Citizen Complaint 1 - Trial Thread

[Donovan Zoi]

I have been following these proceedings with much interest over the last few days, but unfortunately haven't had any time to post. Now seems like a good a time as any to weigh in on this matter, starting with the Chief Justice pro tems questions:

[*]Would Nobody have resigned / withdrawn to allow the President to make another appointment?

We'll never really know, since Nobody bowed to public pressure and resigned before President Chillaxation was even sworn in. That said, I would have to defer to Nobody's own statement that he would not have.

[*]If not, would there have been a JR on the legality of the initial appointment?

Most certainly. The only reason that there wasn't a JR request from the very beginning is that we didn't have a Chief Justice available to open the Judicial thread!

[*]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? [/LIST]

Judging by some of the responses I've seen in defense of Chief Justice Curufinwe's actions, I tend to wonder. Seriously, I believe that they would have in the case mentioned since Nobody would have been directly involved in the issue at hand.

-----

That criteria right there is what makes this particular case so compelling. Curufinwe is being charged with a breach of impartiality for deciding to judge a case that does not mention him by name. Yet his own ruling on said case would only bring two conclusions:

1. Curufinwe casts the deciding vote to invalidate Nobody's apointment by SoS Chieftess, leaving all citizens to question for all Licentian eternity whether his was an impartial decision.

2. Curufinwe goes against the pre-described "human nature" and casts the deciding vote to validate Nobody's appointment, which then runs the risk of invalidating his own appointment, and along with it, his judgment on the case. The mad rush to prove either outcome would open another Pandora's Box of JRs on the validity of his decision, none over which the honorable Chief Justice Curufinwe could preside since these new cases would affect him directly.


So you see, by stubbornly deciding to stay on this case, Curufinwe will either bring forth the perception of impartiality, or will bring forth the reality of an un-speedy trial. His rendering a decision on the Nobody case could open up more questions and confusion than it would solve, sending us into a never-ending spiral of circular reference that would carry us well into the next term.

With that said, I strongly encourage Curufinwe to recuse himself of all cases that involve the validity of his appointed position, even in the slightest. That is the only chance we have of ending this nightmare of universal proportions.

 

[Curufinwe]

Donovan, again that is ignoring the logic continually put forward by Nobody and myself that he resigned the position. Please everyone, read his post. I am not willing to accept that a person who resigned before I was appointed could still hold the position since given to myself. I am, however, willing to accept that my actions risk the appearance of impartiality (which you do seem to be implying, perhaps I read what you wrote wrong), and, brothers and sisters, I've argued that what I've done was necessary to balance many conflicting demands, and there is nothing that I could've done that would not have been in violation of the principles I am required to follow. Again, we live in a world where there is no black and white, only many shades of grey, and I believe, and deeply hope that you all will as well, that I chose the right one.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm not going to sit around and have you guys destroy my progress for your bloated egos.

Nope, no ego here. Just doing what the rules say should be done. Can't speak for anyone else of course.

Do you have any comments relevant to the case at hand?

 

[Strider]

Nope, no ego here. Just doing what the rules say should be done. Can't speak for anyone else of course.

That seems to be half our problem.

Do you have any comments relevant to the case at hand?

Other than this whole case being pointless? It's a waste of time, hell, if I wasn't as pissed off as I am now... I wouldn't even bother replying.

I'm not in the mood that I'm willing to trust myself in saying anything at the moment. So to answer the question, basically no.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Donovan, again that is ignoring the logic continually put forward by Nobody and myself that he resigned the position. Please everyone, read his post. I am not willing to accept that a person who resigned before I was appointed could still hold the position since given to myself. I am, however, willing to accept that my actions risk the appearance of impartiality (which you do seem to be implying, perhaps I read what you wrote wrong), and, brothers and sisters, I've argued that what I've done was necessary to balance many conflicting demands, and there is nothing that I could've done that would not have been in violation of the principles I am required to follow. Again, we live in a world where there is no black and white, only many shades of grey, and I believe, and deeply hope that you all will as well, that I chose the right one.

Then again comes the fact that Nobody may not have resigned if he felt his role was "validated." Unfortunately for him, it was not, and he made his choice.

Yet, the central part of this case is that it is unclear if you were appointed as the first Chief Justice, or as Nobody's replacement. So you are directly involved here, whether you wish to admit it or not. It would be best for everyone if you sat out on this one, and I try to say this in the least threatening manner possible so you don't have to claim that you must press on despite the outcries from the rabid masses.

No one is trying to wrest control of the Judiciary from you. These are just the pleas of some of the citizens you represent. Only you have the power to end this debacle and get back to the work ahead of you, minus a case or two.

 

[Curufinwe]

I can not in good faith do that. While some have put forth clear, thought out and reasonable arguments, you among them, others have resorted to threats. I do not fear the "rabid masses", because it is never they who do ill, it is a small minority. As to my ordering, whether I suceeded Donsig or Nobody, that is irrelevant to MY position, since I am in no way affected by it, save for a small matter of ordering.

If someone were to try to wrest control of the judiciary from me, that is well within their right, and I will bow before the people, or before justice, when they speak, but until then, sadly, I can not in good conscience do anything other than what I am, for the reasons listed above.

 

[Strider]

If someone were to try to wrest control of the judiciary from me, that is well within their right, and I will bow before the people, or before justice, when they speak, but until then, sadly, I can not in good conscience do anything other than what I am, for the reasons listed above.

You can't be impeached, so regardless of the results of this CC, nothing will change.

Section 7 Article D of the Code of Laws:

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

As I said, this is pointless.

 

[DaveShack]

I've argued that what I've done was necessary to balance many conflicting demands, and there is nothing that I could've done that would not have been in violation of the principles I am required to follow.

I'm still gathering evidence, and this statement leads me to an additional question.

Balancing between what and what? I think you said before that the balance was between impartiality and speed. Please explain how not using a pro-tem for the JR, which has the appearance of less impartiality and is definitely less speedy given this CC proceeding, balances against using a pro-tem which would have had the appearance of being more impartial and definitely would have been faster? What other factor, required by the law, is improved to the degree that would offset negatives in both the speed and impartiality factors?

This is somewhat of a side issue however. The legal question placed before the citizens is whether hearing the JR in question instead of using a pro-tem violates impartiality (and speed, is that included in the original charge?). We're not asking the citizens to decide which is more important, or at least in a perfect world we're not asking that. Evidence may be presented, of course.

Time to go look at the procedures, and gotta see the tailor -- my old robes don't quite fit right after a few "centuries" of aging.

 

[Swissempire]

One of the reasons why the can't be impeached is because Citizien A becomes Court official. Make official legal decision. Its right, but some citiziens don;t see it that way. Citizien B disagrres and vioces his complaints. Citizien C agrees because its legal, and Citizien D attempts to force the judge out of office unless he oveturns his opinion/changes his/her mind

 

[DaveShack]

Impeachment is different from a CC. An impeachment can be without cause, and is technically a recall as defined by Constitution Article B. All that is required for an impeachment is a poll of the proper form, with the necessary percentage of votes.

A CC is allowed for by Constitution F.2 and F.5 -- the details are specified inside the Judicial Procedures, which are defined by the judiciary itself. This is not a good organization of our laws, but it's what we have.

 

[Nobody]

Although i stick to what i said, First i was legally appionted, Then i Did Resign and Now there is No Conflict of interest. Donovan does make some sense, No matter what the outcome this Judidcal review will be covered With Controversy for ever. That said lets just wait it out vote him guilty or innocent and be on with it.

And donovan i saw you resigning and thought it everyone else was doing it so i might as well jump in

 

[Black_Hole]

Although i stick to what i said, First i was legally appionted, Then i Did Resign and Now there is No Conflict of interest. Donovan does make some sense, No matter what the outcome this Judidcal review will be covered With Controversy for ever. That said lets just wait it out vote him guilty or innocent and be on with it.

And donovan i saw you resigning and thought it everyone else was doing it so i might as well jump in

I have doubt that you resign, so why can't Curufinwe just recuse him self just incase? Better safe than sorry.

 

[DaveShack]

Per Judicial Procedures, the scheduled time for closing this thread is Mar 21 2006 10:57 PM, provided "discussion has petered out". I'll take that to mean that several hours have passed without any new material being added -- rehashing old material not counting.

Any citizen who wants to bring forward any additional evidence or to offer any interpretation to be used by their fellow citizens in a vote should do so within the allotted time.

Thank You,
DaveShack
Chief Justice Pro Tempore

 

[greekguy]

I agree with Strider here. Instead of focusing on the actual CIV game we are playing, you guys have just wasted half a term to figure out who the hell the CJ should be. from what i read this is what happened: nobody resigned, chill appointed curifinwe, then all the legal stuff started flying. why can't you guys accept that Nobody resigned? what's the big deal if the rules aren't followed to the letter? if we did follow every rule to the letter, we'd suck the fun right out of the DemoGame.

 

[BCLG100]

I agree with Strider here. Instead of focusing on the actual CIV game we are playing, you guys have just wasted half a term to figure out who the hell the CJ should be. from what i read this is what happened: nobody resigned, chill appointed curifinwe, then all the legal stuff started flying. why can't you guys accept that Nobody resigned? what's the big deal if the rules aren't followed to the letter? if we did follow every rule to the letter, we'd suck the fun right out of the DemoGame.

you say the last thing like it hasnt already happened.

 

[Strider]

you say the last thing like it hasnt already happened.

heh, isn't that the truth.

 

[Curufinwe]

In a last defense of myself, to answer DZ's question, I mean a conflict between the four principles, impartiallity, fairness, publicness and speed.

The conflict is like this, between a posed risk to the four, in particulary impartiallity and fairness, if I allow the judiciary to be pushed into doing certain actions, versus the perceived risk to impartiallity and I suppose fairness though it hasn't been brought up if I rule on a case believed by some to directly effect me. So then, i need to decide which is heaviest, and have decided that the least bad choice is to face a perceived threat than risk the judiciary to both an actual and a perceived threat to those principles. Basically, I have to choose between a more dangerous threat which may come, or a less dangerous threat which will, and I, perhaps wrong, chose the former. Brothers and sisters, I ask of you to do the same, and vote accordingly.

 

[greekguy]

you say the last thing like it hasnt already happened.

well i guess you are kinda right, but i still think this game can be saved if we start focusing on the actual game itself and stop wasting time on the bureacratic nonsense.

 

[Swissempire]

Thats why i think Striders CoL is the way to go.

The demogame is supposed to be FUN. Here we are debating on the definitions of words, when the EVEIL MONGOLS ARE EATING BABIES!

 

[Cyc]

An opinion from someone standing waaaay back.

Curu you are disgracing the office of CJ. If you must stand down for a CC, it only figures you need to do the same for a JR. Get real and do the right thing here.

Ravensfire, you should be ashamed of your self....