|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2018 18:25:35 GMT -6
First of all, thank you for engaging with me on the merits. I appreciate it, and am happy for it. May I also request that you please edit out my English name from earlier in this thread, please? So: you present two cases as evidence that BenArd failed to appear. In the first one, his attorney appeared on his behalf. In the second one, a default judgment was filed in his absence. These are the two cases cited as evidence in the bill for failing to appear when a named party. Now, your argument seems to be that this is flouting the court's authority, right? He was named in the lawsuit, therefore he is compelled to post in the thread? In fact, you specifically say that this is "against the rules of the court." Am I understanding that correctly? (You also mention that he failed to help you with your investigation of himself, but that's not in the bill). But here's the thing: I don't think it's a legal or ethical failure to send a lawyer in lieu of your own presence, nor does it seem wrong to me to decline to challenge a suit and permit a default judgment. So that's a problem right off the bat with this charge. But compounding this problem is that the bill explicitly cites the rules of the court as justification, and there's nothing in there about that: talossa.proboards.com/thread/6091/rules-courtroom-read-before-posting?page=1&scrollTo=19821Why are we impeaching someone for breaking a rule that doesn't exist and isn't wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2018 18:34:25 GMT -6
Your concern is that you don't want to set a low standard for removal, and the Bill does just that. I'm saying the opposite is true of the bill. By providing a number of transgressions, it's inherently suggesting that a few of these on its own may not be sufficient, but when we look at the totality of the circumstances, such as his failure to appear in the suo moto action, his insults, his inability to preside over a case, the fact that literally nobody wants him as a presiding justice, that when we look at the big picture, we can't explain every little transgression. Note, I am not saying that every transgression, outside of a few (primarily but not limited to the homophobic comment), is actionable, but that the weight of the evidence unequivocally warrants removal. On the other hand, what you're doing is misrepresenting what the Bill does. To put this another way, if someone in the future attempted to use this Bill to remove another Justice for, let's say only refusing to appear in one instance similar to the suo moto action, then you could, rightfully, say that, "well actually, it wasn't just that instance, it was a number of instances that varied." That's what sets the bar high. That is not generally how impeachment has worked, as far as I know. I might be mistaken, which would alleviate a lot of my concerns with this bill, but I checked a few cases in United States history. The most applicable one seems to be Samuel Chase, the only high justice to be impeached. In this case and others, articles of impeachment were prepared that received individual votes, which suggest to me that each one was considered on its own merits and as sufficient for impeachment. In other words, any vote that agreed on any one of the articles would remove Chase, and they were all very serious. Other high-profile impeachments all seem to agree: when removing someone from office based on a long list of charges, each one is considered sufficient unto itself to remove the defendant. If, however, I remove everything from the Bill and just have that one homophobic comment, that sets one standard. I would approve that standard but you have already indicated you would not. So really, in all honesty, of the laundry list, what would YOU think is appropriate in the alleged "cleaned-up bill"? Just the stuff that merits impeachment. We should probably continue to discuss them individually, since maybe I'm wrong about some of them.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2018 18:45:54 GMT -6
Thank you for editing your posts! I genuinely appreciate it, and I am much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2018 18:59:31 GMT -6
What you're missing is that the basis for removing a Justice is, based on the text of the Organic Law, whatever the Ziu wants it to be. It's the same in the U.S.
That does not mean we should set a low bar. To draw an analogy, there are not ethical rules that govern SCOTUS. The only way to enforce something is through impeachment and removal. While the Congress can set ethical rules that could lead to repercussions for district courts or court of appeals judges, separation of powers precludes applying those to SCOTUS. The same is partially true in Talossa at the moment.
So we are left with, in the Ziu, how to protect the judiciary. The Bill does not purport that Ben-Ard violated a rule per se, because, frankly, we can't pass rules per se that apply to Justices of the UC. But what it does it reference a number of transgressions to show that he has, if not overt, the sense of impropriety. I suggest you read my response to Cresti regarding the judicial covenants in the US for more context.
Assuming, arguendo, that your description of the other cases, not the suo moto action, is factual, how does entering a default judgment against a named party, when that party is a sitting Justice of the UC, how does their action instill confidence in the Cort? Justices, as the protectors of the Organic Law and the Judiciary, must hold themselves to a higher standard than everyday Talossans. If a Justice blatantly refuses to appear in a case, and I'll narrow it, the case is a direct response to that Justice's judicial action, how does that instill confidence in the Judiciary? That's why the the suo moto action, even if it did result in a default, is important. Because, as it stands, it tells Talossans that the Corts aren't really that important. Ben-Ard initiates a huge controversy by using his power as a Justice to engage in conduct that is generally considered, with two exceptions in the common-law world, to be an abuse of the court's power. When appropriate judicial action is taken to remedy that, he refuses to appear. To the everyday citizen, that says that we don't really need the rule of law because a justice doesn't care much for answering to the Cort. A default against him doesn't solve that.
With regards to the investigation, yes, I did not reference it directly in the Bill because I did not want it to seem like a redo of the prior vote. But that should not be forgotten. In that report, I referenced where I reached out to him, and I cited my own shortcomings in not following-up. Not to mention, the report was issued with him having enough time to appear in the case and render it moot. He still did not respond. And he actively refused to work with the investigation. The A-G is statutorily is tasked with engaging in these investigations. A justice can choose not to cooperate, but what does that say about the integrity of the Judiciary when the Ziu passed that statute for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the judiciary?
So, my point in this regard comes down to this, even if assume, for a moment, that you describe those other issues correctly, it still leaves us with, among other things, a Justice who actively disregards the authority, reliability, and impartiality of the Judiciary.
Now, with respect to the other points about him being unable to preside over a case. Time and time again he has needed to recuse himself. And time again nobody has really wanted him to preside over a case. Even he acknowledged this in a post. His comments to Talossans, his descriptions that anyone who disagrees with him his a bigot, etc, renders his recusal necessary in almost every case that has gone before the Cort. So we effectively have a four-Justice Cort. How does that instill public confidence in the Cort?
What you're missing is that the Bill intentionally wanted to show a pattern of bad behavior that undermines the Cort because I was concerned that you would do what you did - seek to pass off the homophobic comment as a one-off instances that resulted from a cultural misunderstanding. How far do you want that argument to go, exactly? At what point can I start citing my own cultural to completely disregard the rules? I can come up with a good faith argument that where I'm from, we don't hide behind pseudonyms to advance our points, but we put our name to our argument, regarding the use of your name. But I'm not relying on a cultural issue there. Your argument strongly suggests that you want to hold RUMPers to a totally different standard than the rest of the country, and that does nothing to advance civility, and certainly does nothing to instilling confidence in the judiciary when the offending individual whom you protect sits on the Uppermost Cort.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2018 19:02:19 GMT -6
Your concern is that you don't want to set a low standard for removal, and the Bill does just that. I'm saying the opposite is true of the bill. By providing a number of transgressions, it's inherently suggesting that a few of these on its own may not be sufficient, but when we look at the totality of the circumstances, such as his failure to appear in the suo moto action, his insults, his inability to preside over a case, the fact that literally nobody wants him as a presiding justice, that when we look at the big picture, we can't explain every little transgression. Note, I am not saying that every transgression, outside of a few (primarily but not limited to the homophobic comment), is actionable, but that the weight of the evidence unequivocally warrants removal. On the other hand, what you're doing is misrepresenting what the Bill does. To put this another way, if someone in the future attempted to use this Bill to remove another Justice for, let's say only refusing to appear in one instance similar to the suo moto action, then you could, rightfully, say that, "well actually, it wasn't just that instance, it was a number of instances that varied." That's what sets the bar high. That is not generally how impeachment has worked, as far as I know. I might be mistaken, which would alleviate a lot of my concerns with this bill, but I checked a few cases in United States history. The most applicable one seems to be Samuel Chase, the only high justice to be impeached. In this case and others, articles of impeachment were prepared that received individual votes, which suggest to me that each one was considered on its own merits and as sufficient for impeachment. In other words, any vote that agreed on any one of the articles would remove Chase, and they were all very serious. Other high-profile impeachments all seem to agree: when removing someone from office based on a long list of charges, each one is considered sufficient unto itself to remove the defendant. If, however, I remove everything from the Bill and just have that one homophobic comment, that sets one standard. I would approve that standard but you have already indicated you would not. So really, in all honesty, of the laundry list, what would YOU think is appropriate in the alleged "cleaned-up bill"? Just the stuff that merits impeachment. We should probably continue to discuss them individually, since maybe I'm wrong about some of them. That's strictly procedural in the United States. As I explained above but not explicitly citing the text, and you did not see when responding to this, Congress can impeach and remove for anything it it deems high crime, treason, or misdemeanor in the U.S. They may have chosen to consider each individually, but they could have. There is no statute in the United States that can exist tht would require impeachment and removal for SCOTUS justices or the President/Vice President to require a vote of each individual charge. That's convention; not a law.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2018 21:08:13 GMT -6
What you're missing is that the basis for removing a Justice is, based on the text of the Organic Law, whatever the Ziu wants it to be. It's the same in the U.S. I'm not missing this at all. It is the soul of my worry! It is for that very reason that precedent and boundaries set by impeachments are so important. The page is blank. We must begin with a sharp, clean line... not a greasy smudge. Otherwise the future picture will be hard and unpleasant for others to discern. If the OrgLaw said that justices could be removed for throwing lemons as a weapon, and you were arguing that lemon-cake counted as throwing a lemon and thus BenArd must be removed for his predilection for lemon-cake, it would be silly and dangerous. But not as dangerous as saying ex nihilo that lemon-cake-eating is impeachable! I believe that individuals should be impeached for discrete things they did that merit impeachment. That standard seems simple and reasonable to me. When trails are laid and mapped, we might choose well or poorly among them, but at least we know the rough shape of the possibilities and can be assured about them. We blaze trails with this bill. Let's be sure of our path! That does not mean we should set a low bar. ... The Bill does not purport that Ben-Ard violated a rule per se, because, frankly, we can't pass rules per se that apply to Justices of the UC. But what it does it reference a number of transgressions to show that he has, if not overt, the sense of impropriety. If you will pardon me, I would argue that you illustrate my point neatly here. Even in principle, you admit we do not want to set a low bar, but then further admit that no rule was broken. And there are rules that apply only to our lawyers, I linked to them above. And there are other rules that apply to all: our laws. In your own words, you want to impeach BenArd not because he broke any rules. And not because he broke a law. But rather because he displays a "sense of impropriety" that is not even "overt!"That is a bar so low as to tickle all of our toes. Look at this thread, after all. Assuming, arguendo, that your description of the other cases, not the suo moto action, is factual, how does entering a default judgment against a named party, when that party is a sitting Justice of the UC, how does their action instill confidence in the Cort? Justices, as the protectors of the Organic Law and the Judiciary, must hold themselves to a higher standard than everyday Talossans. If a Justice blatantly refuses to appear in a case, and I'll narrow it, the case is a direct response to that Justice's judicial action, how does that instill confidence in the Judiciary? That's why the the suo moto action, even if it did result in a default, is important. Because, as it stands, it tells Talossans that the Corts aren't really that important. Ben-Ard initiates a huge controversy by using his power as a Justice to engage in conduct that is generally considered, with two exceptions in the common-law world, to be an abuse of the court's power. When appropriate judicial action is taken to remedy that, he refuses to appear. To the everyday citizen, that says that we don't really need the rule of law because a justice doesn't care much for answering to the Cort. A default against him doesn't solve that. The bill does not allege these things as the impeachable offenses. If you are arguing that a justice's failure to enthusiastically participate in legal activities in which he is permitted to participate is impeachable, the bill should reflect that. Instead, the bill specifically says that he broke the court's rules by failing to appear. I cannot identify, and nor does the bill, any such rule. The bill you proposed is what we're discussing. I think it is a serious problem that we are explicitly purporting to impeach someone over a rule that does not exist. With regards to the investigation, yes, I did not reference it directly in the Bill because I did not want it to seem like a redo of the prior vote. But that should not be forgotten. In that report, I referenced where I reached out to him, and I cited my own shortcomings in not following-up. Not to mention, the report was issued with him having enough time to appear in the case and render it moot. He still did not respond. And he actively refused to work with the investigation. The A-G is statutorily is tasked with engaging in these investigations. A justice can choose not to cooperate, but what does that say about the integrity of the Judiciary when the Ziu passed that statute for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the judiciary? If this was important, then you probably should have included it in the bill, even at the risk of sounding redundant. Unfortunately, you did not. I appreciate that you have these other complaints and issues, though, and strongly encourage you to please formulate a new version of the bill that includes these. Now, with respect to the other points about him being unable to preside over a case. Time and time again he has needed to recuse himself. And time again nobody has really wanted him to preside over a case. Even he acknowledged this in a post. His comments to Talossans, his descriptions that anyone who disagrees with him his a bigot, etc, renders his recusal necessary in almost every case that has gone before the Cort. So we effectively have a four-Justice Cort. How does that instill public confidence in the Cort? You cite two examples and one joke. Honestly, I went back and checked twice, just to be sure. If this list of incidents is so long, then I strongly encourage that you transcribe it to the bill. Recusing in two cases and laughing about it does not seem worthy of impeachment. What you're missing is that the Bill intentionally wanted to show a pattern of bad behavior that undermines the Cort because I was concerned that you would do what you did - seek to pass off the homophobic comment as a one-off instances that resulted from a cultural misunderstanding. No, I think I actually called you out for that, explicitly. Like a bunch of times, really. You were bothered by one thing, mostly, and wanted to impeach over that. You threw together some other stuff, a lot of which was incredibly thin, to dress up that single charge. You were, as you admit now, worried that people might not consider that charge sufficient. That has been apparent from the start. Please please hear me: you wrote a bad bill because you were hasty. You have bad examples to support your charges, many of the charges are sloppily phrased, and much of it was transparently manufactured. You might be right that there is a huge underlying pattern, I don't know. Maybe BenArd has had to recuse himself "time and time again," for example. But while we can argue over the finer points of what that might mean, it can't possibly mean twice. Take ten minutes and look back through the cases! You want to remove someone from the high court, so do your due diligence and list all your evidence out! Why are you telling me here about all these arguments and all this evidence that's the real reason for the impeachment? That stuff's not in the bill! The bill is only the bill, not what's in your head. How far do you want that argument to go, exactly? At what point can I start citing my own cultural to completely disregard the rules? I can come up with a good faith argument that where I'm from, we don't hide behind pseudonyms to advance our points, but we put our name to our argument, regarding the use of your name. But I'm not relying on a cultural issue there. Your argument strongly suggests that you want to hold RUMPers to a totally different standard than the rest of the country, and that does nothing to advance civility, and certainly does nothing to instilling confidence in the judiciary when the offending individual whom you protect sits on the Uppermost Cort. I'm not sure I could ever be the arbiter of that or propose a rule for it. Privilege is pernicious and pervasive in most every society I've seen. But BenArd is the sole Asian practitioner of law, so far as I know, and your main reason for wanting him impeached is a single use of a bizarre phrase that he says was just misunderstood. I've never said that being from India should make him able to say anything he wants, but I'll also note that there's a good reason you didn't bring an honest bill about the main thing that bothered you: ultimately, we're talking about impeaching a dude who speaks in a different dialect because he said something offensive once that he says was just weird and misunderstood, and that's a hard thing to face.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 22, 2018 12:51:01 GMT -6
I guess it's moot. We just ejected a judge for their behavior for the first time ever, and a lot of the justifications were wafer-thin. Truly a sad day, but I guess it won't have that many immediate consequences -- at least until a 2/3 coalition decides to start removing sitting justices and installing their own, at which point they will find truly forgiving precedent ("Judges have been removed for violating rules that don't even exist, such as a requirement to appear in court if their name is invoked, so certainly our own bill etc etc").
Not every slippery slope leads to a nation tumbling down the hill, but this still sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 22, 2018 15:56:21 GMT -6
I applaud the Ziu for defending the right of every Talossan to have an impartial Cort. The Ziu did not set a low bar, but realized its Orangic duty to draw a clear line on what behavior simply cannot be countenanced. In so doing, it recognized the basic Organic precept that by existing ny virtue of the Organic Law, the Ziu guards but cannot preside over the Judiciary. In that vein, the Ziu cannot set rules to predicate a charge or charges for removal, but must listen to the citizenry and exercise its authority sparingly and under extreme circumstances.
Here, despite what some have suggested, a Justice engaged in a pattern of behavior that virtually precluded his ability to fulfill his Organic duty to preside over matters, and compounded that by issuing a joke to attack a citizen of Talossan. The Ziu cannot set a rule, but can draw a line z and I think it's a great day in Talossa when that line is drawn.
|
|
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 Sept 22, 2018 20:06:47 GMT -6
If it were preferable to "draw lines" retrospectively and on an ad-hoc basis rather than to define rules prospectively, one would expect the law to encourage rather than discourage ex post facto laws.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Sept 22, 2018 23:50:14 GMT -6
I applaud the collective conscience of people who voted Contra. I hope you had voted so seeing the fact that V actually stands for personal Vendetta and spewing Venom not only against the former Justice but against the all those with whom he has a personal grudge for whatsoever reason. Although I thank those who Abstained from voting, but remind them that they actually played into the hands of the person who was playing his cards well. In any case, Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM., the CpI Judge has already submitted his resignation to the authorities and thus the present Bill cannot be passed into an Act because one cannot possibly remove a former Justice from the CpI. All the Best Talossa. Hope you get a better set of people managing the Government soon. BenArd, MC
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 23, 2018 12:20:28 GMT -6
If it were preferable to "draw lines" retrospectively and on an ad-hoc basis rather than to define rules prospectively, one would expect the law to encourage rather than discourage ex post facto laws. This isn't an ex post facto law. Again, we cannot prospectively set rules for Justices of the UC. If you would like to us to, I look forward to your proposals to amend the Organic law, or suggested language for the forthcoming Judiciary Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 23, 2018 19:55:59 GMT -6
The Ziu did not set a low bar, but realized its Orangic duty to draw a clear line on what behavior simply cannot be countenanced. The Ziu just impeached a justice from the high court for a conglomeration of actions that included violating a rule that does not exist with actions that were not unethical or immoral. It will be easier to wrongly impeach a future justice because the bar is set at "an assortment of stuff, some of which is definitely nonsense." There's no taking that back, and it's gross, and I am sad about it. In that vein, the Ziu cannot set rules to predicate a charge or charges for removal, but must listen to the citizenry and exercise its authority sparingly and under extreme circumstances. You are remarkably wrong. Not only can the Ziu did this, we just did.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 23, 2018 20:13:39 GMT -6
The Ziu did not set a low bar, but realized its Orangic duty to draw a clear line on what behavior simply cannot be countenanced. The Ziu just impeached a justice from the high court for a conglomeration of actions that included violating a rule that does not exist with actions that were not unethical or immoral. It will be easier to wrongly impeach a future justice because the bar is set at "an assortment of stuff, some of which is definitely nonsense." There's no taking that back, and it's gross, and I am sad about it. In that vein, the Ziu cannot set rules to predicate a charge or charges for removal, but must listen to the citizenry and exercise its authority sparingly and under extreme circumstances. You are remarkably wrong. Not only can the Ziu did this, we just did. Please stop lying. The Ziu has sole discretion to determine what conduct warrants removal, which can only be determined in a case-by-case basis. You can keep peddling your "nonexistent rule" theory, but it's nothing short of intellectual fabrication. A future Ziu is not bound by this decision, nor could it be. Please debate honestly. I'm trying to act in good faith but your deliberate misrepresentations suggest nothing less than a pisspoor attempt at trolling. Shame on you.
|
|
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 Sept 23, 2018 22:29:03 GMT -6
This isn't an ex post facto law. Of course it isn't an actual ex post facto law. I'm talking about the principles of justice that underlie the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The Ziu has sole discretion to determine what conduct warrants removal, which can only be determined in a case-by-case basis. Sure, the Ziu can impeach for anything it wants to. That doesn't mean it should. As members of the Ziu, we should still try to do justice, even if we can get away with doing injustice. You can keep peddling your "nonexistent rule" theory, but it's nothing short of intellectual fabrication. The impeachment act literally charged BenArd with "refusal to comply with the rules of the Cort." Which specific rules did he violate?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 24, 2018 5:41:34 GMT -6
The Ziu just impeached a justice from the high court for a conglomeration of actions that included violating a rule that does not exist with actions that were not unethical or immoral. It will be easier to wrongly impeach a future justice because the bar is set at "an assortment of stuff, some of which is definitely nonsense." There's no taking that back, and it's gross, and I am sad about it. You are remarkably wrong. Not only can the Ziu did this, we just did. Please stop lying. The Ziu has sole discretion to determine what conduct warrants removal, which can only be determined in a case-by-case basis. What nonsense. We just impeached someone over a variety of things, which inherently establishes that these are impeachable offenses in the eyes of the Ziu. All future justices should take note over some of those offenses that can get you kicked off the court: - Breaking imaginary rules of the court, such as "if someone says your name in court you must post in that thread."
- Maybe making one awkward homophobic comment.
- Recusing yourself from two cases.
If you don't think these were impeachable offenses (understandable, since several of them were not), then you should not have written and sponsored and supported a bill that impeaches someone over these offenses. You can keep peddling your "nonexistent rule" theory, but it's nothing short of intellectual fabrication. A future Ziu is not bound by this decision, nor could it be. Please debate honestly. I'm trying to act in good faith but your deliberate misrepresentations suggest nothing less than a pisspoor attempt at trolling. Shame on you. "WHEREAS to date, Ben-Ard has demonstrated a pattern of disappearing whenever challenged, including outright refusal to comply with the rules of the Cort, whether that requires answering a complaint or adhering to deadlines (see e.g. APPEAL Case 14-02a M.E.daL v BenArd (appeal from a lower court’s conviction finding Ben-Ard guilty of the class A misdemeanor of libel); Talossa v Ben-Ard et al (refusing to respond to a petition filed by the Ministry of Justice in response to Ben-Ard abusing his authority as a Puisne Justice));" The impeachment says that BenArd failed to comply with the rules of the court, citing as evidence the fact that he declined to appear in person in two cases in which he was being sued (he sent his attorney in one instance and allowed default judgment in the other, instead). There is no rule that obliges anyone to appear in court if they are sued. Not only is it not a rule, it's not even unethical or immoral! But we just impeached someone over that nonexistent rule.
|
|