Citizen Complaint 1 - Trial Thread

Per my duty as Judge Advocate, I am posting a Trial Thread based on the accusations against provisional Chief Justice Curufinwe.

Curufinwe is accused of violating Article F, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

Click to expand...

The procedure for citizen complaint trials can be found in the Judicial Procedure.
The original accusation can be found in the Term 3 Judiciary Thread.
For your reference, the Constitution and Code of Laws.

The first post in this thread is reserved for the Judge Advocate. I shall be serving as the prosecution for this case. The second and third posts in this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the Defendant. They have twenty-four hours to post. Once they have both posted their arguments or twenty-four hours have passed, whichever is first, then discussion is open to the public.

Since Curufinwe is involved in this case, he has recused himself from the trial. A pro-tem Chief Justice will be appointed by our president, Chillaxation.

Prosecution follows

---

This case is a bit confusing, so I'm going to start by explaining everything from the beginning of this term. First off, no one ran for Chief Justice during the elections in Term 3, and no one won the Presidency in Term 3 either. Since vacancies for Chief Justice *have* to be filled by the President, there was some debate about procedure. Secretary of State Chieftess nominated Nobody to be Chief Justice, but the legality of that decision was debatable, and Nobody vacated the position. This created a large number of important questions for the Judiciary to answer, including Judicial Review 7. Depending on the ruling for Judical Review 7, Curufinwe's position as Chief Justice might be affected.

Eventually, Chillaxation became President, and appointed Curufinwe to the empty Chief Justice position. However, Donsig posted a confirmation poll asking the citizens to confirm Curufinwe as Chief Justice, which he is allowed to do according to Section 8, Clause C, Sub-Clause V.VB.

VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

VIB. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes.

Click to expand...

Although Curufinwe was approved in this poll, some citizens question the poll's legality. In Citizen Complaint 2, Swiss Empire accuses Donsig of posting an illegal poll, pending the results of Judicial Review 10, which asks the Judiciary to rule on the legality of said poll. The validity and legality of this poll directly affects the provisional status of Curufinwe's Chief Justice position.

So far, I've identified three cases currently in the Judiciary Department's docket that directly affect Curufinwe. ((CC2, JR7, JR10.)) In addition, Judicial Review 5, which affects amending our Code of Laws, was a direct result of our debates over nominations.

And yet, even though Curufinwe is affected by all of these court cases, he has not recused himself from them! Because of this, he is in violation of Article F, Clause 3 which requires judiciary members to be fair and impartial.

Because of this, I would please ask Curufinwe to recuse himself from the cases mentioned above, and the charges will be dropped. If not, there will be no choice but to take this to a poll on guilt or innocence.

---
The next two posts are reserved for the Public Defender and the Defendant.

Well, brothers and sisters, here I go.

Fundamentally, I was faced with a choice, between many values. Those given for the judiciary to strive towards are impartiality, that is, striving towards equality, fairness, striving towards equity, being public, striving towards openness and accountability, and speediness, striving towards finding justice promptly.

As Chief Justice, I was asked to recuse myself from a case on the legality of the Secretary of State assuming the powerrs of the presidency, since the potential previous holder of my office could still be held to hold it, and that by giving me the oppurtunity rule on this I could potentially put myself into my office, thus making the case a conflict of interest and destroying the impartiality of the Judiciary, which I am required to uphold.

However, Nobody resigned, repeatedly. There is no legitimacy in anyone attempting to tell him that he did not, for that would make a mockery of individual freedom, if an outside authority may compel you to hold an office. Therefore, the position had to be open. Again, many who attacked me simply ignored this fact, or presented it as open to interpretation. Brothers and sisters, think of this, when you wish to resign an office someone may attempt to tell you that your resignation was invalid. Is this not a mockery of justice? Is this not illogical and unjust? I can not allow myself to be swayed if that would mock the principles of justice.

Then there is disagreement over the procedures on appointment. However, I would remind all, there is currently no Judicial Review affecting my appointment, so it would be illogical for me to stand aside from one that is unconnected to that fact. I asked repeatedly, and strived to find, a way in which the two could be connected, but never was given one and could never come up with one. Instead, I was promised that if I simply stood aside my questions would be answered. However, to me this reeked of attempting to assert dominance over the judiciary and interfere with justice, again mocking the principles I am sworn to uphold. If I bow before those who would attempt to control me, how am I impartial? How am I fair?

Finally, given no arguments to follow, I was simply threatened. If I were to continue on, I would face a CC, because, as Daveshack wonderfully put it, the appearance of impartiality could be threatened. Brothers and sisters, he had me there, and I was ready to stand aside. I love justice, and to see it destroyed would be horrible.

However, something else came to mind, as some reminded me. I was being threatened at all times, as certain people were attempting to find ways to compel me. While I do not perhaps agree with those who supported me in their often harsh attacks on those who feel I am violating the principles I am required to uphold, there is some merit to their argument. Again, how can I be impartial if I am coerced into my decision on judicial matters? How can I guarantee to you, brothers and sisters, that the result will be fair, if I can not even work towards that? How can I, then, uphold those principles if I allow others to manipulate my choices? This is what led me to feel that I could not stand aside, despite the cogent, articulate, and above all else, just, argument made to me.

Brothers and sisters, we live in a society where there are many values, and none of them can be absolute. There was no choice I could make that would please all, no course of action that consensus existed on, and no clear-cut principle of justice I could follow. So, weighing everything, I came to a decision. I had to balance countless principles, countless voices, not forgetting any of them, not privileging any, and then come to the choice that would the least harm. If that is a crime, then, brothers and sisters, punish me. If that is, as I feel, the wisest path and the truest way to hold to the principles which i must hold to, then, I ask of you, vote accordingly. But whatever you do, please, I beg of you, do as I did, and decide based on weighing many values, and see what tips the scales. Whatever the result is, it will be just, and that is one thing I will bow to, justice, but never power.

Brothers and sisters, regardless of the result of this, I ask of you this. While this divided us, ruined the unity which I so adore, let it not destroy the feelings of solidarity and friendship we share. We may be many voices, and we may disagree, but they are all equal, they are all of value, and they celebrate that which underlies all of us, and the spirit of this society and the laws it has created. So let us remember this, let us remember to think of each other as brothers and sisters, as comrades and as equals, each with a voice to hear. Let us remember this, and then act as is right.

I ask of you nothing more.

Citizens of Licentia,

It is my privledge and duty to come forth and assist in the defense of a fellow citizen as he stands accused before you of violating the Constitution.

The Judge Advocate presented you with rather large summary of the events, but that review was far, far too broad. This case involves a small matter, a single Judicial Review over one action taken in that long string of events. Allow me, please, to focus on that event, and the matters that have lead us to here, to this trial.

With our Chief Justice position empty, several citizens were clamouring for it to be filled. The Secretary of State, Chieftess at the time, used an old law to appoint a citizen, Nobody, to the office of President with the intent of filling the Chief Justice office until the election cycle completed, giving us an elected President. It's just a bit confusing, and was more so back in those days!

Eventually, the matter was resolved, with a Judicial Review filed to challenge the ability of the Secretary of State to appoint anyone to be the President. It is THIS judicial matter, this review, that this case centers around.

Citizen donsig has requested that my client, the Chief Justice Curufinwe, recuse himself from this JR and appointment a pro-tem replacement. His reasoning is that "Curufinwe would, in effect, be deciding upon the legality and validity of his own appointment as chief justice. By definition this is a conflict of interest and cannot be considered either fair or impartial."

Those last three words are the core of this case. The Judiciary is required to act in a "... fair, impartial, public and speedy manner." So, can Curufinwe act in a manner that is fair and impartial in this case? Can he listen to all sides in the Judicial Review in question? Can he render a ruling, supported with facts and reasoning that would remove him from office, if warranted?

The answer is clear - yes, he can. Curufinwe has demonstrated that he is intelligent and thoughtful in past postings, and that he has the skills needed to be our Chief Justice. Those skills involve the ability to remove one's personal interests and desires and review that matter at hand. I challenge my capable opponent to find evidence to the contrary. Their case to hand rests on inuenndo and supposition - that my client cannot possibly be impartial or fair. Yet they do not offer evidence of this, using guesses and inferences. Such standards should not and cannot be the sole deciding factor for a case such as this!

In the past, other Justices have ruled on matters that affect themselves and done so admirably. Curufinwe asks that he be given the same consideration and respect that others before him have, and allow him to discharge his duties as the Chief Justice on this, and all cases before him.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Yay, I can post now.

It is in my humble opinion that Curufinwe should be found innocent, and it saddens me that we have had to go this far. In my citiziens opinion, this is poppycock. Curufinwe has been an epitome of impartiality since the start of his term. He made an Official and Legal Decision to not recuse himself from the cases mentioned, and I feel that may have confused some people. But who better to judge his/her own impartiality than that person themself. As Cheif Justice, his opinion on the matter carried legal weight.

I beleive firmly that Curufinwe has actually demostrated impartiality in this case. The definition of Impartial according to Merriam-Websters Dictionary is not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally. He demostration of will clearly shows his impartiality. He knew that those who wanted him to recuse himself would use every tool in there arsenal and drag him through the mud. Yet he did want he thought was right, giving no thought to his good name. He did not give in to coercetion and insisted on treating all opinions equally. He weighed all opinions, giving no bias even to his own. Partial is defined as inclined to favor one party more than the other , yet he is not and was not. He favored each party equally, and i think is eloquent and elegant handling of this situation more than proves his ability to be impartial in a trial.

Swissempire said:

Yay, I can post now.
But who better to judge his/her own impartiality than that person themself. As Cheif Justice, his opinion on the matter carried legal weight.

Click to expand...

Of course he would think of himself as impartial, as would anybody. However we cannot fully trust anybody to be impartial in a case involving themselves. It is better to appoint somebody else to make sure of full impartiality in the court.

Also, I am wondering, why did Curufinwe recuse himself for this Citizen Complaint? Ravensfire just said that he can be trusted to be impartial in cases involving himself.

I am not sure I see the difference between this Citizen Complain and the Judicial Review in question. In both cases there is a possibility that Curufinwe would be removed from office. If found guilty in this CC, he could be removed from office, and if the JR goes one way, his appointment may not be valid.
So again I ask, why was there a need for him to recuse himself from this CC, but not the JR in question?

I wish to remind Citizen Black_Hole that Chief Justice Curufinwe is following his Judicial Procedures.

I quote from the Shared Duties section, "Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation."

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

ravensfire said:

I wish to remind Citizen Black_Hole that Chief Justice Curufinwe is following his Judicial Procedures.

I quote from the Shared Duties section, "Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation."

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Click to expand...

I know Mr. Public Defender, I was just pointing out similarities between this CC and the JR.

Black_Hole said:

I know Mr. Public Defender, I was just pointing out similarities between this CC and the JR.

Click to expand...

Indeed - it shows that my client does, in fact, follow the law. He is required to recuse himself from this proceeding, and did so quickly. He is not required to recuse himself from a Judicial Review. He is only required to do so if he feels he cannot deliver a fair, impartial, public and speedy ruling on the matter.

Thus far, the only evidence presented that he cannot is conjecture and speculation that isn't supported by his past history.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

ravensfire said:

With our Chief Justice position empty, several citizens were clamouring for it to be filled. The Secretary of State, Chieftess at the time, used an old law to appoint a citizen, Nobody, to the office of President with the intent of filling the Chief Justice office until the election cycle completed, giving us an elected President.

Eventually, the matter was resolved, with a Judicial Review filed to challenge the ability of the Secretary of State to appoint anyone to be the President. It is THIS judicial matter, this review, that this case centers around.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Click to expand...

I dont want to be nag but really this not what the case is about at all. Cheiftess tried to appiont me ChiefJustice not President. Cheiftess assumed the powers of president herself, The JR is about when ever or not cheiftess was allowed to assume the powers and if she was, did she legally apoint me as Chief Justice.

ravensfire said:

Indeed - it shows that my client does, in fact, follow the law. He is required to recuse himself from this proceeding, and did so quickly. He is not required to recuse himself from a Judicial Review. He is only required to do so if he feels he cannot deliver a fair, impartial, public and speedy ruling on the matter.

Thus far, the only evidence presented that he cannot is conjecture and speculation that isn't supported by his past history.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Click to expand...

The reason the clause is in the judicial procedures is to ensure impartiality because you can't trust the Chief Justice to rule on a case that could boot him from the office. The Judicial Review could also boot him from office. The point I am trying to make is that he can't rule impartially on a Judicial Review that could remove him from office, the same thing a Citizen Complaint could do.

As the Judge Advocate pointed out there are two Judicial Reviews pending that directly affect Curufinwe. It is a basic legal principle that a judge does not preside over a case that directly affects him or her. This principle is in place for two simple reasons.

First, it acknowledges that we are all human and part of being human is to look out for one's own self interest, even if in doing so laws have to be bent. This is not to say that there aren't judges out there who could preside over cases directly affecting them and still render fair and impartial decisions. This is not to say that Curufinwe is not one of those special jurists who could be fair and impartial no matter what he had at stake. The sad fact is most people would not be impartial in such cases. Therefore, it is a basic principle that no one should preside over cases where they have an interest at stake.

Second, it preserves confidence in the legal system. Assume for a moment that we did away with this principle and let justices rule in cases where they had an interest at stake. It could be argued after all that judges are fair and impartial or else they wouldn't be judges, right? A judge rules on a case and rules against his or her own interest. Well, no one can say anything about the judge's fairness, can they? But what if the judge makes a ruling that falls in line with his or her interests? Then it could be said that the judge merely twisted the legal system to his or her own ends and suddenly all the legal reasoning behind the ruling is called into question whether the legal reasoning is reasonable or not. All this is avoided when justices are not allowed to preside over cases that directly affect themselves.

This is not about whether Chieftess's appointment of Nobody was legal. This is not about whether Nobody stood down. This is not about juggling values and trying to decide which is most important. This is not about Curufinwe's character. This is not about attacking or punishing Curufinwe.

This is about whether we want the basic legal principle that judiciary members are not to preside over cases that directly affect them to be part of our law.

Heres my 33NZ cents:


1. Curufinwe is accuded of being "impartial" because he refuses to Recuse himself from Judicial Review 7.

2. Judicial Review 7 is answering if my appiontment to Cheif Justice was Legal. If My appiontment was decided to be legal then i would be the CJ and Curufinwe would be Forced out of office.

3. The fact that Curufinwe would be deciding if he lost his job or not, would be huge conflict of intrest and in order to appear "impartial" he would of had to recuse himself from Judical Review 7.

4. Now heres the trickey part, I resigned the Position of Chief Justice so even if Judical Review 7 found my apointment legally binding i resigned from the position therefore i could not be made Cheif Justice.

5.So if i could not be made Cheif Justice by Judical Review 7, then Curufinwe would not be decideding his fate, Therefore there would be No Conflict of Interest.

6.If there is no conflict of Intrest then there is no reason for Curufinwe to recuse himself.

7.If there was no Conflict of Interest, and no Reason for the CJ to recuse himself, Then this means Curufinwe did infact act in a impartial and fair way.

8.If Curufinwe acted in a Impartial Manner then he is Innocent of the charge.

Now here the key point, Did i resign?

I hate to break this too you all but i did.




Although i said "i stand down" in this context i meant it as resign. First Robbo said "I suggest as to not cause any more issues..step down and wait for President Chill to ask for CJ applicants." Also donsig PMed me with basicly the same thing. If i was going to reapply i must have resigned first. So when i said "Ok i will stand down and wait for the president to ask for applicants " i meant i will resign and reapply.

Why did i resign? Because all of the Judical Sharks of this Demogame were on my back forceing me to. No one gave me the Privelage of recusing myself from a JR to solve the issue. No one gave me the Privelage of having a confirmation poll. No one gave me the Privelage of being CCed to resolve the Issue. Although i requested someone do it. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3764526&postcount=24

But some of you people instanly shoot it down

Here

and here

So with the options of Standing down, saving face and trying to get apionted again v Not standing down having the oldschool Judges hassle me and just ignor my appointment until i was left alone with a empty thread and everyone thinking it was another crazy Nobotti coup.

Now you also have to remeber i only took the job in the first place because Cheiftess asked me too, and i thought i was doing something good for the nation by standing up for the job unlike others who dont run for elections then complain when some one they dont want in gets appointed.

There is a group of Judical old school sharks who known the entire law off by heart (even the parts not posted yet) and like to go around telling the Judicary what to do. When the Judicary won't budge they are Blackmailed into doing what their ordered (do this or i recall you, do this or ill CC you) or in my case having so little respect that they wont even try to recall or CC me.

I ran for a judical position. Then i accepted Cheiftess request for me to be CJ! but the sharks forced me from my position and then forced me from the reapplication process by restarting the 12 day process over again until i pulled out.


It would have been easy for the Chief Justice to recuse himself and let the sharks win, as i did. But he said no and held firm in what was his right as a member of the Judicary. He didn't bow down to the blackmail attempts or confirmation polls. When accussed of a crime he didn't back down.

The sharks couldn't break him, So now they want to Break you *points at citizens* they want you to Convict him of a Crime. They want to force YOU! into doing as they wish.

I resigned, so there is no conflict of interest, so the procecution has no case. Don't let Judical Puffery coerce you as it did me. Vote Innocent in this CC.

Black_Hole said:

Of course he would think of himself as impartial, as would anybody. However we cannot fully trust anybody to be impartial in a case involving themselves. It is better to appoint somebody else to make sure of full impartiality in the court.

Also, I am wondering, why did Curufinwe recuse himself for this Citizen Complaint? Ravensfire just said that he can be trusted to be impartial in cases involving himself.

I am not sure I see the difference between this Citizen Complain and the Judicial Review in question. In both cases there is a possibility that Curufinwe would be removed from office. If found guilty in this CC, he could be removed from office, and if the JR goes one way, his appointment may not be valid.
So again I ask, why was there a need for him to recuse himself from this CC, but not the JR in question?

Click to expand...

Thank you for completly using my post out of context and most likely not reading the whole thing. I used evidence and examples and legal definitions to prove my point.

Nobody likes soundbytes

donsig said:

This is about whether we want the basic legal principle that judiciary members are not to preside over cases that directly affect them to be part of our law.

Click to expand...

I also think this is the key point here. I have not agreed with everything donsig has said in the debates about this issue and I have not always agreed either with the way he has said things sometimes, but I think it is important that we set a precedent that office holders don't rule on questions regarding appointment/election to their own office.

As others have said, this is not about whether Curufinwe is impartial or able to carry out the work of Chief Justice. Personally, I supported his appointment in the poll and fully expect him to carry out the work once this issue/issues is/are decided. If he can face another term of CJ, I am sure I will support his re-appointment as well. However, I think it would be wise for him not to be deciding upon the legality of appointments to Chief Justice while he is in that office.

Friends, I give you brother Nobody's argument, and remind you, that, while I will never privilege one voice over another, that being utterly repugnant to the principles and philosophy I have always held on to, where no voice may be silenced over another and no voice may drown out another, but all equal, in solidarity and harmony, I could not allow what I believe to be flawed logic to sway my thinking.

As nobody put, and I have argued myself, along with others, JR7 does not affect me. I have asked repeatedly to be told how it does, and strived myself to find a reason. Dave Shack gave me one, and as you can see in my explanation, I completely accept his argument. However, others said that if I simply obeyed them then they woudl explain what they meant. Brothers and sisters, I trust you all to always act by what you feel to be right, but I can not always say that I will let that sway my thinking. I deeply regret that, but given a choice between many shades of grey, I chose that which seemed the least stained by the darkness of injustice.

However, as wise as DaveShack is and as cogent as his argument was, something else came to mind, spurred on by others. As dangerous as my ruling on this case was to the apperance of justice, so too would my bowing before pressure be dangerous. I am heavily involved in politics, and know when to seek consensus and compromise, and when to push until I either prevail or fail. When one deals with fundamental things such as justice, there can be little compromise. I am sworn to uphold four values, impartiallity, fairness, publicness and speed, and I have done what I can to balance those and do what is right. Again, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, I ask of you nothing more than to do what I did, and make justice done.

In greatest peace and solidarity,

Curufinwe

All present -

I hereby announce my confirmation of the accused's appointment of DaveShack as pro-tem Chief Justice presiding for this case.

I am PMing him presently.

Here's are some open questions (in several parts) to all concerned. Please answer on the point of the questions from the point of view of the timeframe the question is asked in, not on your perception of how things eventually turned out, and without bringing in factors external to the questions.

How would events have unfolded if public opinion of the initial appointment of Nobody to the Chief Justice position had been neutral or positive regarding the appointment, for example if a day or two passed before concerned citizens noticed a problem?

1. Would Nobody have resigned / withdrawn to allow the President to make another appointment?
2. If not, would there have been a JR on the legality of the initial appointment?
3. Would the citizens expect Nobody to recuse himself and appoint a pro-tem? Would a CC have resulted if no pro-tem appointment was forthcoming?

1. Would Nobody have resigned / withdrawn to allow the President to make another appointment?

2. If not, would there have been a JR on the legality of the initial appointment?

3.Would the citizens expect Nobody to recuse himself and appoint a pro-tem? Would a CC have resulted if no pro-tem appointment was forthcoming?

Click to expand...

Im not sure if you wanted my answers as its about me but here goes.

1. No probably not, It was the publics inability to allow me to serve that made me resign also because at that stage i hoped to stop anymore probelms. (it didnt work)

2. If i had been able to take office for a few days at least i would probably been in the same situation as Curufewin right now, except my appiontment would be even more problemsome. I would have allowed JRs ect infact i asked for them hopeing the people would let to do it that way.

3. I would expect so, i mean i want Curufewin to recuse if there really was a conflict of interest. And if i was still in office now their would be a huge conflict of intrest in me leading that Judical Review. 3.2 i dont know, if people got heated enough im sure. Infact i advise people CC me at the time.

1. Up to him, see his answer.

2. Definitely, got to love JR's.

3. Since this case directly effected is appointment, as opposed to mine, he would have immediately, as woudl I and all others in this situation.

Oh my god, why are we even discussing this? It's stupid, superficial, and pointless.

I've put alot of effort into trying to increase partcipation in this game, and this is utter bullfeathers. I'm not going to sit around and have you guys destroy my progress for your bloated egos.

You know what, why the hell do I even bother? I'm half-tempted to just leave, that's how pissed off I am right now.

argh... god damn it. I'll just wait to post everything else when I'm not as angry.