PETITION

I, Freddy François, having residence in Diverney, BA, petition the High Court of Justice to annul the parliamentary elections held in the province of Baudrix held between 1 may and 4 may 2008 and the results thereof, as communicated by the State Electoral Commission on 4 may 2008.

The respondents in this case are the State Electoral Commission, to be represented by his Highness, Emperor Edgard II, acting as State Electoral Commissioner and Prince Enrique Portela.

Basis for the petition and relevant facts

1. Whereas, according to Ch. IV, art. 3 of the Code of Electoral Law, as amended on 1 october 2007, the High Court may nullify an election if it is satisfied that there were acts or omissions by someone which changed the result of the election.

Whereas Ch. III, art. 3 of the same Code provides that the Ministry of Interior must provide the State Electoral Commission with a roll of citizens (with e-mail addresses for each provided) eligible to vote, in order to set up the polls as soon as possible and that the roll of citizens will then be published in the State Electoral Commission (without e-mail addresses) 10 days before an election and that the Electoral Commissioner must ensure that no entry on the register is contrary to law.

That as provided by Ch. III, art. 5 of that same Code, the publication of the electoral roll is required to allow a citizen to formulate any objection with regard to the entries on that roll.

That with regard to the parliamentary elections to be held between 31 march and 4 may 2008, the State Electoral Commission did not – at any time prior to the said election - publish the electoral roll in its forum and that every citizen has been precluded from exercising his right under Ch. III, art. 5 of the Code of Electoral Law.

That the electoral results show that three (3) citizens have voted. That two of those citizens, id est Nicholas Bertrand and I, Freddy François, were candidate at the parliamentary elections held from 31 march to 4 may 2008.

That the electoral results as published by the State Electoral Commission show that Nicholas Bertrand received two votes and Nicholas Bertrand and I, Freddy François have received one vote, and that Nicholas Bertrand was therefore declared victorious in the parliamentary election for the province of Baudrix.

That it may be presumed, in the sense of article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that each candidate has voted for himself and that this can even been ascertained, as I hereby declare having voted for my own person.

That it is therefore undisputable that the vote of the third citizen, not having stood for election, was decisive.

That the third citizen is Enrique Portela, and is mentioned in the Citizens Register to have his residence not only in that province, but also in the province of San Martin and the Overseas Territory of Galatia, part of the Overseas Territories Electoral Department.

That a citizen, for the purpose of parliamentary elections, may - according to article 17 (2) of the Constitution - only have one place of residence. That any other interpretation would allow a multiple right to vote in the parliamentary elections, which would be contrary to Ch. I, art. 1 and 2 of the Code of Electoral Law which provide that elections must be fair and must make use of the single vote.

That by not publishing the electoral roll in its forum, the State Electoral Commission has acted in such a manner that no citizen, including myself, was able to seek clarification in this matter prior to the election.

That it is not a predetermined fact that Enrique Portela would have been recognized as a citizen of Baudrix.

So that, the State Electoral Commission has by its actions, hindered a procedure which would have changed the electoral result.

That without the vote of Enrique Portela, electoral results in Baudrix would show a tie, which would - according to the Code of Electoral Law - necessitate a nation-wide election to break the tie and that in such an election it is not a predetermined fact that Nicholas Bertrand would be victorious.

2. Whereas it could be presumed, in the sense of article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the State Electoral Commission did set up the electoral polls based upon the Citizens Register, which can be found in the forum of the Minister of the Interior, and which was last updated in march 2008.

That it is revealed in that register that the province of Baudrix counts three (3) citizens eligible for membership in the Imperial Parliament and having the right to vote in the parliamentary elections, as provided by article 17 of the Constitution. That two of those citizens, id est Nicholas Bertrand and I, Freddy François, were candidate at the parliamentary elections held from 31 march to 4 may 2008.

That the electoral results as published by the State Electoral Commission show that Nicholas Bertrand received two votes and Nicholas Bertrand and I, Freddy François have received one vote, and that Nicholas Bertrand was therefore declared victorious in the parliamentary election for the province of Baudrix.

That it may be presumed, in the sense of article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that each candidate has voted for himself and that this can even been ascertained, as I hereby declare having voted for my own person.

That it is therefore undisputable that the vote of the third citizen, not having stood for election, was decisive.

That the third citizen, id est Enrique Portela, is mentioned in the Citizens Register to have his residence not only in that province, but also in the province of San Martin and the Overseas Territory of Galatia, part of the Overseas Territories Electoral Department.

That a citizen, for the purpose of parliamentary elections, may - according to article 17 (2) of the Constitution - only have one place of residence. That any other interpretation would allow a multiple right to vote in the parliamentary elections, which would be contrary to Ch. I, art. 1 and 2 of the Code of Electoral Law which provide that elections must be fair and must make use of the single vote.

So that, by failing to determine the exact residence of Prince Enrique Portela for the purposes of the parliamentary elections of 31 march to 4 may 2008, the State Electoral Commission has omitted a formality which has changed the electoral result and that by not choosing one place of residence has acted in a manner prejudicial to the parliamentary elections in Baudrix, San Martin and the OTED, and the results thereof.

That without the vote of Enrique Portela, electoral results in Baudrix show a tie, which would - according to the Code of Electoral Law - necessitate a nation-wide election to break the tie and that in such an election it is not a predetermined fact that Nicholas Bertrand would be victorious.

Therefore, the High Court of Justice should annul the parliamentary elections held in the province of Baudrix held between 1 may and 4 may 2008 and the results thereof, communicated by the State Electoral Commission on 4 may 2008.

This is nothing but rubbish. My main main residence is in Galatia and you'll see my declaration in ALL Censi where i specifically state that Galatia is either my main or prime residence. You'll also note that i only voted in OTED (hence knowing the results in OTED and was able to publish them before the Emperor.)

This is preposterous. My email does not even appear on the electoral role for Baudrix otherwise i would have received an email, your honor.

The New Electoral Law hasnt even received assent yet from the Emperor further indicating that it isnt law yet and doesnt take precedence until the next Parliamentary elections.

I humbly ask that His Honor dismiss this immediately.

respectfully,

Enrique, you have not even been issued a citation by the Court yet, so why are you already interfering in the procedure as set by the Code of Civil Procedure?

Moreover, and do not take this personally, if you are not the third voter, then who is? The electoral roll has never been published, so I wouldn't know...

On the citizens register I come to three only by counting Nicholas, you and I.

Next to your name it is stated: BA (baudrix), right? (don't go editing it...)

As for the applicable law: get your facts straight please: I am referring to the Code of Electoral Law, as amended on 1 october 2007, published in the Imperial Gazette and having received assent on that same day.

I am not basing my claim on the¨*new* code yet to be enacted. Still, you should note that the provisions I am referring to will not be altered by the new code. I know that for a fact as I (re)drafted the Code of Electoral Law while in parliament.

I would appreciate it if his Lord Justice would consider this petition and issue the citations to the respondents, as the Code of Civil Procedure provides.

There is no need and room for a debate/discussion prior to his Lord Justice's consideration of this petition.

I'm going to step out of this. I thought you spoke of the new code of electoral law. You don't have any basis for this accusation and I hope his Honor in his own decision can come to this conclusion.

I don't damage my integrity by going around and editing my posts to change information on them.

The Court hereby accepts the Petition submitted by Mr. Freddy François.

The Court hereby cites the respondents:

His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Edgard II representing the State Electoral Commission

Prince Enrique Portela.

The respondents shall present themselves personally before the Court for the joinder of issues.


Signed,

Bertrand Barisart,
Lord Chief Justice of Alexandria.

Your Honor,

We come before you in response to the citation that the High Court made in response to this petition.

The Electoral Roll has the following people listed as voters in Baudrix:

As His Honor can see, there is no Prince Enrique in that list whatsoever. The Ministry of Interior handled the matter and moved his e-mail to the OTED region, where he claims to have his official residence at the moment.

This can further be proven with the e-mail addresses that were included in the following screenshot of the e-mail addresses that were included in the poll. Nicholas Bertrand did not appear in that e-mail, We moved his e-mail to Baudrix that same day of the election, despite having filed weeks ago his presence in Baudrix. He did eventually recieve a link to the poll and had his e-mail address entered to be able to validate his vote.

[Screenshot: http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9967/sc...tbaudrixnb6.png]

Your Honor, as you can see, the SEC did its job right and gave legal citizens of Baudrix their privilege to vote according to law.

Your Honour,

I accept the argument that Enrique Portela was not invited to vote in Baudrix and I believe that his intervention in this case is therefore no longer required.

However, I disagree with the first respondent's that the SEC fulfilled its task according to the law, because:
1) there was no publication of the electoral roll
2) citizens without residence or not having residence in Baudrix where invited to cast a vote.

Let me expend on both issues.

1)

I reiterate that Ch. III, art. 3 of the Code of Electoral Law provides that the Ministry of Interior must provide the State Electoral Commission with a roll of citizens (with e-mail addresses for each provided) eligible to vote, in order to set up the polls as soon as possible.

Furthermore, that same article provides that and the roll of citizens will then be published in the State Electoral Commission (without e-mail addresses) 10 days before an election and that the Electoral Commissioner must ensure that no entry on the register is contrary to law.

With regard to the parliamentary elections to be held between 31 march and 4 may 2008, the State Electoral Commission did not – at any time prior to the said election - publish the electoral roll in its forum.

The screenshot offered is that of the poll-setup in demochoice.org and does not in any way correspond to a publication of the electoral roll. Proof thereof is that the electoral roll needs to be published without email-adresses while the screenshot lists the email-adresses.

2)

In the january census the following persons declared to have residence in Baudrix:
- Freddy Francois
- His Highness Emperor Edgard II

In the march census the following persons declared to have residence in Baudrix:
- Freddy Francois
- Nicholas Bertrand
- Monseigneur Enrique Portela (only in part)
- Ian Kerslake.

According Ch. III, article 3 of the Code of Electoral Law it is up to the Minister of Interior to provide a list of citizens eligible to vote.

According to article 17 of the Constitution one must declare his residence to be eligible to vote.

I hope the respondent agrees that one can only have residence in one province and that the most accurate and current data must be utilized, hence the Minister of Interior's efforts to hold a census every so many months.

The list of voters used by the SEC lists persons who have in the last two censusses not declared to have their residence in Baudrix.

I am referring to:
- Jean Ferri
- Christopher Collins
- Jacques Richealeau
- Adriano Marcos
- Cosme d'Aurach
- Jacques Gordon
- Jean Pierre Robespierre

This list includes Adriano Marcos, who - on 9 march 2008, only a few weeks prior to the election, declared to have residence in Valenciennes.

This list includes HIH Edgard II, who did not respond to the March census, surely an unfortunate negligence on his part.

I therefore count 8 voters of which the eligibility can be questioned. The only two voters of whom the eligibility cannot be questioned are in fact the two candidates, Nicholas Bertrand and I, Freddy Francois.

My conclusion therefore is that a third vote was cast by a citizen whose elegibility is questionable. The result of the elections were therefore corrupted.

For what it is worth, I believe that the peak population, according to census, since my taking over of the Interior Ministry to be 5.

I would also like to add that, in the past, I have raised issues over the Electoral Roll. This post I made on the 18th March: http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4310.

Many thanks,

Your Honor,

I thank you for citing me to return to the High Court, it is certainly an honor. There were several problems that were raised to His Imperial Majesty and the State Electoral Commission on the matter. The electoral role was slightly incorrect with only a handful of citizens in the incorrect province for the Prime Ministerial election.

I would like to clarify the situation to Mssr. Francois. The electoral role was indeed published and it was located in the State Electoral Commission, but the elections having passed on, they were moved to the Electoral archives. Not only was it there for 10 days, but its been there since the last Prime Ministerial Elections where Rt. Hon. Prime Minister Ciervo won his re-election bid.

I would like to further clarify to the petitioner, Freddy Francois of his past accusation. I was listed under Baudrix as a personal request from His Lordship, Lord Leclerc who had asked me to help him with his football organization. I manage the Baudrix team, and thats the only reason why in the citizenship form i am listed under Baudrix. His Lordship can affirm all this.

Incorrect, Mr. Petitioner. The screenshot outlines the email addresses the link to the voting was sent to. As you'll notice only 3 people voted, all of whom were included in that email. I'd like to point out that the electoral roll is published not just based off of one census, but also of previous censi as citizens may miss a census if there is an issue present in the mAcronational life. A census is to determine the level of active citizens currently present in our Empire.

The others that appear in the electoral role may not have signed the last census, but that doesnt mean they are inactive, nor does it mean that they will lose citizenship. You'll notice that in the January Census there was a bigger margin of citizens from Baudrix showing up in the Imperial Ministry of the Interior to sign the census.
http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3932 - Census

http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3937 - Citizen List, compiled by the Imperial Ministry of the Interior after the census was conducted.

Again, the petitioner stumbles in this part. His Imperial Majesty is not required to fill the census, and to properly educate the petitioner, i would like to point out that His Imperial Majesty was on LOA.

no further points, your honor.

respectfully,

Your Honour,

I would like to answer in a final manner to the second respondent’s arguments.

1. The main legal issue at hand clearly is the interpretation of article 17 (2) of the Constitution and how it needs to be applied in combination with the Code of Electoral Law and the Census Act 2007.

Art. 17 (2) of the Constitution provides that, for any person to have the right to vote in Parliament elections they shall have to register their name and other contact information in the Provincial Registry of their territorial division of residence.

However, there is no register which goes by the name Provincial Registry. I believe it is save to state that the Citizens List, as compiled and updated by the Minister of the Interior based upon the census data, which sums up the residents of each province, is to be considered as the Provincial Registry.

If not, it would be impossible to give effect to article 17 (2) of the Constitution.

2. It is apparently clear that the most recent version of the Citizens List indicates that Baudrix has three residents, although the second respondent has indicated that the mentioning of his name is a mere practicallity for the purposes of a soccer competition (sic).

The SEC, represented by His Highness Emperor Edgard II has both explicitedly and implicitedly, both in this court procedure as outside of it (see the thread referred to by the Minister of the Interiror) stated that the Citizens List, which equates to the Provincial registry, is not taken into account, or only partially. This is affirmed by the second respondent.

It is argued that failure to complete a census does not equate loss of citizenship and merely indicates that a person is inactive or is on leave of absence. Let me direct the Court to article 6 of the Census Act 2007: “should at any time a citizen fail to complete a census, he/she will be placed in a list that list shall state that the citizen is inactive due to his failure to complete the census.Should he/she continue to fail three citizenships he/she will be placed on another list that will state the citizen's suspended citizenship, upon return of the citizen he can activate his citizenship.”

I therefore agree up to this point, but our Constitution also provides that not being listed in the provincial registry, the direct result from failing to comply to the census, equates an ineligibility to vote. Note that it is not because a citizen may not vote in an election, that he therefore looses his citizenship.

Article 3 of the Census Act 2007 states that “This act applies to all citizens of the provinces of The Empire of the Alexandrians.” The Emperor is therefore not exempt from the obligation to comply to a census. Furthermore, the Census Act 2007 provides no exemption for leaves of absence.

As far as the electoral roll therefore includes persons not listed on the Citizens List, it includes persons who are, according to art. 17 (2) of our Constitution, not allowed to cast their vote.

3. Both respondents believe that it is the SEC’s right to compile an electoral roll based on several censuses and taking into account such circumstances as a leave of absence.

According to Chapter III, article 3 of the Code of Electoral law it is the prerogative and duty of the Ministry of Interior to provide the SEC with a roll of citizens. This provision must be construed in the light of art. 17 of the Constitution. The Minister needs to provide the provincial registry's so that the SEC can organise the elections per province.

As far as the SEC does not take into account the information provided by the Ministry and unilaterally adds or deletes names not mentioned on the provincial registry, the SEC clearly acts “ultra vires”. It is apparently clear that the SEC has not utilized the most recent citizens list, which provided information on residency. This is a direct violation of the law.

Moreover, by doing so, and by ignoring the most recent Citizens List (i.e. the Provincial registry) the SEC does not fulfil its legal obligation to ensure that no entry on the register is contrary to law, as provided by that above mentioned provision of the Code of Electoral Law.

4. The second respondent argues that the Electoral roll was published as required by Code of Electoral Law, but that it has been moved to the Electoral Archives.

I would like to request that the respondents bring proof thereof, because I am unable to find that thread in the electoral archives.

The second respondent also misconstrues chapter III, art. 3 of the Code of Electoral Law. He states that the electoral roll “was (…) there for 10 days,(…)it has been there since the last Prime Ministerial Elections(..)”

The Code of Electoral Law is to be understood as requiring that the electoral roll be published 10 days before every election. The “ratio legis” clearly is that the electoral roll may vary from election to election and that at each election citizens need to be informed about who is eligible to vote and who is eligible to stand for office. That the electoral roll may vary has everything to do with the fact that the information about residency of some citizens may change from census to census. Some might indicate a new residence, others might no longer indicate a residence, with the effect of no longer being eligible to vote, without however loosing their citizenship.
Nonetheless, even if the electoral roll was published correctly, this does not change the fact that persons were included which did not meet the requirement of article 17 (2) of the Constitution.

5. By inviting persons to vote, who were not eligible to do so, the elections have not been handled properly and the electoral results are very disputable.

I therefore ask the High Court to annul the Parliamentary elections for Baudrix and to order the State Electoral Commission to organise new elections based upon the information as provided in the Citizens List, which was based upon the census of march 2008.

Mssr. Lord High Justice,

Are you to make any judgements at all? I feel that this is an issue of high importance as it directly effects one of the most populous of our Empire's provinces.

Lord Leclerc,

I'm currently deliberating on this matter. A judgement on this matter will be rendered within a couple of days.

The Court has found that the Parliamentary Elections held in Baudrix were not, as required by Chapter III, Article 3 of the Code of Electoral Law , based upon a roll of citizens eligible to vote provided by the Ministry of Interior.

The State Electoral Commission has therefore not met the legal requirement, imposed upon it by the said Chapter III, Article 3 of the Code of Electoral Law, to ensure that no entry on the register is contrary to law. In consequence thereof persons may have been invited to vote who were not eligible to do so under the Law of the Land, including but not limited to Article 17 of the Constitution.

The Court considers the aforementioned sufficient grounds for nullification and therefore nullifies the Parliamentary elections in Baudrix.

The Court also calls for new Parliamentary Elections in Baudrix and orders that such elections shall be based on the current Citizens List, which is based on the census of March 2008.


Signed,

Bertrand Barisart,
Lord Chief Justice of Alexandria.