[Justice] Appointment of Temporary Deputy Attorney General

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Ministry of Justice  

Office of the Attorney General  

---

Appointment of a Deputy Attorney General 

The Attorney General, possessing the statutory mandate to provide legal advice and assistance to the government as requested with the benefit of subordinate officers of the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to Lexh.D.2.5., but currently unable to defend the position of the Prime Minister in the suit of Marcianüs v. da Schir, et al., hereby appoints Munditenens Tresplet
as Deputy Attorney General for the purpose of defending the Government in the matter alone. 

                                                                                    Viteu Marcianüs
                                                                                    Attorney General
                                                                                    Ministry of Justice

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

Wouldn't it have been better if the Seneschal directly appointed the DAG?
On one hand you want to remove all conflict of interest, and on the other hand you create it yourself.
At least the Seneschal should come forth and ratify this notification under the present circumstances.

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Yes, it would be better if the Seneschal directly appointed the tDAG. However, time constrains and the need, as well as the willingness of the Cort, to expedite this proceeding required quick action on my part to ensure that the issue was fairly litigated.

I'm unsure of what pointing out that I created the conflict-of-interest serves to your point.

But speaking of conflicts, I do wonder if you, as a Justice of the UC, should be asking such questions when there is a probability that you may have to sit on appeal to hear the case.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

I guess am not speaking to V but to the AG as an independent citizen. Whilst you have multiple IDs to communicate your feelings wearing different hats, others do not have the same scope. However in case you have been posting your personal post elsewhere as AG and not as V, then that would be of concern. Further when you speak as a member of the Government you should be using your official account and not your personal one (since you have specially created two accounts).

My comments herein this Board was spoken as wearing the hat of citizen BenArd and not Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM..

The prevalent norms of this nation restricts me from speaking up in case I had made my personal opinions made public through the Courtroom threads, either as a member of the Bar or in the corridors of the Courthouse and then sitting on the Bench. Otherwise if you restrict people with posts (and/or power) form speaking up then this small nation would not be able to function.

For example, Baron Tepista wears a hat different from the hat of the Governor/Cunstaval of Maricopa, which is again different from that of the Squirrel Kings of Arms.

I understand that I have been a little informal whilst addressing a senior government official, but what more can you expect from an ordinary citizen.

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Allow me, My Lord Justice, to explain this to you. First, I shall retire this tired metaphor of wearing different hats. Second, as stated elsewhere, when I post from this account, I speak as AG. When I post from my personal account, I speak as an individual citizen. I made the announcement in my official capacity. You asked a question to that post. Therefore, it was appropriate for me to respond as AG. I am shocked that you are surprised that I would respond as the AG considering you asked the AG a question.

I concede I am one of the few individuals who separates his personal and official selves so this very issue does not come up. Further, sheer logic and common sense would have prevented this issue from arising here, but alas.

Now, to your neutrality. My Lord Justice, the Governor/Cunstaval is a political position subject to election. Inherent in that position is the ability and necessity for Baron Tepista to make political statements. Further, the Squirrel King of Arms is one that does not require much politics, and does not require Baron Tepista to render judgment on important cases before this nation, which may have the impact of changing law. You, my Lord Justice, are in a position where you could change law for this entire country. The Rule of Law only survives when the citizens in that court's jurisdiction have faith in the ability of the Judge or Justice to render an impartial verdict. Making public inquiries, even if you think you are doing so as a private citizen, still reveals your thoughts on a subject matter to the country; it still tips your hand for any potential case that may come before you. You may not like that your speech should be restricted in the Talossan public square, but you accepted this when you accepted the position of a Justice on the Uppermost Cort of Talossa. You've accepted the limitations to take this position, such as the more obvious one that you can never hold the position of Secretary of State or Senator.

No, My Lord Justice, you are not speaking as an ordinary citizen, and I will not permit you to condescendingly claim that you are, or to rely on tired metaphors and false equivalencies to prove your point. I find your inappropriate behavior, arrogant tone, and unnecessarily condescending explanation to be an insult to the very institution you serve.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

Sorry to say but your claim to operate two accounts to ease away the wearing of the hats is your own choice and not a mandated government decision.

No where in my post have I addressed you as V and not as the AG, but in the thread I never approached as the justice of the CpI but as the citizen BenArd. If you are tired of the metaphor of wearing hats, you should either leave the nation or bring out a law restricting wearing hats.

I never commented on the Courthouse thread, and I do not deny the possibility of Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. sitting in the Appellate Bench, but that is not my concern as of now. There may or may not be certain fallacies in the proceedings which may be determined during the proceedings during the Original/ Appellate stage, but that again is not my concern.

However if you choose to post on separate thread the appointment of a tDAG (as in other routine appointments), instead of making a formal application in the Court, then I believe that every citizen is allowed to comment on the thread in whatever manner he chooses.

In case you are wary that Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. is unlikely to be fit candidate to sit on the Appellate Bench then you are free to make a suitable application as and when the matter reaches such a state. However I do not think that the AG of the Nation is doing a good job trying to restrict the free thoughts of the citizens of the nation.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

Btw, how did your NYLE exams go? I am sure you must have done well.

[Again, just asking as a private citizen. Moreso because as a practicing lawyer even outside of Talossa am a little more pally with those interested in the study of law.]

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Jun 16, 2017 5:03:21 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

Sorry to say but your claim to operate two accounts to ease away the wearing of the hats is your own choice and not a mandated government decision.

Nowhere have I said that one must operate two accounts, nor have I suggested it is mandated. If you persist in this claim, please indicate the source of your claim. Until then, please refrain from other straw-men. 

No where in my post have I addressed you as V and not as the AG, but in the thread I never approached as the justice of the CpI but as the citizen BenArd. If you are tired of the metaphor of wearing hats, you should either leave the nation or bring out a law restricting wearing hats.

Incorrect. You responded to my post as AG, then I responded from my AG account, and you said, "I guess am not speaking to V but to the AG as an independent citizen." Thus, you implied that you were somehow surprised that I answered in my official capacity. As far as your advice about the tired metaphor, I find it extraordinary that a Justice of the most esteemed Uppermost Cort of Talossa would encourage the Attorney General to "leave Talossa" because the Attorney General feels a metaphor is tired. 

I never commented on the Courthouse thread, and I do not deny the possibility of Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. sitting in the Appellate Bench, but that is not my concern as of now. There may or may not be certain fallacies in the proceedings which may be determined during the proceedings during the Original/ Appellate stage, but that again is not my concern.

By virtue of commenting you are revealing your thoughts on the current controversy. You do not need to comment int he Courthouse thread for such implications. The fact of the matter is that this is a political issue that you decided to interject yourself in, and it is not one where you get to "change your hats" simply because it is convenient. Similarly, you further tip your hand when you include lines such as, "[t]here may ... be certain fallacies in the proceedings." You are indirectly commenting on a current case or controversy which may come before you on appeal. 

However if you choose to post on separate thread the appointment of a tDAG (as in other routine appointments), instead of making a formal application in the Court, then I believe that every citizen is allowed to comment on the thread in whatever manner he chooses.

Every citizen most certainly has a right to comment. However, the chosen profession of some citizens may make it unethical and possibly grounds for recusal if they so choose to exercise that right. Even here in the United States, if a federal judge makes political comments in the public square, they can face disciplinary actions. If they make political comments in a private setting about a controversy, and those comments get out to the public, they may be made to recuse themselves if a controversy comes before them that concerns that subject-matter. When the private citizen takes on the awesome responsibility of presiding over the court, of dispensing justice, of setting law, they must hold themselves to a higher standard than the average citizen. They must present themselves and all of their "hats" in the most neutral light possible that does not create the perception of impropriety. Sir, at the moment, you are not holding yourself up to that standard. You are needlessly engaging in a political debate with a partisan official and conveying your thoughts on potential "fallacies" in the proceedings, thus creating the perception of impropriety. 

In case you are wary that Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. is unlikely to be fit candidate to sit on the Appellate Bench then you are free to make a suitable application as and when the matter reaches such a state. However I do not think that the AG of the Nation is doing a good job trying to restrict the free thoughts of the citizens of the nation.

Again, I request that you refrain from engaging in a straw-man argument. I have not said, covert, overt, or otherwise, that the citizens should have their freedom of thought restricted. You are free to think whatever you want. But when that thought turns into conduct in the public square that creates the appearance of impropriety, the AG, or any private citizen, may question that particular Justice's ability to serve neutrally. 

As I earlier stated, federal judges in the United States must always, public and privately, maintain an air of neutrality. This is codified in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. I point you specifically to Canon 2(a), and the subsequent commentary that elaborates on that Canon, specifically, "An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen." 

While I appreciate that the Kingdom of Talossa is not bound by the laws of the United States, and that Talossan Justices are not bound by the ethics of the federal judges of the United States, I do most certainly believe that their high standard of ethics should inform how a Justice sitting on our most prestigious Cort should act. And do not get this confused, I am speaking only about you, specifically, not the every day citizen. 

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

I have always addressed to the AG and not to V, and that was the reason why I mentioned "No where in my post have I addressed you as V and not as the AG" and I see no wrong in my comments.

Further my asking the AG to leave the nation is vent of frustration of an ordinary citizen who is sick and tired of such political persons who occupy the seats of power but would not allow its citizens to wear multiple hats. Talossa is a 'hatter' kingdom and agree or disagree this principle brings in its regular influx of citizens. If you try to eschew its basic tenet then you fail to adhere to the unsaid Talossan principle and thus, I repeat, you are not fit to be here in Talossa leave alone lead us.

If you speak of Canon 2, you must also look at Canon 4 which puts certain restrictions on a Judge including but not limited to wearing of multiple hats. Even otherwise there has been no expressed violation of the said Canon that you stress upon if seen in the light of Talossan interpretation and norms on multiple hats. However in Talossa there has never been such a restriction, and judges have been part of the Judiciary and the other pillars of administration at the same time. There is and never been any proper Separation of Powers in Talossa, and if it were to be so implemented, then I believe Talossa would cease to function in its present form.

I used to be friends with V even on FB (probably only at acquaintance levels) for sometime in the past, but after certain class of thoughts based on my applauding a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, our relationship ceased on FB. If that be so, then you could also use that reasoning to put a application for my recusal from the bench as and when such an occasion arose. However whilst I am here as the same person, you are not. If you were V, I'd probably not tried to reason out with him. I speak to the AG about his fallacy of action. It is my ardent advise as a citizen to correct yourself when a wrong is pointed out, and not fret and fume. The final call is definitely yours, which may or may not have to face the judicial roadblock.

Or is it that the AG is feeling that this probable fallacy would render his Petition infructuous? My job simply was to correct the errors which were apparent. If a fool hardy minister chooses not to hear, then how can a citizen help.

I rest. Even if something more is posted here in this thread I am unlikely to reply.

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Jun 16, 2017 7:12:23 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

I have always addressed to the AG and not to V, and that was the reason why I mentioned "No where in my post have I addressed you as V and not as the AG" and I see no wrong in my comments.

Further my asking the AG to leave the nation is vent of frustration of an ordinary citizen who is sick and tired of such political persons who occupy the seats of power but would not allow its citizens to wear multiple hats. Talossa is a 'hatter' kingdom and agree or disagree this principle brings in its regular influx of citizens. If you try to eschew its basic tenet then you fail to adhere to the unsaid Talossan principle and thus, I repeat, you are not fit to be here in Talossa leave alone lead us.

As I stated, you expressed surprise when I responded in my official capacity as A-G. Further, the Uppermost Justice of the Cort should not be telling citizens, or official members of the Government, to "leave Talossa." 

If you speak of Canon 2, you must also look at Canon 4 which puts certain restrictions on a Judge including but not limited to wearing of multiple hats. Even otherwise there has been no expressed violation of the said Canon that you stress upon if seen in the light of Talossan interpretation and norms on multiple hats. However in Talossa there has never been such a restriction, and judges have been part of the Judiciary and the other pillars of administration at the same time. There is and never been any proper Separation of Powers in Talossa, and if it were to be so implemented, then I believe Talossa would cease to function in its present form.

To the claim put forth by the Lord Justice that Talossa has never restricted a Justice of the Uppermost Cort from functioning in other roles in the Government or regime, I direct the Lord Justice to Org.XVI.3, which reads, "Neither a reigning King nor his Consort, nor a Regent during his regency, nor the Secretary of State, nor the seneschal, nor any public prosecutor, nor any Senator shall be a Justice of the Cort pü Inalt." To My Lord Justice's Claim that Talossa does not restrict Justices of the Uppermost Cort, and never has, the Organic Law conclusively establishes that he is incorrect in his assertion. 

To the claim of Separation of Powers, the Federal Constitution of the United States never explicitly uses the phrase,but it is strongly implied. Similar to the Art III of the US Constitution, which bestows the Judicial Powers upon the Supreme Court, Org.XVI.1 vests "[t]he judicial power of Talossa ... in one Cort pü Inalt." Insofar that there is no true separation of powers in Talossa, the Lord Justice is incorrect. 

I used to be friends with V even on FB (probably only at acquaintance levels) for sometime in the past, but after certain class of thoughts based on my applauding a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, our relationship ceased on FB. If that be so, then you could also use that reasoning to put a application for my recusal from the bench as and when such an occasion arose. However whilst I am here as the same person, you are not. If you were V, I'd probably not tried to reason out with him. I speak to the AG about his fallacy of action. It is my ardent advise as a citizen to correct yourself when a wrong is pointed out, and not fret and fume. The final call is definitely yours, which may or may not have to face the judicial roadblock.

Acquaintance is a strong word. But yes, many years ago, you and I got into a dispute about the Supreme Court of India overturning a lower court's decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. You'll excuse me if I de-friend someone who believes that my very right to exist is something that can be legislated. 

That said, you have thus tipped your hand that you view there are fallacies in the AG's argument, and that they will be brought up on review. To that extent, you have publicly commented on a current controversy of the Cort, and if the case is appealed, you are under an ethical obligation to recuse yourself. You are correct, you should not fume and fret when you are wrong, as you are doing now. 

Or is it that the AG is feeling that this probable fallacy would render his Petition infructuous? My job simply was to correct the errors which were apparent. If a fool hardy minister chooses not to hear, then how can a citizen help.

I rest. Even if something more is posted here in this thread I am unlikely to reply.

As I said earlier, you have precluded yourself form hearing an potential appeal from the current controversy by indicating to the public and Government that you cannot be neutral, and are therefore unfit to serve as an appellate justice in this controversy if it so demands. 

[Eðo Grischun]

Reminds me of the time a Justice got into a LOT of bother for commenting or something on Facebook as a private citizen about a case in which he was about to hear and judge.

Yeah, the many hats thing has been and will continue to be a thing. However, the argument being made here borders on some kind of split-personality delusion.

For a judge, a Senator, a Minister, or any other important high office official to make public statements of one flavour of bias or another and then expect everyone to expect that official to block out and separate the personal opinion from the previously revealed bias is, simply, a nonsense.

How can we possibly accept that BenArd the citizen is not the same person as Ben the Justice? You can pretend that they are both separate entities, and under law I suppose they are, but they are not different people with two different brains and two different sets of opinion or attitudes.

Again, it all falls into some kind of split personality delusion.

If I look at ballots or all the citizens PSCs ... well, I can say I wear a hat of whatever colour and shape, but the fact remains, I did so as a Senator and senior member of a political party and deputy sos and private citizen. I am one person with multiple jobs - we cannot keep pretending the lines of separation exist (unless we are all actually rather mad in the heads, which might be a possibility).

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

I have never had any problem with the office of the AG, but your actions though maintaining different accounts yourself tries to curtail the rights of others from wearing different hats. This is Hippocratic attitude that you have.

Further your action though always portraying yourself as the AG always had the mindset of V in you. Otherwise there were no reason why you would try to hide your fallacies and ask a citizen to keep his mouth shut simply because an Appeal may head his way. Why don't you understand that there may be instances that Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. may not even sit on the said bench as and when it is constituted, if need be.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

In light of the aforesaid and the AG's insistence that the matter is likely to be heard in Appeal, I expressly make it known that I am unlikely to be sitting on the said Bench of Appeal but may instead file an application to present an Amicus brief.

[Avocat-Xheneral]

I did not say likely. I said probability. Perhaps that's too high of a standard. I would argue that at no time should a Justice comment on a case that is currently before any court in Talossa, even if there is no chance that justice would hear it. 

That said, I'm unsure if you could even file an amicus brief. But we'll cross that bridge if we get to it.