|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 13, 2015 11:02:05 GMT -6
Txec, I certainly agree that it's hard to be Seneschal, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold them accountable. The RUMP was certainly held accountable for our failures, losing our majority after an unsuccessful term -- and rightfully so! In the same way, now that we've been the opposition for three terms, it's time to hold the Government to that same standard and demand accountability for broken promises. The Seneschal and key Cabinet figures have even admitted the serious problems in this Government!
Due respect to the Seneschal, by the way, for having the moral fortitude to apologize to the people of Talossa for how the Government has performed. That shows serious guts.
But coins, stamps, basic information, culture prize, government activity reports, a fundraiser... the list goes on of things we were promised but which were never delivered. I understand -- boy do I understand! -- how it can be hard to run a government, but there's a real limit to how much that will cover.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 11:16:08 GMT -6
Some of what you are saying is true, and perhaps future governments can learn a lesson by not over-promising what it cannot realistically deliver.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 11:17:55 GMT -6
Your clever RUMP lawyer, Cresti, sandbagged the case to the point where my predecessor as A-G gave up in disgust. What the hell is this supposed to mean? Merely to point out that you didn't "prove" Hool innocent. You just dragged out the case until the prosecution gave up.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 13, 2015 11:28:13 GMT -6
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Merely to point out that you didn't "prove" Hool innocent. You just dragged out the case until the prosecution gave up. That doesn't seem like a very fair way to characterize the case. If you remember, first there was an issue with the presiding Justice: Your Honor, The Government wishes to object to your continued absence from this court. You posted a notice of 10 days time for the defense to respond, yet Your Honor has not been seen in the courtroom in 20 days. The government hereby moves for a recusal by his Honor so that these proceedings can be heard by another Cort. And then when Justice Edwards took over, the prosecution presented the problem as it was replaced. Your Honour, Any word from the prosecution? If the Court expects the Crown to respond to the defence's motion to dismiss, I would humbly suggest setting a deadline and considering any request for extension as needed if the Crown requires more time. Aside from that, the defence requested clarification from the Court on a couple of procedural points in late January, to which the Court never responded. Perhaps you could consider those questions while we are waiting for the Crown. Counsel, I will set a deadline when a new government is formed and an Attorney-General is present in the Cort; the complex situation of the Crown's standing will likely be resolved by that, anyway. I note your two supplementary points, and am grateful for the supplement as to technical meanings at law. I will endeavour to reply to the January procedural points over the next week, though macronationally it will be busy. However, I've finished a PhD chapter so have more mental energy to offer! Your Honour, First, congratulations on finishing your PhD chapter! We are now more than nine months past when the Crown issued its complaint, five and a half months past when the Clerk filed the complaint with the Magistracy, and over three and a half months since the Defence filed its dismissal motion. Now it will be as much as another month before a new government is formed and it appears that the Crown will not have to do anything at all to move this case forward until that time. I am seriously concerned about my client's statutory and organic right to a speedy trial. The Defence has made it clear at multiple points during this process that it does not want this case dragged out any longer than necessary. I am afraid that, if a speedy trial is even theoretically possible at this point, in going forward the Defence will be forced to choose between abandoning the right to a speedy trial or accepting unreasonably short deadlines to rush through a trial if the case survives the pending motion to dismiss. What was Sir Cresti supposed to do... physically drag the prosecution to a computer and force them to be active? The case barely even got started before it was abandoned -- the defense only filed one brief! It was a pretty devastating brief, to be sure, and the prosecution's case looked really bad after it was supplied, but it is just wildly untrue to blame Sir Cresti for "sandbagging" anything. Seriously, read the trial thread. I'd suggest you probably owe Sir Cresti an apology for that one.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 11:33:49 GMT -6
I guess I do have the answer, though... you don't think Roibeardescu broke the law. Let me know which law you think he broke. Please do. Confessed to what, please? If your answer is "confessed to a conspiracy with Hool to pervert the course of justice" - Tim turned State's Evidence, but Hool's lawyer was good enough to make the government give up the case (rightly or wrongly, wasn't my call). I want to know how if Person A confesses to conspiracy with person B, and the Government decides that's not enough evidence to convict person B, then somehow there can be evidence to convict person A. This is insane troll logic, to use a Whedonism. If the answer is "confessed to false accusations", then this should really be good. Did what? If Hool is innocent, as you seem to be arguing, Tim never did anything, because conspiracies require more than one person, to use a JMSism. Highlighted for sheer stupidity. If you believe that Tim committed a crime that wasn't conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, name the law which he broke. === I have a personality flaw, which comes from my upbringing. I simply cannot tolerate liars and bullies; and I use ferocious rhetoric as a means to attempt to inspire shame in liars and bullies to make them change their ways. Clearly, this doesn't work. I'm not sure what to do, but your lying and bullying makes Talossa unpleasant for me, as well as for other people. I'm considering how perhaps I can change my ways, since you won't change yours. Only dictatorships use unsubstantiated confessions as evidence - and only dictatorships make up crimes on the basis of no law. Will a new RUMP-dominated government try to prosecute Asmourescu, or Roibeardescu, or these supposed underage citizens? Cresti, can you comment? Certainly you'll never prosecute Hool or the King, because they're in your club. You know what though, I am increasingly beginning to think that maybe the case against Hool should be re-started, if that's possible. Because that's one crime which we do have evidence for, and no judge ever ruled against it. Just my predecessor as A-G gave up, for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Dec 13, 2015 11:44:19 GMT -6
In case you missed my apology, look again. I don't much care if you agree that your party has weighed us down - it has. If I wasn't taking responsibility I wouldn't have stepped down as leader of my party. The reality is that Luc has been great (I mentioned exceptions) as has my Foreign Minister (who is no longer a member of your party, correct?) Come on now, are you saying that without the help of Lüc, who Ive seen more than you and Sev, who has asked for help repeatedly and given people the chance to update the website that was released under his watch and Ian, who has helped out on two ministries and has done more than anyone to actually advance the coalition agreement in the cosa, that the website now would have been updated or that all the none MRPT led ministries would suddenly be more active, or that you would have been more present? I don't think thats believable. I really dont think anyone outside the FDT believes that. Well, not like this anyway. In the Netherlands we have a thing called dualism where the MC part of a party is really separate from the cabinet. The cabinet are generally regarded as one team, they take a similar position and both parties share responsibility for that cabinet and certainly the PM would publicly always support his/her ministers. MCs can be more critical of separate ministers, but even then they are responsible for the entire cabinet. When a cabinet falls apart obviously parties will try to shift the blame on the other side, but there is always a sense of shared responsibility of the things that happened before then. And going towards the elections, government parties usually focus on positive ideological differences and future plans rather than fight about the past cabinet. A statement like yours (or even a statement like Miestras or Francals a while ago) would certainly mean the definitive end of the coalition in the Netherlands. No doubt about that. ( I guess that could be considered good news for the RUMP) (Also, the electorate obviously deserves to know, but I think they can see for themselves which ministers are active. Its not like youve released any new information. And if voters arent paying attention, Im sure they can count on the opposition to point that out.) Please read carefully what I post before reacting emotionally to it. The Cabinet is one team, but none of us should shy away from having the courage to look at our team and identify where the weak spots were. I've admitted my part in providing a weak link, you could at least have the courage to do something other than be blindly loyal to your own party. As to Coalitions, they are not the merging of political parties. I see absolutely no reason to treat them as such. The advice I would give to any future Seneschal is to not be as afraid as I was to upset other parties in the coalition by demanding resignations. That was something I learnt a little too late, and sadly after the wind had been taken out of my sails.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 11:44:49 GMT -6
I will admit one thing though - I never actually read Cresti's brief before because it wasn't my job to do so. It is a masterpiece of using a sledgehammer to cure scrotal mange. I particularly like the bit that argues that Hool didn't try to bribe Asmourescu "in Talossa" (i.e. in the GTA) so the court has no jurisdiction. Wonderful lawyering, complete contempt for justice - although of course that's a defence lawyer's job, to get his client off by any means necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 13, 2015 11:54:37 GMT -6
Let me know which law you think he broke. Offhand, I suppose this one: 946.17 Corrupt means to influence legislation; disclosure of interest. Any person who gives or agrees or offers to give anything of value to any person, for the service of such person or of any other person in procuring the passage or defeat of any measure before the legislature or before either house or any committee thereof, upon the contingency or condition of the passage or defeat of the measure, or who receives, or agrees to receive anything of value for such service, upon any such contingency or condition, or who, having a pecuniary or other interest, or acting as the agent or attorney of any person in procuring or attempting to procure the passage or defeat of any measure before the legislature or before either house or any committee thereof, attempts in any manner to influence any member of the legislature for or against the measure, without first making known to the member the real and true interest he or she has in the measure, either personally or as such agent or attorney, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. But I'm not Avocat-Xheneral -- maybe there's a different charge that should apply. You could probably make a pretty good case based on C.1.7.1, for example. But it shouldn't be my job to try to do your work. My point is that it doesn't look like the Government even tried. The Seneschal has suggested that no charges are necessary and that the resignation was sufficient... do you agree? Or is that you just couldn't figure out any crimes? Please do. Confessed to what, please? If your answer is "confessed to a conspiracy with Hool to pervert the course of justice" - Tim turned State's Evidence, but Hool's lawyer was good enough to make the government give up the case (rightly or wrongly, wasn't my call). I want to know how if Person A confesses to conspiracy with person B, and the Government decides that's not enough evidence to convict person B, then somehow there can be evidence to convict person A. This is insane troll logic, to use a Whedonism. If the answer is "confessed to false accusations", then this should really be good. Er, no... he confessed to attempting to pervert the course of justice. No conspiracy is required since he was the one who did it. It's a direct crime that he said he did. 946.67 Compounding crime. (1) Whoever receives any property in return for a promise, express or implied, to refrain from prosecuting a crime or to refrain from giving information bearing on the probable success of a criminal prosecution is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. 946.10 Bribery of public officers and employees. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of a Class H felony: (1) Whoever, with intent to influence the conduct of any public officer or public employee in relation to any matter which by law is pending or might come before the officer or employee in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee or with intent to induce the officer or employee to do or omit to do any act in violation of the officer's or employee's lawful duty transfers or promises to the officer or employee or on the officer's or employee's behalf any property or any personal advantage which the officer or employee is not authorized to receive; or (2) Any public officer or public employee who directly or indirectly accepts or offers to accept any property or any personal advantage, which the officer or employee is not authorized to receive, pursuant to an understanding that the officer or employee will act in a certain manner in relation to any matter which by law is pending or might come before the officer or employee in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee or that the officer or employee will do or omit to do any act in violation of the officer's or employee's lawful duty. And there are probably other specific judicial ones, too. This is the product of only offhand Googling, though... I'm not the Avocat-Xheneral and can't do the work for you. And if he says that he made a false confession and so evades those charges, then he's instead guilty of this one: 946.31 Perjury. (1) Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constituted, is guilty of a Class H felony: (a) A court; (b) A magistrate; (c) A judge, referee or court commissioner; (d) An administrative agency or arbitrator authorized by statute to determine issues of fact; (e) A notary public while taking testimony for use in an action or proceeding pending in court; (f) An officer authorized to conduct inquests of the dead; (g) A grand jury; (h) A legislative body or committee I would like to emphasize, though, that I am not interested in the specific further penalization of either Txosue (who has had problems and no longer has that position) or Asmourescu (who resigned from everything and whose nascent political party was wiped out), and I am certainly not going to commit to either further charges in a conversation like this. That would be wildly inappropriate. The point is the pattern here... it would have been embarrassing and inconvenient and hard work to bring these prosecutions, or to present credible cases and then plead out the defendants (most likely outcome). Whereas with the Mha case, which even the Seneschal at the time thought had little malice in it on Hool's part, the Government worked hard to bring charges against their political enemies. There's a pattern there, and it's not a good one. It just beggars belief that you tried hard to figure out a way to pursue justice in both of these cases, and failed to find any. If you really did try hard and couldn't do it... that's a different problem. You know what though, I am increasingly beginning to think that maybe the case against Hool should be re-started, if that's possible. Because that's one crime which we do have evidence for, and no judge ever ruled against it. Just my predecessor as A-G gave up, for some reason. Well, considering how the Government brought charges, dragged them out, and then abandoned the case, I'm pretty sure double jeopardy applies. You can't just bring charges and drop them and then bring them again... it's cruel. If you think the Government bungled a good case, then that's just something else to apologize for. I think the case never should have been brought (seriously, read Cresti's brief, which went unanswered!), but that's just me. On the other hand, Justice Edwards did deliberately dismiss the charges against Asmourescu in light of the Government's bad faith efforts in the case.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 11:57:56 GMT -6
Cresti's brief argues convincingly that none of that ever happened, you dingbat! Talk about bad faith.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 13, 2015 12:03:07 GMT -6
Cresti's brief argues convincingly that none of that ever happened, you dingbat! Talk about bad faith. ...Dama Miestra, I think I'm done here. It should be possible to have a vigorous discussion about these things without name-calling or rudeness. We can be direct and forthright without acting in a way unbecoming of a Talossan legislator. Look at Gluc: he saw I said something very wrong and called me out on it in a polite but strong manner. I agreed and retracted my mistake and apologized for saying something untrue and unfair... and neither of us called each other names at any point. Competition doesn't have to be nasty, even if it is vigorous. Look at CCX in this thread, too, or Txec. Several of us disagree with each other on very particular things in a very strong way. CCX and Gluc disagree over the cause of Government inaction, yet they can discuss and intelligently disagree without being calling each other names, for example. This is not unreasonable for behavior on the floor of the Ziu, and doesn't require that much self-control. I don't mind spirited debate on the issues, even on the specifics. But I'm not getting down in the mud with the name-calling.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 12:07:16 GMT -6
I will call you any name under the sun if it's the only way to get you to stop. But luckily you "stop" just at the point when I point out the self-contradiction in your insane troll voodoo lawyer logic: i.e. that you talk about the glories of Cresti's brief indicating there wasn't enough evidence to nail Hool, but somehow there is enough evidence to nail Tim, even though he didn't "do" anything either, just discuss doing it with Hool. You know you're talking pure miéidâ and you just keep going to upset me and try to score political points. So anything which makes you stop is a victory for the brain meats of all Talossans.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 13, 2015 12:14:47 GMT -6
I will call you any name under the sun if it's the only way to get you to stop. But luckily you "stop" just at the point when I point out the self-contradiction in your insane troll voodoo lawyer logic: i.e. that you talk about the glories of Cresti's brief indicating there wasn't enough evidence to nail Hool, but somehow there is enough evidence to nail Tim, even though he didn't "do" anything either, just discuss doing it with Hool. You know you're talking pure miéidâ and you just keep going to upset me and try to score political points. So anything which makes you stop is a victory for the brain meats of all Talossans. *sigh* Okay, briefly, I'll just say this: The Government could bring those charges against Asmourescu, and probably others. Exhibit A would be his confession where he says they did happen in his view, and that he's guilty. Exhibit B would be his statement about what happened when helping the Government prepare their case. He is a different person than Hool, and the same defense couldn't really apply in Asmourescu's case... he can't say he never knowingly did anything wrong or that nothing wrong happened, since he already submitted sworn testimony that he did something wrong and that something wrong happened. It's not a slam dunk, I guess, but it's surely worth trying. And I'm not even on the case... someone actually interested in trying could probably do a lot better. Now you can declare victory via abuse or whatever you mean... I won't reply any more. This isn't helping anyone at this point.
|
|
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 Dec 13, 2015 12:26:39 GMT -6
On the contrary, it's helping me demonstrate how massively dishonest you are.
1) Asmourescu said that he conspired with Hool. Asmourescu never claimed that he did do anything to subvert justice - just that he discussed it with Hool. Cresti's brief argued convincingly that no conspiracy took place that could be proved under Talossan law. ("I never knowingly did anything wrong" is not a defence in law, as I'm sure you know.) Given that it was Hool suggesting to Tim that he take shortcuts around the law - not vice versa - if Hool didn't commit any crimes, then a fortiori neither did Tim. You can't convict yourself on nothing but your own testimony, or else there'd be so many crazies in jail for nothing.
2) Asmourescu turned States' Evidence in return for a plea deal. You want the Government to throw that out, thus destroying the chance that future malefactors might mend their ways?
3) You know all this. You tell arrant and self-contradictory lies to try to get your political way. You are massively dishonest - possibly an outright sociopath, I don't know, I'm no psychiatrist, but that's the kind of person who just tells outright lies for fun and self-benefit and shows no remorse about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 13, 2015 12:52:21 GMT -6
Miestra, I love you and respect you, and I hope we can get past this one day, and get to a place where we can agree to disagree on some things, and work together on others. As to Coalitions, they are not the merging of political parties. I see absolutely no reason to treat them as such. The advice I would give to any future Seneschal is to not be as afraid as I was to upset other parties in the coalition by demanding resignations. That was something I learnt a little too late, and sadly after the wind had been taken out of my sails. Please don't let this drive you away from Talossa, CCX. It would be a serious loss to the country. Not everything goes well every time, and we all learn lessons from such things. Take Txec's words to heart, and of course take a vacation and a break from this, but don't drift away. Whatever my thoughts about how this Government has performed, I can honestly say that it would be a serious loss to the country if you stopped participating.
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Dec 13, 2015 14:28:57 GMT -6
I need to start selling popcorn in the Ziu chambers. I could be making a killing! Of course all profits will be passed to the treasury.
|
|