But this: "That said, it is perfectly clear that the SoS has acted illegally, and I therefore petition that the election be declared void and a new election held as soon as possible." doesn't mean that a charge is brought agains a person. This means: "If you find that the SoS failed (because as you said"There cannot be a violation without a violator") to conduct the Election on full accordance with the law (§ II.5) because bla bla, then you should consider to declare the election void as provided in the electoral law § II.8". No charge is brought against anyone. 1. The petition specifically says the "SoS has acted illegally".
2. The Law mentions the word "charges" multiple times.
Therefore, the SoS is being charged. Do you follow?
You seem to have skipped over the part where I explained this already. The word "may" in the context of law does not mean "among other things, here are some ideas of what can do"; it means "here are the things they are allowed to do". The two specific items outlined in the law are the only two things the Landsdoom can do after its determination. "In the event that the charges are upheld by the examining judge,
the Landsdoom may order that:"... "may" indicates the limits of the Landsdoom, not an open-ended starting point or list of suggestions.
I am not nit-picking this point; I firmly believe (and I'm not alone here), that laws are meant to establish limits, parameters if you will, so as to rein in any untoward, unethical, illegal, or outside-the-norm actions of the public body in question, so as not to allow said body to run roughshod over anyone. Saying "the Landsdoom may order that" means that it keeps the Landsdoom from operating outside those parameters.
If the intent is to use those items as suggestions or a starting point (which is, to say the least, an odd thing for a law to include), then the phrase should read "the Landsdoom may,
among other things, order that..." But to be honest, that seems like that could open up a can of worms on its own.
No, there is no hearing involved in that Law: "On receipt of such a petition a judge of the Landsdoom shall conduct an inquiry into the charges..." An inquiry is not in and of itself a hearing. It very well can include a hearing, if it is a public inquiry in the UK sense. But this is not a public inquiry, as it is not so proscribed in the Law.
The Landsdoom did not recognise you as a Petitioner because the original Petitioner did not acknowledge you as such. It's like a class-action lawsuit; you can't jump on board
just because. You have to at least be recognised by the original complainant as such.
No, you don't seem to get that it isn't that the Petition is poorly worded; it's that the intent of the Petition and the execution of the Law, in combination, serve to charge a man with a crime without due process. You can clamor on all you want about how "no, nobody's being charged", but that's if you completely ignore the facts: the Petitioner says the SoS broke the law and wants the Landsdoom to issue a judgment based on that determination.
Now, here's where the flowchart splits in two. We have two options, the SoS broke the law, so please issue a judgment on the election. This is your view, the view of Mr Vercaria, and quite possibly the view of the original Petitioner (from whom we have no heard since the original submission). But this ignores the second point: if the SoS broke the law, then the is found SoS is guilty — that's trying a citizen without due process!
On one hand, the crowd says "Declare the election invalid because the SoS broke the law". You're trying to get a judgment regarding the election. If you want the judgment regarding the election, you have to have legal grounds to do so. And if your legal ground is that the SoS broke the law, then you cannot have a court at some point judge that someone broke the law and somehow ignore the individual accused or charged.
It's also unfair to steamroll a petitioner down because he didn't act and speak like a perfect lawyer. He should have been asked to explain his imperfect petition first. This is what a fair hearing is about.
Mr Vercaria, the Petitioner was not "steamrolled". His Petition was dismissed. ANd whether he spoke "like a perfect lawyer" doesn't concern me. But if you invoke the law in order to redress your grievance, you had better be explicit enough to get your point across. You are oversimplifying the effort of the Landsdoom and characterising its behaviour as somehow unfair or unjust. Never mind that the explanation was clear and detailed. Never mind that the Petitioner was encouraged in his efforts to seek justice. Never mind that the Petitioner was even given a suggestion for an alternate and fairer mechanism for redressing the grievance. You have chosen instead to grump, grouse, and use dysphemisms for what has actaully occurred.
And as for "asked to explain his imperfect petition"? That's what a petition
is! An explanation of one's position. It is the legal form of the explanation. And I read the explanation — have you? He explained that the law says the SoS must do a certain thng, that the SoS failed to do so, and therefore the SoS broke the law.
Seems like a pretty good explanation to me. Is there some nuance or subtlety I've completely missed?
Anyway, the Landsdoom should be a provincial court where the Fiôvâns that are appealing to this court are not kicked out for being lawyeristic laymen.
Who's being kicked out? Who's being denied an opportunity? The gentleman who was directed to file suit, so as not to trample the rights of the accused? Is that gentleman being denied his right to vote? His right to speak before this court? Or his right to make a case against the Office of the Secretary of State? Which is it precisely? If you're gong to make accusations, be sure to be exact. Otherwise, it's just politics and preference, not jurisprudence or the practice of law.
You're dismissing the efforts of the Landsdoom as mere pedantry. That is rude. Read — actually
read what was written.
*This* is even more scandalous than a somewhat botched election that didn't run smoothly because of some "teething problems". After all, Fiôvâ was founded to lead by example when it comes to a democratic, non-monarchist order.
The first line of democracy is the preservation of the rights of its people. And your position seeks to trample the rights of the accused, pretending that calling a man out as guilty is something we can overlook in the pursuit of justice.
YOU CANNOT COMPROMISE JUSTICE TO SEEK JUSTICE. Do you understand?
Treating petitioners like bond-slaves who don't understand the noble rules of aristocracy is non the way to becoming a beacon of republican virtues.
Treating the law as a rough draft, mere suggestion, ephemeral notion rather than a mechanism to assure and protect civil rights — that's a cynical and contemptuous take. And "bond-slaves"? Did you actually use that word or are my glasse in need of a good cleaning all of a sudden? You just compared a petitioner who was asked to do things fairly to a
slave? And dismissing the law as "noble rules of aristocracy"? Is there something fundamentally wrong with your cognition, sir? Are you impaired or are you deliberately trying to antagonise the Landsdoom with your baseless rhetoric? You are flippant with the law, the rights of
all Talossans (not just the ones you feel have been harmed), and the very protections you enjoy. You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr Vercaria.
That means, as there's no attorney-general, no constable, no grand jury in Fiova, one of the adjudicator should act as inquirer, conducts the hearings and then suggest to the full panel of the Court a decision. So strictly speaking, the Landsdoom, the Court is not required by the law to act as an attorney, but to instruct one of the Adjudicator to act as inquirer, this figure it's called by the law
examining judge.
Just like an Assembly may form a commission to do the hearings, to make an inquiry, and then suggest to the full assembly a decision to make.
Nowhere in the law does it say, imply, or suggest anything about forming an assembly, a committee, a tribunal or any other group to hold a hearing. You seem to be adding all of this yourself. Read teh actual words of the law:
1. "
a judge of the Landsdoom shall conduct an inquiry": Which means a judge from the Landsdoom (which, as we know consists of one judge currently) is required to investigate the charge (there's that word) being brought by the petitioner.
Comprendez-vous?2. "
shall present his/her finding": Notice the use of the singular form. One judge. The same judge as previously mentioned, "a judge of the Landsdoom" who "shall conduct an inquiry". Follow so far?
3. "
In the event that the charges are upheld by the examining judge": Again, just that one judge. That one judge is the person who is intended to either strike down or uphold the charges... the charges brought forth by the Petitioner. Understand?
There is no assembly, a committee, a tribunal or any other group to hold a hearing. None. And the only two options given AFTER the judge upholds the charges are the two listed. There is no "conduct[ing] the hearings" because there's no hearings. There is no "full panel of the Court" because there's no full panel beyond the Landsdoom itself. There's no "suggest[ion]" for a decision, because the judge in question is the only one to make a decision. Do you understand that the items you have outlined are not required by nor suggested by either the Election Law or the Constitution of Fiôvâ whatsoever? I am not intending to be nasty or rude or hurtful; I am trying to communicate what is really going on here.
Over and over again I have to explain the facts of the case and of the law:
1. The Petitioner says the SoS broke the law.
2. The Petitioner says that by doing so, the Petitioner's rights were violated.
3. The Law says that the Petitioner has a right to petition the Landsdoom to redress the grievance.
4. The Law says a judge from the Landsdoom has to investigate.
5. The Law says the judge doing the investigation has to present findings.
6. The Law says the judge, if the charges are upheld, has two options.
7. The Organic Law — the supreme law of the land — says you cannot charge, try, or convict any citizen without due process. (Fifth Covenant, btw)
8. The Decision was to dismiss the Petition itself.
9. The Decision directs the Petitioner to file a lawsuit instead.
Now, if you choose to figure that what I have done in my capacity as adjudicator on the Landsdoom is to railroad a poor innocent petitioner with complete disregard for his rights simply because he didn't use proper pronunciation and jargon, then
you do so without regard to the facts.