Indignation from the Senator of Maritiimi-Maxhestic

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

I gotta ask, at this point. AD, are you really this eager to inject yourself into proceedings to which you are not a party? I mean, it's coming off like you're desperate because there's something of consequence in Talossa that doesn't involve you.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

If you read my brief, then you know the serious outcome I'm interested in preventing: all amendments being overturned. The king's counsel does not have that as their primary concern, and neither does the A-X. If the A-X were to drop her pursuit of that possible outcome, then I'd drop out immediately. I'm busy enough as it is, after all, but honestly I can't imagine the disaster of overturning all amendments.

Nothing would delight me more than the A-X saying she'd ruled out requesting that the Cort invalidate all past amendments. Then she and Sir Cresti can hash out the proclamation thing, and I'd go and have a nap.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

So if the A-X weren't asking for the overturn, you wouldn't be attacking Justice Nordselva's integrity?

Sorry, I'm not getting this.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Clearly. But yes, our cause of action is stopping that specifically from happening. The request for recusal is only a part of that action.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Gotcha. Potential malfeasance only bothers you when you don't like the outcome.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

We can hardly object when we're not a party, and MZs have no standing if they have no interests at stake. So if our exclusive interest is settled, then we have no cause for standing and thus can't object. And I'd be happy -- I just don't want all OrgLaw amendments overturned! There will still be two litigants present to object to malfeasance, don't worry -- and of course the proceedings are public, so if further ex parte discussions come to light, action can be taken. Your blithe gloss of the situation is interesting, but a bit off base.

His Majesty has excellent representation, and so does the government, so I'm sure they'd sort everything else out without much trouble in my absence while I am napping I don't worry about the vigilance of either Dama Miestra or Sir Cresti.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

You have no standing regardless. And whatever you have managed to lay claim to has only been garnered through outrageous, and unethical, means that have made farce of this country's legal system. Believe me, I know unethical when I see it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, you do have more experience with it than me, but I disagree nonetheless! Hopefully the matter will be solved quickly and well.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 10, 2016 23:15:20 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Well, you do have more experience with it than me

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

For serious though, people need to stop confusing a request for recusal with an accusation of villainy. I have not and intend no comment on Txec's character. I just think he made a mistake and there is an appearance of bias.

I have to avoid temptation and stop commenting on this now, I think, although hopefully soon I'll be free to chat more about it.

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

What's most interesting here is that we have an attorney (Sir Alexandreu) who just lied in open court. That seems to be the only misconduct that has been proven to date.

His assertions about Justice Nordselva rest largely on the fact that Justice Nordselva made a passing comment to Taiwos about Davinescu. As neither are party to the case before the court, the request for recusal seems odd in its face.

But Davinescu goes further by seeming to imply that Nordselva's membership in the FreeDem group is highly suspect. After all, in his latest filing, he takes issue with the fact that the Attorney General complains, on a personal level, about court proceedings, though the A-X and Nordselva both agree that he has never commented in these musings, it seems to be the fact that he even has access to these musings that bothers Davinescu so much.

Of course, the Asmourescu papers revealed that Dame Litz (presently hearing arguments in this matter which astoundingly DOES involve Davinescu) remained active in the private RUMP forum well after her departure from the party to form the IND. So, I suppose the question is, what assurance do we have that Dame Litz isn't receiving a daily digest of the very same ex Parte discussions that he alleges are so improper for Nordselva?

We might also question why the ordinarily silent Justice was so swift to rush to this thread to make an ex parte comment about the proceedings in which she is currently overseeing. Considering Dame Litz has a known close political association, and has been proven to operate behind the closed doors of the RUMP private group even when she is ostensibly not a RUMP member, I think it odd for her to not recuse herself in at least those proceedings that pertain to Sir Alexandreu.

Unless, of course, these coincidences happen to be intentional.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As you can tell, I was already aware that ex parte conversations are unethical. So not a word about this has been said ex parte, since it would be wrong. I had thought that was common knowledge, but apparently it isn't (neither is the definition of perjury or appearance of bias, it seems).

Then again, I'd also thought it was common knowledge that it's a bad idea to tell sitting justices mid-trial that if you don't like their decision, you might replace them, like you did in this thread.

[Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben.]

Feb 11, 2016 6:15:40 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

As you can tell, I was already aware that ex parte conversations are unethical. So not a word about this has been said ex parte, since it would be wrong. I had thought that was common knowledge, but apparently it isn't (neither is the definition of perjury or appearance of bias, it seems).

Well, you lied in open court and continued to lie even when warned you spoke under penalty of perjury. Seems pretty straight forward to me. You sir, are a perjurer. I owe no explanation to an unapologetic liar. 

It's truly tragic that a person, whose vocation involves inculcating in our youth the values which our society relies upon to survive, can lie so effortlessly. Honestly, Sir Alexandreu, any hatred I had toward you has shifted to immense pity. I thought you acted out of malice. I'm suspecting now it is, perhaps, compulsion beyond your control. 

Then again, I'd also thought it was common knowledge that it's a bad idea to tell sitting justices mid-trial that if you don't like their decision, you might replace them, like you did in this thread.

Ahh yes, the Justice who rushed to this thread to comment on the case she was presently hearing. For a four word flippant comment by Nordselva you make it sound like he was counseling the Attorney General on all matters legal. But when your political crony is doing it it's all fine. I understand. 

But I notice you have declined to state that 1) Dame Litz is no longer a member of the RUMP forum and 2) that neither you nor Sir Cresti made any statement even tangentially alluding to this case in the RUMP group where Dame Lktz might have inadvertently seen it.

Then again, if you'll lie in court there is no reason to take you at your word here. 
 

[Glüc da Dhi]

*googles definition of perjury*

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Neither I nor Sir Cresti have made any statement even tangentially alluding to this case in the RUMP group where Dama Litz might have inadvertently seen it. As to your other question, I refer you to my brief (or any beginner book on law).