|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 6, 2018 19:35:06 GMT -6
I do hereby challenge the Secretary of State to sanction me, a Member of the Ziu, for referring to S:reu Davi[]s[] as such, on the only forum on which I can engage in Government business as a Member of the Ziu, and therefore challenge the SoS to blatently censor a Talossan in violation of the Organic Law, and to use the State as the means by which he engages in said Organic violation.
I also challenge S:reu Davi[]s[] to explain why he agrees with sanctioning debate made in an official Ziu forum, specifically use of his nontalossan name, but vehemently argues that a Justice of the Uppermost Cort can insult Talossans and use their personal lives as jokes, without facing repercussion. Further, I encourage S:reu Davi[]s[] to quit his gaslighting.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 10, 2018 18:19:30 GMT -6
The explanation is easy: I don't want you to use my English name and out my brother over and over. Because that's super uncool. I've never argued what you're claiming, I just think that impeaching a justice on high court is a big deal. If the only reason you're impeaching him is the comment he's said you're misinterpreting, then why is there a bunch of other nonsense in the bill as cause for impeachment? Just write a good bill, man. Or listen to people who point out problems, rather than declaring a personal vendetta against them because you're upset. Glüc da Dhi did the right thing in enforcing Wittiquette. Unless you're arguing for an absolutist rule where you could freely spam racial epithets, some rules must still apply.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 10, 2018 20:34:40 GMT -6
I did listen to the suggestions and removed stuff from the bill. You waited until the last minute to raise more issues. Alexandreu, stop straightsplaining to me what a homophobic comment is. You're setting a standard that anyone can make racist or homophobic jokes and not face repercussions by simply claiming it's a misunderstanding. But again, Alexandreu, you think your alleged injury from me using your real name is greater than having my personal life be the brunt of a joke. Seriosly, your gaslighting is insulting.
Let us be clear- the Organic Law mandates the SOS host a "public forum" for bills to be publicly debated. That means, regardless of whether or not it's privately owned, when it's functioning as a State organ, the rights enumerated in the Covenants dominate. Any sanctions taken against me would directly violate the Organic mandate of a public Hopper. So no, Mr. Alexandreu , Glüc is wrong here. And the mere fact that you're trying to straightsplain Ben-ard's comments, that you're gaslighting and saying that *I* misunderstood him, speaks to how much of a deplorable you are. My brother may be a homophobe, but at least he's honest aboutit. Are you to yours?
Edit by Glüc da Dhi (11 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11: Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit.
Edit by Viteu Marcianüus (20 Sept 2018) as Glüc da Dhi has shown a complete disregard for well-settled parliamentary immunity and the protections enumerated in the Organic Law, and has abused his power as Secretary of State
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 10, 2018 21:15:37 GMT -6
If the only reason you're impeaching him is the comment he's said you're misinterpreting, then why is there a bunch of other nonsense in the bill as cause for impeachment? You have said this or something like it several times now but it isn't really true. I have mostly tried to stay out of this debate because I'm not qualified to argue about law, but there is something here I don't think has been adequately addressed, so I may as well take my de facto membership in the Talossan bar out for a spin and try to make a cogent point. To advance your position that Justice Ardpresteir's suo moto action was simply an innocent misunderstanding, you earlier pointed out the definition of a suo moto action in the Indian Constitution is: However, I cannot fathom what rights conferred to the UC he was trying to enforce through the suo moto action he issued. The right to prevent the legislature from passing legislation that contradicts the law of nearby jurisdictions? Surely this right is nowhere granted by the Organic Law. Therefore, his action was inexcusable even taking his unique legal tradition into account.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 11, 2018 7:32:46 GMT -6
Viteu Marcianüs, please refrain from further violations of wittiquette. Edit: edited Vs above post to remove Talossan name myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 11, 2018 8:23:44 GMT -6
If the only reason you're impeaching him is the comment he's said you're misinterpreting, then why is there a bunch of other nonsense in the bill as cause for impeachment? You have said this or something like it several times now but it isn't really true. I have mostly tried to stay out of this debate because I'm not qualified to argue about law, but there is something here I don't think has been adequately addressed, so I may as well take my de facto membership in the Talossan bar out for a spin and try to make a cogent point. To advance your position that Justice Ardpresteir's suo moto action was simply an innocent misunderstanding, you earlier pointed out the definition of a suo moto action in the Indian Constitution is: However, I cannot fathom what rights conferred to the UC he was trying to enforce through the suo moto action he issued. The right to prevent the legislature from passing legislation that contradicts the law of nearby jurisdictions? Surely this right is nowhere granted by the Organic Law. Therefore, his action was inexcusable even taking his unique legal tradition into account. I think he definitely made a mistake, but I also think that jurists are entitled to make mistakes of law and facts from time to time. That is why there is an appeals system and more than one justice. But I will happily cede the point that BenArd was wrong (indeed, I think it's inarguable... he was definitely wrong!), but then we're saying that making this error is enough for impeachment and can be characterized as consistent "abuse of authority." Perfection is a very high standard to set, and there's no overall pattern of similar mistakes laid out in the bill. And even if you believe this is an impeachable offense, what about the baseless charge that BenArd has been persistently absent from cort even when he was required to be? This just doesn't seem to be true, as far as I can tell. Yet people are actively voting to impeach based in part on this charge. And what about the charge that he has recused himself from cases in which he felt he had a personal conflict? We've never removed someone from the cort for deciding not to recuse themselves, yet being too cautious about ethical conflicts is an impeachable charge? This bill should definitely fail, and at the very least a cleaner version that doesn't include these baseless charges could be brought up.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 11, 2018 8:30:21 GMT -6
I did listen to the suggestions and removed stuff from the bill. You waited until the last minute to raise more issues. Alex, stop straightsplaining to me what a homophobic comment is. You're setting a standard that anyone can make racist or homophobic jokes and not face repercussions by simply claiming it's a misunderstanding. But again, Alex, you think your alleged injury from me using your real name is greater than having my personal life be the brunt of a joke. Seriosly, your gaslighting is insulting. Let us be clear- the Organic Law mandates the SOS host a "public forum" for bills to be publicly debated. That means, regardless of whether or not it's privately owned, when it's functioning as a State organ, the rights enumerated in the Covenants dominate. Any sanctions taken against me would directly violate the Organic mandate of a public Hopper. So no, Mr. Alex Davis, Glüc is wrong here. And the mere fact that you're trying to straightsplain Ben-ard's comments, that you're gaslighting and saying that *I* misunderstood him, speaks to how much of a deplorable you are. My brother may be a homophobe, but at least he's honest aboutit. Are you to yours? I'm not straightsplaining or gaslighting. I'm saying you proposed to impeach someone over a bunch of stuff, and some of that stuff is nonsense, so we shouldn't impeach someone over it. I think you actually know this, since you're spending almost all of your time here attacking me personally and very little defending your bill.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Sept 11, 2018 15:46:09 GMT -6
You have said this or something like it several times now but it isn't really true. I have mostly tried to stay out of this debate because I'm not qualified to argue about law, but there is something here I don't think has been adequately addressed, so I may as well take my de facto membership in the Talossan bar out for a spin and try to make a cogent point. To advance your position that Justice Ardpresteir's suo moto action was simply an innocent misunderstanding, you earlier pointed out the definition of a suo moto action in the Indian Constitution is: However, I cannot fathom what rights conferred to the UC he was trying to enforce through the suo moto action he issued. The right to prevent the legislature from passing legislation that contradicts the law of nearby jurisdictions? Surely this right is nowhere granted by the Organic Law. Therefore, his action was inexcusable even taking his unique legal tradition into account. I think he definitely made a mistake, but I also think that jurists are entitled to make mistakes of law and facts from time to time. That is why there is an appeals system and more than one justice. But I will happily cede the point that BenArd was wrong (indeed, I think it's inarguable... he was definitely wrong!), but then we're saying that making this error is enough for impeachment and can be characterized as consistent "abuse of authority." Perfection is a very high standard to set, and there's no overall pattern of similar mistakes laid out in the bill. Of course Justices can make mistakes, but a mistake of such a huge magnitude cannot be ignored, especially when coupled with all of the other charges in the impeachment. It isn't just that he messed up a ruling; it's that he actively inserted himself into a situation where any reasonable person would know he had no right to be. I am no expert on this manner, but there was a prior attempt to remove the Justice from the bench on the grounds of this issue alone. I find it hard to believe that our then-Attorney General and now Distain would make such an oversight. Therefore, I encourage Viteu Marcianüs to rebut you on this point specifically. Of course it is acceptable to recuse yourself from a case. However, there is no point in being on the Cort if you must recuse yourself from almost every case, and these impeachment articles point out that he has so many conflicts that he is close to that point.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 17, 2018 6:10:51 GMT -6
Of course Justices can make mistakes, but a mistake of such a huge magnitude cannot be ignored, especially when coupled with all of the other charges in the impeachment. It isn't just that he messed up a ruling; it's that he actively inserted himself into a situation where any reasonable person would know he had no right to be. I think it's not great, but it is a relatively minor mistake when put in context with the history of Talossan jurisprudence. But I will admit that reasonable people can disagree on this one. I am no expert on this manner, but there was a prior attempt to remove the Justice from the bench on the grounds of this issue alone. I find it hard to believe that our then-Attorney General and now Distain would make such an oversight. Therefore, I encourage Viteu Marcianüs to rebut you on this point specifically. He hasn't. Instead, it's pretty much just been attacks on my character, doxxing, and outing my brother out of malice. Of course it is acceptable to recuse yourself from a case. However, there is no point in being on the Cort if you must recuse yourself from almost every case, and these impeachment articles point out that he has so many conflicts that he is close to that point. Actually, they do not seem to make that case, but just sort of vaguely wave at it with two examples over the course of his years as a justice. And look at one of those examples: talossa.proboards.com/thread/10325/appeal-case-14-05-people?page=1&scrollTo=126913I didn't even bother to check before now, since I'd assumed good faith (yikes, what a mistake that was), but that case is one where BenArd recused himself out of propriety, then offered to hear the case if both parties were fine with it... and it's a case that was dropped by the Government! (I should know, I was the Chancery's lawyer when it was first filed.) In other words, one of the two items of evidence for this charge that he recuses himself too much is a case where he didn't ultimately recuse himself! The more I look at this bill, the more clear it becomes that it's a bill about one thing dressed up with a load of utter nonsense. It is deeply disturbing that this could be the low bar by which we measure impeachments.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2018 11:23:28 GMT -6
Mr. Alexandreu Davinescu, I demand you restore your wiki page. You set a precedent that your choice to publish your details disentitles you from reclaiming it or editing it. Have some common decency and respect for our laws here. Actually, the precedent is that no one can unilaterally demand someone else delete information over which they have ceded their rights. Everyone is still, and has always been, free to delete things from the wiki in normal process. That's why, after you lost the case, I immediately did this: wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Viteu_Marcian%C3%BCs&diff=20948&oldid=20947It was only at that point that I was finally able to safely do so without creating the precedent that former citizens could demand the erasure of their history in the Kingdom (http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Viteu_Marcian%C3%BCs&oldid=15218). That's why the picture and much of the original page is gone... I was trying to do the decent thing. There is no law or precedent that states that if I were to do something like edit your English name into the wiki page about you, or the name of a law firm, or whatever, that you could not remove it. You're a citizen and able to edit all wiki pages that are unlocked. Edit by Glüc da Dhi (6 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11 (in quote): Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit.I'm not listing my place of employment down. Nor am I sharing where I work. You, however, have chosen to include your name. Therefore, you cannot claim injury because I choose to refer to you as that. But yes, Alexandreu, your "injury" means more than being subjected to public ridicule. Again, shame on you. Your brother must be proud. But let us not ignore the reality of this all, ---, because it's not like you can't discern your name from ALEXANDREU or from DAVINESCUEU, or it's not like plugging your Talossan name into a search engine does not bring up your nonTalossan name, you're completely hypocritical and disingenuous in your alleged issues with the bill. First, you complain that I include the blatant insults levied by Ben-Ard against Talossans because those insults are not relevant. But it was patent why you did this, even if you pulled the wool over the eyes of others. You did this because then you could minimize Ben-Ard's unequivocal homophobic comment. Now, instead of Ben-Ard's abusive behavior having a pattern, it's a one off instance that we should get over. Or, you hypocritically and eloquently gaslighted, it's my own fault for misunderstanding his homophobia. Seriously? So now, great, I removed his other insults from the bill and now you have your talking point - "is it really that bad? Is this really a problem? Isn't this a cultural misunderstanding? Really, isn't it V's fault, NOT BEN-ARD's, for misunderstanding Ben-Ard?" It's really easy to make that argument when you get all of his other insults out. Oh, and let's not ignore how you disregard Ben-Ard labeling of anyone who disagrees with him as bias and bigoted. Great job, Alex! Great effin' job. Again, do you gaslight your brother about stuff like this? Do you gaslight your wife when she says that you did something, or someone else did something, that she found bothersome? It must be pretty nice to sit on that privilege and explain to lil ol' me why I should not be offended by Ben-Ard, considering you don't deal with an iota of discrimination. Second, you complain about the bill's reference about Ben-Ard not showing up. Were you his lawyer when the Cort ordered him to respond in the SUIT THAT NAMED HIM AS A PARTY? Of course you weren't. But that is Ben-Ard's modus operandi. He shows up, creates a shitstorm, and then when people call him out on it, suddenly he's "busy," but he has enough time to vote and insult people in the Chatroom. But that is becoming behavior of Justice of the Uppermost Cort. In the world of Alexandreu, LET'S MAKE ALL OF THE INSULTS ABOUT ALL OF THE CITIZENS, provided they promptly explain it away as a "cultural misunderstanding." Oh this behavior - LET'S MAKE A SUO MOTO ACTION THAT NEARLY CAUSES A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, CAUSES HUGE CONTROVERSY, AND REQUIRES PROLONGED LITIGATION AND PARLIAMENTARY INVESTIGATION , while promptly "disappearing" so he can't be held responsible. Yes, Alexandreu, your logic is sound. Third, let's revisit this, Ben-Ard can contentiously disrespect everyone in this Country, except, you know, you tRUMPers, because he knows you'll defend him, and that isn't a problem. We should never set a bar as low as homophobia and sexism or perpetual insults, or abusing his power as a Justice, or wasting people's time and Government resources in cleaning up a Justice's messes. No, that bar is way too low. It's not like the bill doesn't actually create a huge standard by listening a number of different things that, when taken in tandem, show a clear pattern of abuse for the judiciary, disrespect for Talossa, and animus for everyone who isn't a tRUMPer, no, you want me to focus on one little thing, which, as we see, you will simply explain away as a "cultural misunderstanding." Now, somehow, all of the foregoing IS A-OKAY IN THE HONKEY DOREY CIS-HET WHITE WORLD OF Alexandreu, but the heavens shall crumble if I dare write your full name in the Hopper? Are you serious about your nonsense? You know, any self-respecting human being would have resigned by now after so much controversy, but Ben-Ard refuses. And you defend him. You're just as bad as he. This is why I don't respond to you directly, because, frankly, you're worse than he. You should be ashamed. Keep gaslighting and straightsplaining, but you'll waste no more of my time. And just so we are clear, you can look forward to every upcoming Hopper containing this same bill, and a separate bill with each and every individual transgression, to remove Ben-Ard. At least then you can cherry-pick which of his behaviors actually are egregious. Or you can finally prove me right - that you're nothing more of a hypocrite who intended from the get-go to water this Bill down so you can keep your partisan the Cort by keeping a Justice on there who MUST RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2018 11:25:04 GMT -6
To all concerned, please be aware that this is a private forum and that in accordance with Proboards Terms of Service admins and moderaters are allowed to edit unwanted content and take disciplinary action against users. On Witt this power has been and will be used only with the greatest amount of caution. Repeated violations of wittiquette might in extreme cases lead to sanctions. I've fixed your gross Organic violations. Do not edit my posts back.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2018 12:18:37 GMT -6
I'm not listing my place of employment down. Nor am I sharing where I work. You, however, have chosen to include your name. Therefore, you cannot claim injury because I choose to refer to you as that. I'm not suing you for damages. I'm asking you to stop breaking the rules of this private message board. Are you serious about your nonsense? Yes, I seriously want you to stop outing my brother, because that's not cool. Also a vile little person tried to get me fired from my job (which is how I earn the money for a roof and food for my family), and the custom of pseudonyms makes that at least a bit harder. And just so we are clear, you can look forward to every upcoming Hopper containing this same bill, and a separate bill with each and every individual transgression, to remove Ben-Ard. At least then you can cherry-pick which of his behaviors actually are egregious. Or you can finally prove me right - that you're nothing more of a hypocrite who intended from the get-go to water this Bill down so you can keep your partisan the Cort by keeping a Justice on there who MUST RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE. Cool. I would love it if you fixed this bill and did a better job writing it. Then we could vote on the real things to which you object, rather than the fake stuff. That would be my ideal outcome, here. Again, almost all of your post is just personal attacks or sarcasm that doesn't address any of my points, so even you know a lot of it is nonsense. When I point out that no one is required to appear in court just because they're sued -- they can allow a default judgment or send their lawyer -- your response is abuse and repeating yourself in all caps.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2018 13:10:41 GMT -6
Never said someone has to appear. I said it shows a pattern of ignoring the authority of the Cort. But cool attempt at distorting the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 20, 2018 17:44:04 GMT -6
Never said someone has to appear. I said it shows a pattern of ignoring the authority of the Cort. But cool attempt at distorting the argument. Literally the first complaint in the active clause of your bill is about how he didn't appear. "BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingdom of Talossa cannot countenance a sitting Puisne Justice who refuses to appear in Cort when a named party" It should be abundantly clear at this point that this bill, which is a very big deal, needs work. It should fail and a new version should be proposed that doesn't have these problems. You, the bill's sponsor, are claiming it is not impeaching him over failure to appear when that is explicitly what it says in the first charge for impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 20, 2018 18:02:48 GMT -6
Never said someone has to appear. I said it shows a pattern of ignoring the authority of the Cort. But cool attempt at distorting the argument. Literally the first complaint in the active clause of your bill is about how he didn't appear. "BE IT RESOLVED that the Kingdom of Talossa cannot countenance a sitting Puisne Justice who refuses to appear in Cort when a named party" It should be abundantly clear at this point that this bill, which is a very big deal, needs work. It should fail and a new version should be proposed that doesn't have these problems. You, the bill's sponsor, are claiming it is not impeaching him over failure to appear when that is explicitly what it says in the first charge for impeachment. Incorrect. I said the homophobic comment should be per se enough. However, knowing that you would attempt to explain that away, which you have done, I wanted to build an overall case to show a number of different factors. Any number of these factors should be grounds per se for impeachment, but the bill as written actually sets a rather high standard by listening a laundry list of transgressions. To your point about refusal to appear - this contravenes your argument that the bill is predicated on his failure to appear because you appeared. He was a named party in the suo moto action from the very mess he started that we spent a lot of time to clean up, that took up a lot of Legislative and Judicial resources to clean up, that caused a lot of strife that still has yet to be cleaned up. He "disappeared" suddenly after essentially dropping a nuclear bomb. When he was named in the subsequent action, he refused to comply. When I, then A-G launched an investigation, he refused to comply and then claimed prejudice when I answered my report citing my own shortcomings throughout the report and where I could have done better. 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. 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"?
|
|