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 20:55:03 GMT -6
If I ever stop turning up to my job in Talossa - even if I am doing "military service", although I'm not sure whether being a partisan in a revolutionary civil war would count, as that's the only war I'm ever likely to volunteer for - I certainly would expect to be fired in my absence!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2014 21:03:40 GMT -6
You hold a post as a widget inspector, take an extended leave of absence after explicit permission to do so, and then Internal Affairs fires you and accuses you of misconduct. They run a very tight ship at the widget factory.
"I didn't do anything wrong," you say, "and my leave of absence is specifically excused! I can show you the very place where it's excused!"
"Taking an extended leave of absence is not allowed, even when it is allowed," the inspector from Internal Affairs replies impassively.
(He is not a nice man and reads too much Kafka.)
"But you're not even my boss! You're only allowed to fire me if I am stealing or something - you know, misconduct!" you cry, forlorn.
"We decided that your leave of absence counted as misconduct, because we think it is unreasonable," he says. His eyes glitter darkly.
I don't know what happens after that. If it's a Kafka story, you must go appeal the decision in a circuitous way that has a lot to do with how much your author hated his father, somehow. If it's Gogol, you die in the snow. If it's Dostoevsky, you go to appeal, stop off at a meeting with your sick cousin's daughter, and then are killed by a runaway carriage in an oddly allegorical fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2014 21:09:52 GMT -6
Hemingway: You kill the inspector, flee the country with your submissive and non-threatening bride who respects you for being a strong masculine man and then go to the mountains where one or the both of you die in a way that shows that your mother was wrong to dress you like a girl i hate you mom i hate you i hate you
Tolstoy: You retire to your country estate and write a monograph on the subject, which you send to your second cousin the prince, who reads it and sternly approves.
Beowulf: Listen. You lift your ink-hoarder high, and throw the pen in the inspector's face with the strength of ten men. No small blow that was! As he strikes you in the face, you do not feel the attack, but instead tear off his arm and put it on your mantle.
Okay this is more fun than the actual discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2014 21:13:42 GMT -6
Borges: As you weep in sorrow to the inspector, pleading for your job, he puts his hand on your shoulder. "Listen," he whispers urgently, "you must know that I am yourself, written by yourself and come into being at your own demand. I am the totality of this moment, with my hand on your shoulder, and when it has passed, then the great god will know that it is done and my purpose is served." And so it was.
Dickinson: I saw your job - quite go by it looked quite happy - to fly Do not despair its inky loss Only reflect ----- that ---- damn it someone pass me more toilet paper I used too many dashes again
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 5, 2014 21:14:01 GMT -6
Okay I'm done for now.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 5, 2014 21:32:06 GMT -6
I look forward to your attempts to judicially vacate this PD. K! Coming from the Distain, we now know for certain wherein lies the reason why the CpI is not being filled up. I didn't say conspiracy, but the Conspiracy Queen showed me one such roadmap.
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Oct 5, 2014 22:06:53 GMT -6
Okay this is more fun than the actual discussion. Indeed it is! Homer: Sing, Goddess, sing of the rage of the widget inspector! That leave of absence which condemned his soul to countless agonies as he threw his mighty pen deep into Hades... Then you go sulk in your tent, and later your boyfriend dies.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 6, 2014 0:24:33 GMT -6
I look forward to your attempts to judicially vacate this PD. K! Coming from the Distain, we now know for certain wherein lies the reason why the CpI is not being filled up. I didn't say conspiracy, but the Conspiracy Queen showed me one such roadmap. Are you deliberately making things up? Why does not one of your RUMP fellas nominate someone to the Job, hm? And who the heckie should have appointed a Justice when there was no Clark up until just recently?! Stop blabbering unknowingly, Ben-Ard. You annoy me.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Oct 6, 2014 1:50:58 GMT -6
Ben-Ard, feel free to bring private articles of impeachment against me (precedent being Grischun vs Chancery). I cite relevant (partially conflicting) law, both to the impending Ardpresteir vs Edwards charge and, somewhat, to the hullaballoo above. 39RZ18 - Creation of a Magistracy Act - grants Magistracy assignation to Chief Magistrate 42RZ4 - Clerk of Courts Act - grants assignation to the Clerk, who is to assign according to seniority; Tim does not repeal 39RZ18 and one suspects he was not cognizant of its provisions; at any rate, Brad didn't assign by this system but by asking who wanted the case (relevant parts of the law for whatever alleged misconduct there is are 1 and 7, which Brad has (again, allegedly) failed to fulfil - though there is no time frame on these parts of the law, which is a flaw in the writing of it). The Act is, in fact, arguably inOrganic so far as the CpI goes (XVI.8 providing the right of assignation to single Justices to the CpI itself - though perhaps you could say the Clerk does that with the CpI's permission?). I also continue to doubt that OrgLaw XVI renders the CpI inactive simply because of the FACT it hasn't got three judges; I'd say it was rather because XVI.8 doesn't permit a two-person Cort to assign cases to a single Justice.
|
|
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 6, 2014 2:03:05 GMT -6
You hold a post as a widget inspector, take an extended leave of absence after explicit permission to do so If the law gave Brad Holmes permission to simply abandon his employment, then the law is an ass. The RUMP attempt to protect their crony in a position of power - or make sure the judicial machinery grinds to a total halt, one of the two - can simply not be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Oct 6, 2014 6:48:22 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, aren't we at something of an impasse? A PD has been issued ordering the removal of the Clerk. If there is going to be a legal challenge (I am going to assume there will be), don't we need the Clerk to assign it to someone? And if the newly-named clerk is allowed to assign the case, isn't that a de-facto acknowledgement of the PD's right and efficacy? The precedent from People v. ESB might hold here (ie, if it is not right, it does not happen), if the property is commutative, yes?
While the partisans joust at meaning and right, there's a simple bureaucratic issue that needs resolving... and that is the functioning of the office of the Clerk of the Courts. Is there not some other way around this? Is the Clerk the only person allowed to appoint a Deputy? Can one not be, for lack of a better term, forced on the office? Or some way to clear this sort of bottleneck?
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 6, 2014 6:56:03 GMT -6
K! Coming from the Distain, we now know for certain wherein lies the reason why the CpI is not being filled up. I didn't say conspiracy, but the Conspiracy Queen showed me one such roadmap. Are you deliberately making things up? Why does not one of your RUMP fellas nominate someone to the Job, hm? And who the heckie should have appointed a Justice when there was no Clark up until just recently?! Stop blabbering unknowingly, Ben-Ard. You annoy me. Unknowingly? Still two Bills made it to the Clark... So the Government has to take the blame...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 6, 2014 7:48:09 GMT -6
If the law gave Brad Holmes permission to simply abandon his employment, then the law is an ass. Hey, the law has feelings too! But seriously, the law is the law. It can be changed if you don't like it. I'd probably even support some change to this area of the law, for that matter! Out of curiosity, aren't we at something of an impasse? A PD has been issued ordering the removal of the Clerk. If there is going to be a legal challenge (I am going to assume there will be), don't we need the Clerk to assign it to someone? And if the newly-named clerk is allowed to assign the case, isn't that a de-facto acknowledgement of the PD's right and efficacy? The precedent from People v. ESB might hold here (ie, if it is not right, it does not happen), if the property is commutative, yes? While the partisans joust at meaning and right, there's a simple bureaucratic issue that needs resolving... and that is the functioning of the office of the Clerk of the Courts. Is there not some other way around this? Is the Clerk the only person allowed to appoint a Deputy? Can one not be, for lack of a better term, forced on the office? Or some way to clear this sort of bottleneck? This is an interesting and pretty cool question. But I think that you should pretty much always follow the law, even a law you disagree with, unless it is immoral (in which case you engage in civil disobedience and take your lumps). And then you appeal the law through the justice system. The fact that you're obeying what you consider a bad law or an unjust one doesn't prejudice your case - it just makes you a good citizen who is using the system as it's intended. In other words, the way judicial review works is that you follow the law, but sue the Government over its enforcement. If it's urgent and there would be pressing harm, you also ask for an injunction to suspend the law temporarily. Injunction or not, the corts then examine the law and decide whether or not it should be reversed in whole, in part, or not at all. And then at the end of the trial, there's a resolution, one way or another. If the law passed muster, then nothing happens - you're already obeying it, it's an organic law, all is well. If it is deemed inorganic, then its effects are undone. Example: It is made illegal, by the Ziu, to use semicolons. This is an outrage and obviously inorganic, so someone sues the Government over their right to free expression. In the meantime, though, they should obey the law and abstain from semicolons. The fact that they're obeying the law is not a de facto confirmation of its organicity. (Note: They might also consider this an urgent enough issue to engage in civil disobedience, and so pay the semicolon fine and hope that the cort overturns the law and forces the Government to repay them their money). I should take a moment here to note that this PD probably is legal, since it has full effect of law just like a statute. The Ziu could pass a law one year saying that it's okay for the Seneschal to wear a fuzzy hat, and then outlaw fuzzy hats the next year. If the Seneschal had already bought a bunch of fuzzy hats, he would be upset over the injustice - after all, he was specifically guaranteed by a law that it was okay for him to buy hats - but no Ziu can bind the hands of a future Ziu, as the saying has it. This is a question about what is fair and just, not what is "legal."
|
|
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 6, 2014 7:50:24 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, aren't we at something of an impasse? A PD has been issued ordering the removal of the Clerk. If there is going to be a legal challenge (I am going to assume there will be), don't we need the Clerk to assign it to someone? And if the newly-named clerk is allowed to assign the case, isn't that a de-facto acknowledgement of the PD's right and efficacy? The precedent from People v. ESB might hold here (ie, if it is not right, it does not happen), if the property is commutative, yes? While the partisans joust at meaning and right, there's a simple bureaucratic issue that needs resolving... and that is the functioning of the office of the Clerk of the Courts. Is there not some other way around this? Is the Clerk the only person allowed to appoint a Deputy? Can one not be, for lack of a better term, forced on the office? Or some way to clear this sort of bottleneck? The legal issue at play here at the moment is that King John has neither assented nor vetoed this Prime Dictate. Until he does one of those two things, this PD is not enforceable. There is also precedent in a few recent cases where the presiding judge simply took judicial notice of a pending case and assigned it. As for the deputy appointment, I believe since the Clerk of Courts is apolitical and the way the law is written, a deputy cannot simply be foisted upon the clerk (though that would simplify things immensely).
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 6, 2014 7:53:53 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, aren't we at something of an impasse? A PD has been issued ordering the removal of the Clerk. If there is going to be a legal challenge (I am going to assume there will be), don't we need the Clerk to assign it to someone? And if the newly-named clerk is allowed to assign the case, isn't that a de-facto acknowledgement of the PD's right and efficacy? The precedent from People v. ESB might hold here (ie, if it is not right, it does not happen), if the property is commutative, yes? While the partisans joust at meaning and right, there's a simple bureaucratic issue that needs resolving... and that is the functioning of the office of the Clerk of the Courts. Is there not some other way around this? Is the Clerk the only person allowed to appoint a Deputy? Can one not be, for lack of a better term, forced on the office? Or some way to clear this sort of bottleneck? The legal issue at play here at the moment is that King John has neither assented nor vetoed this Prime Dictate. Until he does one of those two things, this PD is not enforceable. There is also precedent in a few recent cases where the presiding judge simply took judicial notice of a pending case and assigned it. As for the deputy appointment, I believe since the Clerk of Courts is apolitical and the way the law is written, a deputy cannot simply be foisted upon the clerk (though that would simplify things immensely). I've e-mailed King John with a link to the PD, so I expect he'll be able to deal with it either way soon enough.
|
|