|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 4, 2014 20:51:34 GMT -6
Brad Holmes did NOT reply to my petition for declarative relief re: the election. So heavens knows why he replies to Txec. It couldn't be simple political bias... could it? "my...; My...; MY... " That's all we have been hearing from all the Cabinet Ministers. I seek apology on behalf of my court staff if he ran away in fright seeing your faces. Btw, not that it happened in Talossa before, but ideally as a working procedure the law ministry should approve treasury bench Bills(Acts) and PDs so that they are in accordance with the laws of the land. The present PD is fraught with inaccuracies, and as soon as it receives assent (if at all) then the courts would have to jump in action. Speaking of Courts, its only the Magistracy which is functional... when is the Government taking steps to make the CpI functional? Or is it unaware that its not? I dont see any hoopered bill, nor a PD to do the needful.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Oct 4, 2014 21:44:06 GMT -6
"El. Lex. G.5.9. The Clerk of Courts serves at the pleasure of the King and may be dismissed by royal decree. In the case of alleged misconduct, the Clerk of Courts may be removed from office by Prime Dictate."
This PD alleges no misconduct, therefore it is not enforceable (unless the government is saying that absence from Wittenberg is misconduct and that is dangerous territory). I would advise the Seneschal asking the king to remove S:reu Holmes by Royal Decree if that is something the government wishes to pursue.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 4, 2014 22:06:31 GMT -6
Not turning up for your job is misconduct.
And honestly, Txec, would you and Ben-Ard be jumping up and down if the absent Clerk of Corts weren't one of your boys? I'm accused of being partisan, but honestly, the RUMP acts in accordance with a variation on Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: "Never speak ill of another RUMPer". Just because, during your NINE TERMS in office, you packed the civil service with your trusties, doesn't mean everyone else has to let them slide for poor performance bordering on abandonment of employment.
This is no political purge, of course - RUMP members who do their jobs, like for example the Wiki Admin or the Ladîntsch Naziunál, are quite safe, and indeed valued. But if any other public servants of whatever political persuasion fail to do their job - by omission or commission - they're for the chop, and quite rightly.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Oct 4, 2014 22:34:14 GMT -6
Not turning up for your job is misconduct. And honestly, Txec, would you and Ben-Ard be jumping up and down if the absent Clerk of Corts weren't one of your boys? I'm accused of being partisan, but honestly, the RUMP acts in accordance with a variation on Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: "Never speak ill of another RUMPer". Just because, during your NINE TERMS in office, you packed the civil service with your trusties, doesn't mean everyone else has to let them slide for poor performance bordering on abandonment of employment. This is no political purge, of course - RUMP members who do their jobs, like for example the Wiki Admin or the Ladîntsch Naziunál, are quite safe, and indeed valued. But if any other public servants of whatever political persuasion fail to do their job - by omission or commission - they're for the chop, and quite rightly. No - what I'm asking is that the Government ask the King to dismiss him by royal decree as the law suggests as a first course of action instead of jumping to the misconduct route this PD suggests. I understand the frustration, but I also don't like the way this has been handled.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Oct 5, 2014 0:49:31 GMT -6
In some US jurisdictions (not sure about Wisconsin, but I know it does in North Carolina, trying to find out in Wisconsin) the Clerk of Courts actually wields some of the powers of a magistrate. For example, issuing rulings and divorce decrees in the case of noncontested proceedings. Aside from assigning cases, what does our Clerk do (Or not do as it were)?
I ask this as a voter who really has no party affiliation at this point. Because right now I am getting "He never responds" from one side and "He's always timely" from the other. But I'm not completely clear about what the Clerk actually does and that interferes with trying to reason this out.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 5, 2014 0:53:10 GMT -6
The Clerk only assigns cases. Nothing deliberative.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 5, 2014 2:00:15 GMT -6
The Clerk only assigns cases. Nothing deliberative. He is supposed to assign as per the set pattern... but some people like to usurp his powers and assigns as per their own sweet will. So who's o blame in such a situation? Yeah, the Clerk to an extent for not following the word of the law... but aren't others responsible too? Plus the present government does not take steps to functionalize the CpI which would have been in better position to handle the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Oct 5, 2014 5:36:57 GMT -6
This PD alleges no misconduct, therefore it is not enforceable (unless the government is saying that absence from Wittenberg is misconduct and that is dangerous territory). The absence alone is not misconduct. It's also a character and judgment issue. S:reu Holmes' flaw is his need to hold onto roles he cannot perform effectively or reliably. Clerk is just one example. The law is intended to excuse unforeseen and temporary situations; it's not carte blanche to do substandard work in perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 5, 2014 7:23:46 GMT -6
We need to get out of the mindset in Talossa that it's okay to do nothing in a role if you're busy outside of Talossa. People's lives do get busy, it's inevitable, but that doesn't mean we should keep going at a fairly languid pace just to avoid making someone sad that they don't have the title any more. It's not a personal reflection on Brad Holmes' character, I'm certain. He seems like a very nice chap, but that doesn't and shouldn't enter into consideration when it comes to the effective exercising of one's duties.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 5, 2014 8:00:33 GMT -6
This really should have been brought before the Ziu. yeah, keep sleeping there.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 5, 2014 8:11:36 GMT -6
Not turning up for your job is misconduct. It isn't when your failure to turn up is for a reason explicitly excused by statute. The absence alone is not misconduct. It's also a character and judgment issue. So his misconduct is having poor character? Better check with Carlüs below. We need to get out of the mindset in Talossa that it's okay to do nothing in a role if you're busy outside of Talossa. People's lives do get busy, it's inevitable, but that doesn't mean we should keep going at a fairly languid pace just to avoid making someone sad that they don't have the title any more. It's not okay. But it's not misconduct under the applicable law. The law explicitly excuses absence due to military duty. I do think Brad should either resign or appoint a deputy, and I do think it would be reasonable for the King to replace him if he doesn't do one of those things, and I also think that Lexhatx G.5 and G.6 should be amended in several respects, but based on what the law says right now I don't see how a removal for misconduct is justified. It's not a personal reflection on Brad Holmes' character, I'm certain. No? Better check with Sevastain above.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Oct 5, 2014 10:08:51 GMT -6
I agree with you, Cresti. He should resign, but he won't. He should also stop running for Senator for a province he doesn't represent, and never shows his face in, except at election time. But he won't.
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Oct 5, 2014 15:15:04 GMT -6
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 5, 2014 17:25:08 GMT -6
[It's not okay. But it's not misconduct under the applicable law. Says you. You're not on the CpI, and frankly I don't put any stock in your or AD's hyperliteralist ideas on "what the Law says". The Law says whatever the Justices declare it to say, and that depends on who has the best argument. I look forward to your attempts to judicially vacate this PD.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2014 20:49:49 GMT -6
[It's not okay. But it's not misconduct under the applicable law. Says you. You're not on the CpI, and frankly I don't put any stock in your or AD's hyperliteralist ideas on "what the Law says". The Law says whatever the Justices declare it to say, and that depends on who has the best argument. I look forward to your attempts to judicially vacate this PD. It is not hyperliteralist to take words at their meaning. If misconduct can be expanded to mean "is not acting swiftly enough to please the Government," as opposed to what one might ordinarily might think the word to mean - that is to say, "doing deliberate wrong" - then the law does not protect anyone in reach of such generous alterations. You might find it momentarily convenient to lay the letter and spirit of the law aside, and interpret it to mean what you wish it said. But I assure you that such would be a short-sighted path to greater tyranny under officials who decide that the law does not apply quite as written, but only as they wish. We might recall A Man for All Seasons, when the fictional version of Sir Thomas More refuses to arrest an evil man who has not technically broken any laws. His son in law scorns the lawyer for giving the "Devil" the benefit of the letter of the law. Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. I'm not much for the religious sentiment, but I would advise you that it is unwise to discard the literal law when it is inconvenient. At some later date, a villain might find you yourself inconvenient... and we must protect the power of the law's actual words to safeguard you.
|
|