffke, Nelaga Territories

v

Respondent
Erik Mortis, Primate of the Small Commonwealth

--

The jurist assigned to preside over this case is the Jurist Tosha.

/s

Arviður úr Ansinum
Chief Jurist of the Commonwealth

[Malliki Tosha]

Thank you, Mr. Chief Jurist.

I just wanted to clarify the issue brought up by the Claimant. This should be seen as more of a discussion between, on one side, the Claimant holding a certain view, and on the other side, the Respondent holding a certain view. The views may be completely opposite or more or less the same. When the discussion is over, the Court will deliberate and issue an opinion, which might be similar to the view of the Claimant, the view of the Respondent or something else entirely.

Let's just try to do this and see how it goes, shall we?

[Erik Mortis]

Sadly, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over this treaty.

[Malliki Tosha]

Could the Respondent please put forth an argument in support of his claim? I would like this worded as a Motion to Dismiss, where the Respondent states the reason why the Court does not have jurisdiction and that the case should be dismissed.

The reason why I want it in this formal way is to protect the integrity of the Court. I do not want anyone to be able to say that the Court submits to the Primate because he is the Primate. That would set a bad precedent.

[Erik Mortis]

Fine.

Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction over any treaty that does not require the signing of the the Court Convention. If the court had jurisdiction at large over treaties, then nation who did not agree to the CC would be subject to it, violating their sovereignty.

[Malliki Tosha]

On Motion to Dismiss:

While the Primate is technically correct that the Court does not hold jurisdiction over treaties that are not subordinate to the Court Convention, the language establishing this fact is ambiguous at best. The Court does not have any authority in this matter, although some sort of clarification of the language would perhaps be prudent.

On the general matter of the Claimant's application, a procedure for dealing with general questions will be addressed in the Commonwealth Court Regulations. The Claimant is free to refile his question under that rule.

The Motion to Dismiss is granted.