Appointment of CJs

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

On December 23, 2020/XLI, in my duties as Deputy Attorney General, I called for nominations for the role of Community Jurist, as set out in 55RZ7 / El Lexhatx G.13.2, in a post on Wittenberg (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=628.0).

Three Talossan citizens nominated themselves for this role: Senator Ián Plätschisch, Túischac'h Txosue Roibeardescù, and Secretary of State Dr Txec dal Nordselva. All these being fine candidates, the Deputy Attorney General accordingly recommended all these names to the Regent (acting for the King) for appointment as Community Jurists, under El Lex G.13.2.1, by Wittenberg private message.

The Regent raised an objection to naming Dr Nordselva to the role, arguing that this set up an impermissible "separation of powers" conflict with his role as Secretary of State. The both the Ministry and Government did not agree with this assessment.

Previously, the Regent and the Government had agreed that making the Seneschál a CJ would be inappropriate, because most lawsuits in Talossa are against the Government. Such matters do not, in the Government's opinion, arise for the Secretary of State. Moreover, Dr. Nordselva, as a former CpI Justice, is the most eminently qualified of the three.

The Government asked the Regent, therefore, to officially name s:reux. Plätschisch and Roibeardescù as CJs, and to announce publicly why he was rejecting the Government's recommendation of Dr. Nordselva, so as to start a public discussion on the question. The Regent refused to do this, instead insisting that the Government continue to "discuss", via Wittenberg PM, his assertion of an impermissible separation of powers conflict between the Secretary of State's office and being a Community Justice. The Government found itself at a loss as to how to do so, because we simply, point-blank disagree with the Regent on this point.

We continue to not understand why the Regent refuses to nominate s:reux Plätschisch and Roibeardescù, about whom there is no debate as to their qualification. And we decline to waste further time. Thankfully, the law provides an alternative to the Regent's demand that we "DEBATE HIM".

Therefore, again under El Lexh G.13.2.1, the Ministry of Justice hereby recommends s:reux Ián Plätschisch, Txosué Roibeardescù, and Dr Txec dal Nordselva, to the Cort pü Inalt to be named as Community Jurists (CJ).

Respectfully,
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM
Deputy Attorney General

[Viteu]

On December 23, 2020/XLI, in my duties as Deputy Attorney General, I called for nominations for the role of Community Jurist, as set out in 55RZ7 / El Lexhatx G.13.2, in a post on Wittenberg (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=628.0).

Three Talossan citizens nominated themselves for this role: Senator Ián Plätschisch, Túischac'h Txosue Roibeardescù, and Secretary of State Dr Txec dal Nordselva. All these being fine candidates, the Deputy Attorney General accordingly recommended all these names to the Regent (acting for the King) for appointment as Community Jurists, under El Lex G.13.2.1, by Wittenberg private message.

The Regent raised an objection to naming Dr Nordselva to the role, arguing that this set up an impermissible "separation of powers" conflict with his role as Secretary of State. The both the Ministry and Government did not agree with this assessment.

Previously, the Regent and the Government had agreed that making the Seneschál a CJ would be inappropriate, because most lawsuits in Talossa are against the Government. Such matters do not, in the Government's opinion, arise for the Secretary of State. Moreover, Dr. Nordselva, as a former CpI Justice, is the most eminently qualified of the three.

The Government asked the Regent, therefore, to officially name s:reux. Plätschisch and Roibeardescù as CJs, and to announce publicly why he was rejecting the Government's recommendation of Dr. Nordselva, so as to start a public discussion on the question. The Regent refused to do this, instead insisting that the Government continue to "discuss", via Wittenberg PM, his assertion of an impermissible separation of powers conflict between the Secretary of State's office and being a Community Justice. The Government found itself at a loss as to how to do so, because we simply, point-blank disagree with the Regent on this point.

We continue to not understand why the Regent refuses to nominate s:reux Plätschisch and Roibeardescù, about whom there is no debate as to their qualification. And we decline to waste further time. Thankfully, the law provides an alternative to the Regent's demand that we "DEBATE HIM".

Therefore, again under El Lexh G.13.2.1, the Ministry of Justice hereby recommends s:reux Ián Plätschisch, Txosué Roibeardescù, and Dr Txec dal Nordselva, to the Cort pü Inalt to be named as Community Jurists (CJ).

Respectfully,
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM
Deputy Attorney General

It is so ordered.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It is correct that I have serious reservations about appointing the sitting Secretary of State to be a judge of first instance.  This does not seem to me to be an esoteric or crazy concern.  There are multiple other candidates, there's an active set of justices, and there have been zero court cases for years.  While the Secretary of State is certainly qualified, patriotic, and generally a good guy, I expressed to the Government that I had concerns about that particular appointment.

I said that I was not refusing to make that appointment, but that I had some worries about it and wished to discuss it with the Seneschal and Deputy Avocat-Xheneral, first.  After all, I said, "the head of the Chancery is right up there with the Seneschal as people who probably shouldn't be serving as judges (myself as serving Regent and His Majesty probably complete the list).  I'm not sure that's a good idea.  I am not declining to appoint him right now, but doesn't the separation of powers incline us to trying to avoid giving judicial appointments to the sitting heads of these powerful entities?"  I noted that, for example, the last time that a Secretary of State held significant power in addition to their own role as the person in charge of voting, the legislative process, etc., that this individual badly abused their powers.

The Seneschal and Deputy Avocat-Xheneral declined to discuss the matter, insisting that I was "refusing" to appoint all three nominees and sharing excerpts of the conversation on the Facebook group for the Free Democrats.

If I thought it was a flat-out bad idea and I was sure about that, I would simply have said so.  That is what I said when the Seneschal suggested that she become a judge, in addition to her own current powers.

Regardless, the matter is settled, now, for good or ill.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The Seneschal and Deputy Avocat-Xheneral declined to discuss the matter, insisting that I was "refusing" to appoint all three nominees and sharing excerpts of the conversation on the Facebook group for the Free Democrats.

OH NOES HEAVEN FORFEND

The Regent never explained why this (bolded) - me consulting with Dr Nordselva re: what he wanted to do, and keeping my political allies up to date- was worthy of comment in any way. The seemingly resentful tone of "how dare you ever tell anything what goes on in our conversations" - for me, no formal discussion between Government and Regent has a presumption of confidentiality unless explicitly established - combined with his long-term and on-going problem with the fact that other people have discussion forums where he isn't invited, is a bit creepy.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Typically, private conversations are private. Taking people's words out of context to misrepresent them to third parties, putting them in a bad light, is usually considered a breach of faith among polite people. It makes it hard to have any sort of real or frank discussion. But I think that you have made your position clear, and I've already told you that I will accordingly consider all further communications between myself and members of this Government to be public, in consideration of your policy and preferences. You are absolutely entitled to set such rules.

I hope you have a pleasant new year! :)