Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 24, 2014 7:45:09 GMT -6
First, I found (I think), in my own chat history, what Miestra might have been referring to about a fraudulent way to get something to Tim for being an anonymous hero to the Kingdom. But if anyone thinks I was serious when I said, "Maybe I'll adopt you, then renounce my countship so you inherit it." then you have a pretty poor sense of (my) humour. No, not that bit, it's quite obviously a joke. Few lines down from that. A few lines down from that I offer to propose that he receive a well-deserved award for writing a book. This is an award the whole Ziu would have to vote on, so if he had received it, it would not at all have been under any false pretences. He did write the book, and as I said, had the award been given regularly as the law says it should, he most certainly deserved it, in my mind, for the year 2012. This part of the conversation was completely off the topic of the investigation, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Tim said, "nah, I don't want anything for being a tipster; I have plenty of accomplishments" and mentioned the book. Then I said, "wow, that's right, your book! You should have received the award for it from the Ziu!" A total sideline from the investigation discussion. Certainly I will grant you that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I do not intend to claim it as one. If indeed what I did was illegal, I will be the first to admit that I should be judged for having committed a crime. All I am saying is that at the time I certainly never believed I was acting in any way contrary to law, or even to ethics, in advising Tim that recusal was not necessarily incumbent on him simply because he was the initial tipster, and that if evidence brought to his bench was not in any way gathered or related to him, he should decide at that time, and not beforehand, upon recusal. That time never came, he never had to make the decision, and whether he would have had the option of even thinking upon my non-binding advice is something we'll never know. Yes, Tim certainly now wishes to claim that he was committing a crime and knew it. I don't think he ever said so during the discussions, or I would have disagreed with him on that point, so I rather believe that this decision to view what was done as illegal is one he came to relatively recently with something of an agenda behind it, to assist in supporting his current behaviour and attitudes toward certain people. To be honest, I don't know why he has chosen to include me now in his scorched earth policy with this sudden claim that by helping to preserve his anonymity (as he requested) I was in some way breaking the law. My theory is that he may believe I had something to do with the removal, the other day, of the copyright-claimed materials he posted, when, in fact, I did not have anything to do with it. As to the political part of things (Grubi on the bench, etc.), there was certainly no thought in my mind that Grubi would act impartially; for my part, I hoped (and it turned out so) that it wouldn't come to court so that none of us (Grubi especially) would have to deal with the political ramifications by what might seem like lines drawn by members of one party that incriminated members of another. I commended the ZRT at that time, and I do so again. I am no longer a leader of the RUMP, but I will happily join you in insisting that should any member of the RUMP commit electoral and immigration fraud, it too should totally disassociate itself from that person. If by this you are accusing me of committing electoral or immigration fraud, I disagree, but I will be happy to abide by any judicial decision if the question ever must be taken up, or, indeed, by the decision of the court of public opinion. Hool
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 24, 2014 7:48:19 GMT -6
Sir Alexandreu, you are a valued Talossan - a more than competent legislator and administrator. I don't care for your style of courtroom practice, but it gets the job done. This is not personal. This is about a party's culture. At least you must admit that Admiral Asmourescù's anti-Republican animus, which blinded him to the point of illegality, was at least not made unwelcome in the RUMP, even if not actively encouraged by it? Actually, no, I can specifically say that's not true. I can't quote from people (again, stuff was said in private), but you can take my solemn word for it: for every grumble about former Republicans, there was an answering mention of how Reunision had been joyous and reinvigorated things. Sometimes goofballs like myself made little speeches to that effect, and were joined in assent by a couple of other goofballs in no uncertain terms. I will immediately say that perhaps we shouldn't have even tolerated that grumbling, or spoken out even more against it. But I really thought that they were blowing off steam and it was harmless... among friends, we all sometimes say exploded things when we're irritated. On the subject, it's probably part of the Admiral's designs that this would have blown up and taken over all the metaphorical front pages just when the headlines should have read "Government Collapses Because One MC Slept In". Yeah, that's probably true! I do know that things didn't look like they were going according to his plan. He couldn't really find much wrong, despite the many years of trust he'd enjoyed. He did his best, and here people were, clucking their tongues for a while but essentially still talking with each other in a civilized fashion. I guess what else was there to do but sacrifice himself on the altar of vengeance, and hope it really caused some harm (even if that harm was mostly to a guy who had been one of his strongest allies and friends and who he still ostensibly liked). Fortunately, even this last big thing is probably not going to way he wants, and I'm glad he can't make Talossa into his puppet. Certainly there are some people who are saying that this is some big RUMP thing that destroys us all or something, but I still mostly see that sentiment coming from people who probably feel personally hurt in some ways by what they see as a sentiment against them. I'm glad that the reaction is mostly the proper one: let's see what happens with the justice system. - But, well, I'm a judge. What if the case lands in my court? Should I recuse myself?
- I wouldn't think you'd necessarily need to. Just because you knew a crime was being committed and told the police about it does not mean that if the evidence gathered by the police is shown to you, you are not a good person to decide who it was that committed this crime you reported. I would wait to see the case before deciding on recusal. That's my advice, at least.
But here is the problem in your example: in this case, Tim was BOTH the "police" investigator and a judge. He didn't just report the crime to an official authority, he acted as that authority. Now, for the record, had he reported that he was indeed the investigator and explained how he would plan to remain impartial in his judgement, I wouldn't have had any problems. But this was not the plan. The plan was to make the trial a travesty of justice by not even revealing he was the investigator. More so, it also drastically reduced the ability for the defense to cross examine the investigator because the person answering the questions would not even be the person who did the real investigation. Yes, you have aptly restated what Tim did that was wrong, although I'm not sure offhand comments during the heat and excitement of uncovering a crime wave really can be held as binding against him... he very well may have announced and recused himself. I like to think so, anyway. He's made some really poor decisions lately, but I can't say that Tim's a bad guy. He would have seen the problem, don't you think?
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 24, 2014 7:58:56 GMT -6
- But, well, I'm a judge. What if the case lands in my court? Should I recuse myself?
- I wouldn't think you'd necessarily need to. Just because you knew a crime was being committed and told the police about it does not mean that if the evidence gathered by the police is shown to you, you are not a good person to decide who it was that committed this crime you reported. I would wait to see the case before deciding on recusal. That's my advice, at least.
But here is the problem in your example: in this case, Tim was BOTH the "police" investigator and a judge.... He didn't just report the crime to an official authority, he acted as that authority. Now, for the record, had he reported that he was indeed the investigator and explained how he would plan to remain impartial in his judgement, I wouldn't have had any problems. But this was not the plan. The plan was to make the trial a travesty of justice by not even revealing he was the investigator. More so, it also drastically reduced the ability for the defense to cross examine the investigator because the person answering the questions would not even be the person who did the real investigation. I knew that my example was flawed and imperfect, as any example would be, and I thank you for pointing out what you see as its major flaws. I acknowledged in the (flawed) example that Tim did indeed perform preliminary investigation ("I checked; the locks are broken"). But in actual point of fact, every single bit of evidence that the King actually took to ESB was gathered independently by the King. ONLY the fact that the King knew to look for it was due to Tim's "the locks are broken" tip and initial evidence. But the evidence that would have been brought to trial (should it come to that, but it didn't) could — it was my belief then and still is today — very well have been composed only of the King's own evidence. And had that been the case, the fact that Tim was the initial caller to 9-1-1 should not (unless he himself believed otherwise, when decision time came, for in the end it would have been his call and his call alone) necessarily mandate his refusal. I was only advising Tim that "if your evidence is not part of the case, and it consists only of evidence gathered by others, I don't think you would have to recuse yourself". None of us knew who the culprit was until the King did his investigation. Tim's initial evidence did not point to guilt of any person in particular. The criminal being hunted was unknown until the King himself gathered evidence. Tim was as shocked as any of us who the evidence would have shown the culprit to be. To repeat the flawed example, the fact that a judge knows that every house in the neighborhood is being broken into (maybe it's made the newspapers and he's read about it) does not mean he cannot look at evidence, gathered by authorities independently, and judge who it was that was committing the break-ins. I was not colluding to let Tim judge a case on which he would sit as a biased and predisposed judge. If Tim's leaks make it look like I was, I can only repeat what I have been saying here, that I most certainly was not, and that my belief was only that independent evidence should be able to be independently judged by an independent justice, and at that time, the character I believed that Tim had had me believing him to be an independent justice, so, if he's a good justice, I believed that he should consider upon recusal only once he saw what evidence is brought to him. If he is not an actual party to a case before him, his awareness that a crime was committed is of no consequence, or else every judge who reads the newspapers would never be able to hear a case. Again, I really didn't like my example, and knew it was an oversimplification, and it bothered me that it would come off that way. I'm rather glad it did such that you were able to post on it and allow me to admit its imperfections but add a bit more in the gaps between the example and the actual circumstances here in question. Hool
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2014 8:03:53 GMT -6
Yes, you have aptly restated what Tim did that was wrong, although I'm not sure offhand comments during the heat and excitement of uncovering a crime wave really can be held as binding against him... he very well may have announced and recused himself. I like to think so, anyway. He's made some really poor decisions lately, but I can't say that Tim's a bad guy. He would have seen the problem, don't you think? I am not sure what to think, as he published leaks with personal details of a citizen who made it quite clear he didn't want them published (me). He conspired to hide his actions in order to not have to recuse himself to prevent former republic judges from deciding the outcome of a former republican citizen. Well, guess what, I am a former citizen of the Republic. Does that mean that as SoS, I risk having members of the RUMP conspire to hide things from the SoS office in case I need to make a hard judgement call between the ZRT and the RUMP? I know, the leak doesn't mean this would happen. But there is ONE thing I know about the current leader of the ZRT, Miestra, which the leaks show that the RUMP clearly hate hers: I have never seen Miestra say anything in public other than exactly what she was thinkging in private, and guess what? That's right up my values. What I hate about Miestra is not her personality (I could see her and I being close friends if she wasn't on the other side of the planet), it's not her values (we share a lot), it's SOME her positions. And guess what? I respect how she takes her positions. What the leak are showing me, is that she was possibly right, that I belonged more in the ZRT than in the RUMP, and guess what? There's nothing she could have done to convince me of that. It's the RUMP's people, first Mick and you, then BenArd, then the 3 involves in the conspiracy, which pushed me out. Did you know I said to Txec a few weeks ago that I was considering re-joining the RUMP for the election even if you were now the leader? That's now out of the window and it's sad for you, because as far as I know, you weren't involved at ALL in the events of the leak, but are paying the price for the action of other members of your party. It's also sad for Txec, because he is a mighty good man.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 24, 2014 8:14:14 GMT -6
Well, it's sad for the RUMP because we'd love to have you back, of course, and your departure was originally caused by my own excessively harsh criticism in public. I do still hope you'll reconsider, but understand if you feel otherwise.
Let me say that we do not hate Miestra, though - that is an absolute wrong thing to say. She is, though, the firebrand figurehead who's very visible and hyper-partisan and often in people's faces, as she will probably cheerfully admit. So there's grumbling in private conversations, but we also grumble in public. I grumbled about her in this thread!
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2014 8:42:48 GMT -6
Speaking as a judge, I would think any competent judge would recuse himself automatically if he had any firsthand knowledge in a case and there wouldn't even be a debate on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2014 8:50:29 GMT -6
Speaking as a judge, I would think any competent judge would recuse himself automatically if he had any firsthand knowledge in a case and there wouldn't even be a debate on the matter. Yes, and I have every confidence you would do so. We even had talks as to how to handle your role as deputy SoS and your role as a Judge, and I know we will have more. You pre-emptively takes steps to avoid conflicts of interests. This guy however, took pre-emptive steps to hide his implication in the investigation so he wouldn't have to recuse himself. He planned to lie. It doesn't mean he would have lied before the trial, but the proof is there that he conspired with 2 other party members to do this! Sure, we are not in Minority Report, he might have changed his mind. But we have to rely on his integrity which he put in question when he: 1 ) Conspired to hide his implication 2 ) He leaked his first documents days after losing a trial which showed nothing of interest for the public (unlike the final leak which is clearly of public interest). I don't know... I am not convinced he would have done the right thing.
|
|
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 Jul 24, 2014 13:29:21 GMT -6
He conspired to hide his actions in order to not have to recuse himself to prevent former republic judges from deciding the outcome of a former republican citizen. Let's emphasise "he (allegedly) conspired with Hooligan". Conspiracies require more than one person. If Hooligan had said "it would be totally crooked not to recuse yourself" - as Dr Nordselva has just done, although he might want to be careful in case a case lands in his court - there would be no legal problem at all. Sir Alexandreu's apparent attempt to make all the nefariousness in the conversation stick to the Admiral is laughably disingenuous. T'es trop gentile.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2014 13:57:49 GMT -6
He conspired to hide his actions in order to not have to recuse himself to prevent former republic judges from deciding the outcome of a former republican citizen. Let's emphasise "he (allegedly) conspired with Hooligan". Conspiracies require more than one person. If Hooligan had said "it would be totally crooked not to recuse yourself" - as Dr Nordselva has just done, although he might want to be careful in case a case lands in his court - there would be no legal problem at all. Sir Alexandreu's apparent attempt to make all the nefariousness in the conversation stick to the Admiral is laughably disingenuous. Indeed, sorry. I am not used to lawyer speak. Thanks, but a quick correction to help you get better with French: Gentil: male person who is nice Gentille: female person who is nice Gentile: non-jewish person.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jul 24, 2014 14:58:13 GMT -6
Let's emphasise "he (allegedly) conspired with Hooligan". Conspiracies require more than one person. If Hooligan had said "it would be totally crooked not to recuse yourself" - as Dr Nordselva has just done, although he might want to be careful in case a case lands in his court - there would be no legal problem at all. Sir Alexandreu's apparent attempt to make all the nefariousness in the conversation stick to the Admiral is laughably disingenuous. Indeed, sorry. I am not used to lawyer speak. Thanks, but a quick correction to help you get better with French: Gentil: male person who is nice Gentille: female person who is nice Gentile: non-jewish person. And are you Jewish?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2014 15:59:02 GMT -6
Indeed, sorry. I am not used to lawyer speak. Thanks, but a quick correction to help you get better with French: Gentil: male person who is nice Gentille: female person who is nice Gentile: non-jewish person. And are you Jewish? No, but it's a weird way to congratulate someone if the speaker isn't jewish...
|
|
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 Jul 25, 2014 14:13:40 GMT -6
2. I honestly don't recall Lord Hooligan's saying anything to me about S:reu Asmourescu's having been the tipster who originally alerted Sir Iustì to suspicious patterns in various "people's" email. If you'd asked me yesterday, I would have hemmed and hawed a bit, and said I *thought* I remembered that the revelations had begun with Sir Iustì, didn't they? Which is to say, I probably should try to pay better attention to things people tell me. For whatever reason, I didn't really focus on this one. That's very interesting, Sir. A final leaked document has just been brought to my attention in which you are quoted as saying "Tim is an obvious candidate for a knighthood" in this regard and that "we should let him make the call as to whether to be outed".
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Jul 25, 2014 17:33:32 GMT -6
1. This afternoon, I read the leaked chats between S:reu Asmourescu and Sir Iustì, an act for which I did *not* have Sir Iustì's permission. I didn't think, until I was done reading, that those chats were the kind of private thing that honest people keep private. If someone "leaked" private chats of mine, I'd feel (reasonably, I think) that honourable people would avoid reading them. So I apologize to Sir Iustì for my inadvertence and my participation in the invasion of his privacy. You are hereby retroactively granted permission to read what you read already.
|
|
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 Jul 26, 2014 4:56:13 GMT -6
Hey Iustí, you still disappointed it wasn't me who faked the citizens?
|
|
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 Jul 26, 2014 14:35:29 GMT -6
2. I honestly don't recall Lord Hooligan's saying anything to me about S:reu Asmourescu's having been the tipster who originally alerted Sir Iustì to suspicious patterns in various "people's" email. If you'd asked me yesterday, I would have hemmed and hawed a bit, and said I *thought* I remembered that the revelations had begun with Sir Iustì, didn't they? Which is to say, I probably should try to pay better attention to things people tell me. For whatever reason, I didn't really focus on this one. That's very interesting, Sir. A final leaked document has just been brought to my attention in which you are quoted as saying "Tim is an obvious candidate for a knighthood" in this regard and that "we should let him make the call as to whether to be outed". bump
|
|