Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 17, 2014 1:38:07 GMT -6
The Cort received this petition yesterday. It is hereby assigned to her Honor, Dame Litz.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Viteu Marcianus, represented by T.M. Asmourescu
Against
Magistrate Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselva, Esq.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Judicial Recusal
Here, before the Worshipful Uppermost Cort, we come praying intervention in the matter of Marcianus v. Davinescu et al, a matter presently being heard before the magistrate's court.
On 5 July, 2014 Magistrate Nordselva denied a motion for his recusal prompting this petition.
The crux of our objection to Magistrate Nordselfa's hearing of this case can be summarized thusly:
1. He maintains a close relationship to one of the defendants
2. He and the defendant are known to communicate in a private forum beyond the eyes of the petitioner
3. Magistrate Nordselva has previously made ad hominem statements regarding petitioner's counsel in a dispute between defendant and petitioner's counsel
4. Defendant's commentary and lack of courtroom decorum has gone unchecked by magistrate Nordselva
5. Magistrate Nordselva, while failing to reign in the conduct of the defendant, his friend and colleague, has improperly offered public censure of petitioner's counsel
Detailed Complaint
1. He maintains a close relationship to one of the defendants
Both Magistrate Nordselva and the defendant are senior members of the RUMP party. Both have served as Seneschal while members of the same. We, in no manner, argue that membership in the same party represents a conflict of interest. However, both continue to maintain senior leadership, or otherwise prominent , positions within the same party.
When the writers of the Organic Law crafted the section related to the Uppermost Cort, they wisely prohibited a Justice from serving in the Ziu. They left the specifics of judicial recusal to the individual jurist, however. The Magistrate's Court, a relatively new institution, has no prohibition against a Magistrate hearing the case of a fellow party member or even a friend.
2. He and the defendant are known to communicate in a private forum beyond the eyes of the petitioner
As an extension of complaint 1, both Magistrate Nordselva and defendant Davinescu are known to participate in a closed forum for members of the RUMP. There, they can freely converse, surrounded only by their political allies and compatriots. Petitioner deserves an impartial jurist. While we do not allege ex parte communication between Nordselva and Davinescu, the illusion of impropriety warrants the cautionary recusal to ensure the objectivity of the proceedings remain intact.
But then, in a world of facebook and cell phones, a judge of any level can initiate ex parte communication beyond the eyes of outsiders. This inherent problem, in and of itself, does not create a conflict. We contend, however, that the existence of this inherent risk of ex parte communication, coupled with the specifically secret nature of Magistrate Nordselva and Defendeng Davinescu's medium represents a greater risk.
3. Magistrate Nordselva has previously made ad hominem statements regarding petitioner's counsel in a dispute between defendant and petitioner's counsel
While Magistrate Nordselva maintains no animosity exists between himself and Attorney Asmourescu (stated publicly within the chambers of the Magistrate's Court), we present as evidence in exhibit A a copy of communications between magistrate Nordselva and Defendant Davinescu dated March 2, 2014, in which Magistrate Nordselva (months prior to taking this case) sides with Defendent Davinescu in a personal dispute between Davinescu and Asmourescu stating of Asmourescu
"He seems to be quite immature and over reactionary. "
Building upon the prior two concerns, we have, not only the possibility that the magistrate and the defendant correspond in private, but the proof that they have been doing so for some time before magistrate Nordselva ever became a magistrate. Additionally, we see that in a personal dispute between Davinescu and Asmourescu, Nordselva is quick to choose sides and place all of the fault on Asmourescu.
Nordselva and Davinescu were not arguing in court during this exchange, mind you. However, it speaks to the relationship between Nordselva and Davinescu. The word of Davinescu clearly means more to Nordselva than the word of Asmourescu.
Please note also that when asked for recusal on this basis, Magistrate Nordselva carefully states that there exists no animosity between himself and the plaintiff. Note that the plaintiff in this matter is Viteu Marcianus, not Asmorescu.
4. Defendant's commentary and lack of courtroom decorum has gone unchecked by magistrate Nordselva
Looking to the transcript of the proceedings to date, Defendant Davinescu responded to a request for additional information by petitioner:
"The plaintiff's request now amounts to a request that I do research on his behalf. I am afraid that I am busy working on my defense, and cannot research questions of fact for him, such as whether or not any such page was removed at anyone's request. I don't know the answer to those questions."
Defendant pontificates rather than simply declining to answer. These actions would not be tolerated by any judge in any court unless, of course, the judge were to set aside his objectivity to favor the speaker of these words.
Nordselva makes no such admonishment, leaving one to question whether Defendant Davinescu has earned a special speaking privilege within the courts.
5. Magistrate Nordselva, while failing to reign in the conduct of the defendant, his friend and colleague, has improperly offered public censure of petitioner's counsel.
Since the beginning of these proceedings, Magistrate Nordselva has put Asmourescu on notice twice. The first occasion, Nordselva states:
"The court would admonish the plaintiff in restating its request for evidence. "
Though Asmourescu stated in his original request that he intended to ask for clarification, not to merely restate his original question. In any event, Asmourescu plainly presented his clarifying question as a mere request to be either granted or denied. There was no call for admonishment as there was no misstep. A question was posed and an answer returned.
Requested Relief
In this petition, we request a writ of mandamus to compel Magistrate Nordselva to recuse himself from the matter. Aside from his closeness to the defendant which raises concern, his contempt for the plaintiff counsel is on a personal level. No harm could come to the court if Magistrate Nordselva refuses himself. Great harm could come to the plaintiff and his interests, however, if an unfavorably biased Magistrate is permitted to rule on his case. The plaintiff is likewise injured if he is forced to secure new counsel at this stage. As a former citizen, he is limited in his ability to solicit the services of an admitted attorney.
We believe that sufficient cause for concern as to the objectivity of this court exists to where the interests of Justice would be best served if the case were to be reassigned to another magistrate.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Viteu Marcianus, represented by T.M. Asmourescu
Against
Magistrate Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselva, Esq.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Judicial Recusal
Here, before the Worshipful Uppermost Cort, we come praying intervention in the matter of Marcianus v. Davinescu et al, a matter presently being heard before the magistrate's court.
On 5 July, 2014 Magistrate Nordselva denied a motion for his recusal prompting this petition.
The crux of our objection to Magistrate Nordselfa's hearing of this case can be summarized thusly:
1. He maintains a close relationship to one of the defendants
2. He and the defendant are known to communicate in a private forum beyond the eyes of the petitioner
3. Magistrate Nordselva has previously made ad hominem statements regarding petitioner's counsel in a dispute between defendant and petitioner's counsel
4. Defendant's commentary and lack of courtroom decorum has gone unchecked by magistrate Nordselva
5. Magistrate Nordselva, while failing to reign in the conduct of the defendant, his friend and colleague, has improperly offered public censure of petitioner's counsel
Detailed Complaint
1. He maintains a close relationship to one of the defendants
Both Magistrate Nordselva and the defendant are senior members of the RUMP party. Both have served as Seneschal while members of the same. We, in no manner, argue that membership in the same party represents a conflict of interest. However, both continue to maintain senior leadership, or otherwise prominent , positions within the same party.
When the writers of the Organic Law crafted the section related to the Uppermost Cort, they wisely prohibited a Justice from serving in the Ziu. They left the specifics of judicial recusal to the individual jurist, however. The Magistrate's Court, a relatively new institution, has no prohibition against a Magistrate hearing the case of a fellow party member or even a friend.
2. He and the defendant are known to communicate in a private forum beyond the eyes of the petitioner
As an extension of complaint 1, both Magistrate Nordselva and defendant Davinescu are known to participate in a closed forum for members of the RUMP. There, they can freely converse, surrounded only by their political allies and compatriots. Petitioner deserves an impartial jurist. While we do not allege ex parte communication between Nordselva and Davinescu, the illusion of impropriety warrants the cautionary recusal to ensure the objectivity of the proceedings remain intact.
But then, in a world of facebook and cell phones, a judge of any level can initiate ex parte communication beyond the eyes of outsiders. This inherent problem, in and of itself, does not create a conflict. We contend, however, that the existence of this inherent risk of ex parte communication, coupled with the specifically secret nature of Magistrate Nordselva and Defendeng Davinescu's medium represents a greater risk.
3. Magistrate Nordselva has previously made ad hominem statements regarding petitioner's counsel in a dispute between defendant and petitioner's counsel
While Magistrate Nordselva maintains no animosity exists between himself and Attorney Asmourescu (stated publicly within the chambers of the Magistrate's Court), we present as evidence in exhibit A a copy of communications between magistrate Nordselva and Defendant Davinescu dated March 2, 2014, in which Magistrate Nordselva (months prior to taking this case) sides with Defendent Davinescu in a personal dispute between Davinescu and Asmourescu stating of Asmourescu
"He seems to be quite immature and over reactionary. "
Building upon the prior two concerns, we have, not only the possibility that the magistrate and the defendant correspond in private, but the proof that they have been doing so for some time before magistrate Nordselva ever became a magistrate. Additionally, we see that in a personal dispute between Davinescu and Asmourescu, Nordselva is quick to choose sides and place all of the fault on Asmourescu.
Nordselva and Davinescu were not arguing in court during this exchange, mind you. However, it speaks to the relationship between Nordselva and Davinescu. The word of Davinescu clearly means more to Nordselva than the word of Asmourescu.
Please note also that when asked for recusal on this basis, Magistrate Nordselva carefully states that there exists no animosity between himself and the plaintiff. Note that the plaintiff in this matter is Viteu Marcianus, not Asmorescu.
4. Defendant's commentary and lack of courtroom decorum has gone unchecked by magistrate Nordselva
Looking to the transcript of the proceedings to date, Defendant Davinescu responded to a request for additional information by petitioner:
"The plaintiff's request now amounts to a request that I do research on his behalf. I am afraid that I am busy working on my defense, and cannot research questions of fact for him, such as whether or not any such page was removed at anyone's request. I don't know the answer to those questions."
Defendant pontificates rather than simply declining to answer. These actions would not be tolerated by any judge in any court unless, of course, the judge were to set aside his objectivity to favor the speaker of these words.
Nordselva makes no such admonishment, leaving one to question whether Defendant Davinescu has earned a special speaking privilege within the courts.
5. Magistrate Nordselva, while failing to reign in the conduct of the defendant, his friend and colleague, has improperly offered public censure of petitioner's counsel.
Since the beginning of these proceedings, Magistrate Nordselva has put Asmourescu on notice twice. The first occasion, Nordselva states:
"The court would admonish the plaintiff in restating its request for evidence. "
Though Asmourescu stated in his original request that he intended to ask for clarification, not to merely restate his original question. In any event, Asmourescu plainly presented his clarifying question as a mere request to be either granted or denied. There was no call for admonishment as there was no misstep. A question was posed and an answer returned.
Requested Relief
In this petition, we request a writ of mandamus to compel Magistrate Nordselva to recuse himself from the matter. Aside from his closeness to the defendant which raises concern, his contempt for the plaintiff counsel is on a personal level. No harm could come to the court if Magistrate Nordselva refuses himself. Great harm could come to the plaintiff and his interests, however, if an unfavorably biased Magistrate is permitted to rule on his case. The plaintiff is likewise injured if he is forced to secure new counsel at this stage. As a former citizen, he is limited in his ability to solicit the services of an admitted attorney.
We believe that sufficient cause for concern as to the objectivity of this court exists to where the interests of Justice would be best served if the case were to be reassigned to another magistrate.
