Talossan judicial precedents

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Ián P said something on OldWitt about memorable Talossan judicial precedent. My favourite one would have to be from the 1992 case recorded in Ár Päts, where KR1 was actually convicted of treason (for attempting to secede Vuode), but was given no punishment as a "first offence".

[Eðo Grischun]

Ián P

said something on OldWitt about memorable Talossan judicial precedent. My favourite one would have to be from the 1992 case recorded in Ár Päts, where KR1 was actually convicted of treason (for attempting to secede Vuode), but was given no punishment as a "first offence".

I've just realised that we don't keep criminal records in Talossa.  Apart from reading through court cases or history books there isn't an actual record of Talossan convictions or "rap sheets".

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I think it's because criminal convictions are so incredibly rare. I think ESB is the only one in my "Talossan lifetime".

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

ESB is the only person of whom I aware who was both found guilty and who maintained their status within the jurisdiction until sentencing.  The only other criminal who comes to mind, Ups Martüc, left Talossa before sentencing (whereupon proceedings were dismissed, since expulsion would almost certainly have been the sentence anyway).  Cathartic conclusions to courtroom proceedings of any kind, civil or criminal, have generally been infrequent, and I'd guess maybe 50% of all cases ever get resolved.

[Eðo Grischun]

Oh, I'm well aware that convictions (and crime for that matter) is rare.  I'm just saying, following Miestra's post about KRI, that we don't actually have a method of recording convictions when they do happen.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

V just gave me a much more detailed answer than my question probably deserved.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

More from the peanut gallery:

So in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.

[Sir Lüc]

More from the peanut gallery:

So in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.

No it wouldn't. A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences, unless you want me to believe that all republicans want John obliterated as a matter of principle.

[Viteu]

More from the peanut gallery:

So in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.

No it wouldn't. A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences, unless you want me to believe that all republicans want John obliterated as a matter of principle.

Yes it is.  Republicans, by their nature, want to see the monarchy obliterated.  I do not want to see John, personally, obliterated. I want to see the monarchy abolished.  But I want that done through the democratic process. I stated that several times already.  The question was repetitive.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences

The "personal grudge" AD alleges is a figment of his imagination. I've said equally intemperate things about KJ1 personally when I've been particularly incensed at some monarchic míeida or other, and you've seen me operate as his Seneschál on a perfectly respectful and mutual productive basis for the best part of a year, even when we disagree.

AD has made a habit of claiming that his political opponents are full of hatred, hold grudges and are personally and politically corrupt. It's his "finishing move".

ETA: AD admits in his closing statement it's V's republican views to which he objects:

I submit to this committee that I think it likely that the nominee will find it hard to give any case involving the throne an unbiased hearing, given his emphatic and emotional opposition to the institution

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence. It is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

It might be that you have said equally intemperate things, but you are not up for nomination and I think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record. That was certainly the case you presented to the voters!

I won't argue the case with you here, since I think I said all it needs to be said in my testimony. But I did think it was important not to let that misrepresentation go unchallenged.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.

Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.

It is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.

Funny thing - in a fine example of Freudian projection, King Robert I, possibly the most hate-filled grudge-holding person in Talossan history, similarly used to describe all his opponents as hate-filled and holding grudges. The cunning thing about this was that Ben used to infuriate people into losing their tempers at him - which, in his mind, proved their hatefulness. It was a brilliant strategy because so many of us are brought up to value being "nice" and not openly expressing animus/conflict as a social must.

I think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.

Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.

Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.

Yes, virulent opposition to one of the institutions of State contributes to a candidate's fitness.  To the extent that someone considers the monarchy to be illegitimate and oppressive, as V has stated in the past, that suggests that they will be biased against cases involved the monarchy, which are frequent.  The fact that V also has expressed deeply personal animus against HM is an additional factor, as is the likely possibility he will need to recuse himself on such cases.

I mean, honestly, Miestra, sometimes you get these blinders on when it comes to stuff like this.  I'm not sure I would call it "partisan," exactly, but you're contorting yourself to ignore really plain facts in order to get at your desired conclusion.

Imagine you had a judge who said that all republicans were an abomination and the Republic should be stricken from memory.  No, that's pretty mild.  Imagine that you had a judge who said much worse things, and aimed a lot of them at you, personally.  They declared you were a cancer on Talossa, etc etc.  They said they didn't recognize your authority as Seneschal because you weren't a real Talossan.  They said this stuff for years, publicly and repeatedly.

Now, former republicans (and aspiring future ones) constitute an important part of our country.  If this judge were going to hear your case, you'd probably request their recusal, right?  They're probably going to be biased against you, based on all the things they've said and the longtime intensity of those expressed feelings.  And you'd be right to request that.

Likewise, if a judge had expressed such feelings about our military, such as it is, with particular focus on Adm Davinescu, and a case came up about the military, you'd probably ask for recusal in that instance, too.  Someone who vows that they hate the military, want to abolish it, and think the admiral is illegitimate and personally a cancer on Talossa... they can't give a fair hearing to a military case.

Either of those situations would probably be a serious impediment to someone's confirmation in your eyes, I would hope.  If someone was nominated who had expressed such vehement hostility to important aspects of Talossa for a long time, hopefully it would at least give you pause. But here, it's so much bigger, because the monarchy has been the center of a ton of important cases.  I think that V probably would have a hard time giving the Crown's side, in terms of the crown itself, a fair hearing.

If you're really honest, I think you have to admit that this is at least a legitimate objection, even if you think it's outweighed by other factors or that you just really believe he'll manage to be fair.  Please don't pretend I'm engaged in some crazed witch-hunt, where V's brave thoughtcrime has made him the subject of a cruel inquisition and where anyone else who dares to venture a feeble criticism of power might be the next victim.  The guy swore angry vendetta against the king and monarchy for years.  You might not care because you want the end goal, and he's your friend and you believe him and think he's qualified, and you don't really care about the monarchy, but that's on you.  This is a legitimate issue.

It is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.

While you have been in the government for a really, really long time, I don't think you are quite the institution that we find in the reigning sovereign.  Give it time, though!  Six more years and you might have a case.  Two-person monarchy!

I think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.

Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.

You both have your strengths and weaknesses, as I do and as do we all.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It would certainly be a problem if our Head of State were to be someone who held grudges and had strong personal antipathies to Talossans with whom he had crossed swords in the past.

Oh wait.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Minor point of correction: V was nominated as a justice, not head of state. But I do share your concerns. Anyone who is asked whether or not they still hate the questioner and has to find a way to avoid the question... well, that presents a problem.