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 7:55:45 GMT -6
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. The only court that was rendered inactive when not full was the Magistracy, which my bill was able to fix. The problem with filling the CpI is that, in my opinion, there are not many qualified for the high court and not many of those who are qualified who are willing to forgo most activity to sit on a sleeping bench. I for one am glad I sit on the Magistracy, at least there is action there :-)
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 6, 2014 11:52:36 GMT -6
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. The only court that was rendered inactive when not full was the Magistracy, which my bill was able to fix. The problem with filling the CpI is that, in my opinion, there are not many qualified for the high court and not many of those who are qualified who are willing to forgo most activity to sit on a sleeping bench. I for one am glad I sit on the Magistracy, at least there is action there :-) Say's who? Article XVI, Section 2: "The Cort pü Înalt (Uppermost Cort) shall consist of three Justices. ..."
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 6, 2014 12:09:30 GMT -6
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. SO till such time anything happens this way or that, a judicial route is pre-mature. There is also precedent in a few recent cases where the presiding judge simply took judicial notice of a pending case and assigned it. A precedent set contrary to set statutory law. Had the law been silent, a precedent could have been said to be functional. 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). Talossa is a funny place, an apolitical SoS can be Leader of a Political Party. An apolitical Clerk can be a Senator with political affiliations. On the other hand a Magistrate can have only a limited political role ( not any limitation, if you don't eye the AG's chair).
|
|
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 13:23:12 GMT -6
There is also precedent in a few recent cases where the presiding judge simply took judicial notice of a pending case and assigned it. A precedent set contrary to set statutory law. Had the law been silent, a precedent could have been said to be functional. I think it is important to clarify this to avoid ambiguity. In both cases where judicial notice of pending cases were taken in recent history were in regards to injunctions which can be said to be emergency type of actions. Of course, had the Clerk of Courts been more available, the presiding judge in both cases would perhaps not have felt the need to take judicial notice. For those who are following this debate, I'm not (nor have I ever to my awareness) argued that S:reu Holmes should remain in his post, at least without a deputy. My concern is the law surrounding the action of this PD and the issue of skipping over the first alternative and heading directly to the second.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Oct 6, 2014 18:47:39 GMT -6
Ben-Ard, bring the impeachment case. If you are so so angry, pursue it. Satisfy your honour.
In assigning a pressing request for relief, I followed the precedent of the CpI (in quite appropriately issuing an emergency injunction direct out of chambers). As for assigning cases, I follow the strictures of the Act which created the Magistracy and assign to active and available justices. If you are indeed active and available, the next appropriate case will be yours (so not Ardpresteir vs Edwards or any of the threatened proceedings involving the RUMP). I hold to the initial statutory law because it was not repealed by the later law, which was at any rate in part inOrganic and apparently ignorant of the preceding law. Brad was pretty much happy with that.
As for the CpI - you imply it ceases to exist, which of course you don't mean. The CpI still exists and still has members when it has 1 or 2 members. It cannot, however, sit as a full panel (the intended referent of the text you mention), and cannot assign cases to one Justice without a full panel (perhaps something to be Amended, or at the very least tested in Cort). It thereby becomes functionally inactive.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 6, 2014 20:24:35 GMT -6
I always meant that the CpI was functionally inactive... did it come out otherwise ?
Sorry to say but I have to rub it in before people start listening to me here... which is not how I like working.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 11, 2014 6:13:18 GMT -6
Now, with the imminent creation of the Deputy Clerk's post, is it really necessary to remove Clerk Holmes?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 11, 2014 6:40:26 GMT -6
Uh — so the deputy does all the work, and gets no credit or immunity for the work? No. Just, no.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 11, 2014 7:02:17 GMT -6
Uh, the deputy also has immunity. It's the law. And considering Brad's years of work and countless prompt responses, I don't think he's shirking. He actually explained the problem he'd been facing in that thread.
I am really glad a deputy will be appointed, though, since one was clearly needed anyway, even beyond recent difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Oct 11, 2014 8:48:12 GMT -6
I find it sad that our King makes the time to chime into a discussion about armorial colours, but still can't respond to a PD. Priorities, I guess.
|
|
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 11, 2014 10:05:05 GMT -6
I find it sad that our King makes the time to chime into a discussion about armorial colours, but still can't respond to a PD. Priorities, I guess. The King is fully aware of this PD (multiple people have told him about it, including myself). Its his perogative to assent, veto, or ignore it entirely as we learned when I also issued a PD to which he neither assented nor vetoed when I was Seneschal. In the case of the king NOT answering it, it is presumed to be vetoed. I'm not speaking for His Majesty here though.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 11, 2014 10:25:54 GMT -6
If this goes the vetoed way, I'd be the happiest man in the whole of Talossa. I'd be happy for a Clerk whom I know not, but I know he has worked well for the last so many years. Agree with AD & TN and disagree with Medals & SP's views expressed hereinabove.
|
|
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 11, 2014 10:35:55 GMT -6
I find it sad that our King makes the time to chime into a discussion about armorial colours, but still can't respond to a PD. Priorities, I guess. The King is fully aware of this PD (multiple people have told him about it, including myself). Its his perogative to assent, veto, or ignore it entirely as we learned when I also issued a PD to which he neither assented nor vetoed when I was Seneschal. In the case of the king NOT answering it, it is presumed to be vetoed. I'm not speaking for His Majesty here though. One other thought here: it was established when I issued "The Admiral is Back Prime Dictate" that royal silence is a pocket veto. A PD only goes into effect once counter-signed by the King, so until this happens, this PD is not enforceable.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Oct 11, 2014 10:53:00 GMT -6
I'm not speaking for His Majesty here though. With all due respect, I do wish he'd speak on this particular matter. In my observations and our personal interactions by private message, he's made it clear that tries to avoid any perceived favoritism at all costs. His (in)actions on matter, however, really seem to swing opposite to that, going against the government recommendation in favour of protecting someone who is clearly unable to effectively perform any of the national roles he insists on retaining. Why? Military service is a noble undertaking; it's not carte blanche to be excused for substandard job performance in perpetuity. I don't think the spirit of the law supports that, as narrowly and rigidly as it is currently being interpreted by some.
|
|
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 11, 2014 11:01:47 GMT -6
Trust me, I would like HIs Majesty to speak on this matter also.
|
|