[TNC STATEMENT] Thank you, Talossa!

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

[Viteu]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

Are you preparing your statement for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non?  I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non?  I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.

We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.

[Viteu]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non?  I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.

We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.

Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non?  I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.

We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.

Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.

As I stated previously, Viteu, you are most welcome. Welcome back to the Ziu and I look forward to working with you and other MZs for the sake of our kingdom.

[Viteu]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non?  I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.

We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.

Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.

As I stated previously, Viteu, you are most welcome. Welcome back to the Ziu and I look forward to working with you and other MZs for the sake of our kingdom.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

Most welcome, Viteu.

Are you preparing your statment for the next about-face when I am presiding over a matter that involves legislation for which I voted non?  I think your voters have a right to know in advance if you would plan to contest the very scenario that @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu has countenanced.

We are preparing for government, Viteu, as a majority of voters wished.

Not only does the TNC not care that it misled voters, but it also does not care about maintaining an apolitical bench. Thanks for clarifying, @Breneir Tzaracomprada! I look forward to being in the Ziu again.

As I stated previously, Viteu, you are most welcome. Welcome back to the Ziu and I look forward to working with you and other MZs for the sake of our kingdom.

Oh, I love that movie. And that is actually one of my favorite scenes in the movie. 😀 It seems like your return will be fun and invigorating to the nation.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

2015, I think it was?  Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII.  It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators.  The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.

Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.

Correct! :)

Listen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing.  But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."  That's a much broader statement.  If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now."  Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.

Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.

...okay?  I urge you to read what I'm actually writing.  I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."

But the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

...?  You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.

I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here.  You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear?  I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ.  That's been the case for years.  If you've changed your mind, that's fine :)  The more, the merrier!

[Viteu]

2015, I think it was?  Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII.  It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators.  The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.

Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.

Correct! :)

Listen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing.  But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."  That's a much broader statement.  If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now."  Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.

Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.

...okay?  I urge you to read what I'm actually writing.  I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."

What I proposed "a moment ago" is entirely at odds with the notion that a UC Judge can preside over a challenge to legisltation or Government conduct that the UC Judge supported in the Ziu, and at odds with what you're saying. I encourage you to read what I am actually saying.

But the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

...?  You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.

I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here.  You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear?  I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ.  That's been the case for years.  If you've changed your mind, that's fine :)  The more, the merrier!

Don't be daft this early in the new Ziu, AD. I'm saying that the TNC has thrown out any concept of an apolitical and neutral UC bench, and that I will follow its lead and test its theory that a political bench is good for Talossa.

I don't know why you're bothered. You've won this round. V is back in politics. It's going to be an eh-ee-double-hockey-sticks-uva ride.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

2015, I think it was?  Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII.  It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators.  The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.

Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.

Correct! :)

Listen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing.  But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."  That's a much broader statement.  If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now."  Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.

Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.

...okay?  I urge you to read what I'm actually writing.  I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."

What I proposed "a moment ago" is entirely at odds with the notion that a UC Judge can preside over a challenge to legisltation or Government conduct that the UC Judge supported in the Ziu, and at odds with what you're saying. I encourage you to read what I am actually saying.

You keep aggressively agreeing with me about that, and I really don't know why.  Yes, I think that a direct challenge to a law that someone helped pass is maybe a conflict of interest.  But that isn't the only thing within the standard you proposed, which was recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."

Pasta is food, but not all food is pasta.  The fact that a direct challenge to a law a judge publicly supported might be a conflict of interest does not mean that all political possible action by a judge creates a conflict of interest.

Obviously you yourself don't agree with your own proposed standard, since you're asking to join the Ziu on behalf of the FDT!  Surely you're not here announcing that you think your judgment will now be compromised?

But the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

...?  You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.

I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here.  You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear?  I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ.  That's been the case for years.  If you've changed your mind, that's fine :)  The more, the merrier!

Don't be daft this early in the new Ziu, AD. I'm saying that the TNC has thrown out any concept of an apolitical and neutral UC bench, and that I will follow its lead and test its theory that a political bench is good for Talossa.

I don't know why you're bothered. You've won this round. V is back in politics. It's going to be an eh-ee-double-hockey-sticks-uva ride.

I guess you can conceivably be apolitical and be a politician representing voters as an MC or senator, maybe?  Can't quite figure that one out, since they seem like inherently political roles to me.

Is it that you think we're sad that a relatively inactive citizen has decided to become more active and join the Ziu?  We're not!  It's basically one of our main goals. :)

[Viteu]

2015, I think it was?  Although then it was XVI.3, not VIII.  It originally prohibited judges from being MCs or Senators.  The MC part was repealed that year, and the Senator part a few years later.

Org.L.VIII.3 expressly prohibits a UC Judge from being Seneschal or a member of the Cabinet.

Correct! :)

Listen, if someone votes on a bill, and then that law itself is challenged, that's one thing.  But you said she should recuse on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."  That's a much broader statement.  If it was just inelegantly expressed and you just really mean direct or apparent conflict of interest, that's fine -- that's not going to encompass, "hey you voted to make this a crime, you can't try me for the crime now."  Since again, that inherently invalidates the whole idea of judges being in politics.

Nope. Any legislation that is voted upon by a Judge of the UC who happens to also be a Senator or MC necessarily creates an actual conflict of interest if that legislation is challenged in court.

...okay?  I urge you to read what I'm actually writing.  I specifically just listed that as a rather different matter than what you actually proposed a moment ago: recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."

What I proposed "a moment ago" is entirely at odds with the notion that a UC Judge can preside over a challenge to legisltation or Government conduct that the UC Judge supported in the Ziu, and at odds with what you're saying. I encourage you to read what I am actually saying.

You keep aggressively agreeing with me about that, and I really don't know why.  Yes, I think that a direct challenge to a law that someone helped pass is maybe a conflict of interest.  But that isn't the only thing within the standard you proposed, which was recusal on "any challenge to the actions of the incoming Government or involves the election in any form whatsoever."

Pasta is food, but not all food is pasta.  The fact that a direct challenge to a law a judge publicly supported might be a conflict of interest does not mean that all political possible action by a judge creates a conflict of interest.

Obviously you yourself don't agree with your own proposed standard, since you're asking to join the Ziu on behalf of the FDT!  Surely you're not here announcing that you think your judgment will now be compromised?

But the TNC's apparent about face is noted. Being as the TNC has adopted a strained definition of actual conflict of interest that does not align with its obvious meaning, I am re-entering Talossan politics and asking the FreeDems for one seat in the Cosa.

I want to personally thank the Talossa National Congress--specifically, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, and @Breneir Tzaracomprada--for personally inviting me back into Talossan politics. I did not realize how much you chaps missed me.

...?  You have been able to join the Ziu for years, whenever you wished.

I guess I don't really get your line of thought, here.  You seemed to be saying that it is an inherent conflict of interest for a judge to be in the Ziu, but now you're saying you're going to do it anyway because... well, it's not really clear?  I don't get it, but it's definitely not illegal or unethical for you to be an MZ.  That's been the case for years.  If you've changed your mind, that's fine :)  The more, the merrier!

Don't be daft this early in the new Ziu, AD. I'm saying that the TNC has thrown out any concept of an apolitical and neutral UC bench, and that I will follow its lead and test its theory that a political bench is good for Talossa.

I don't know why you're bothered. You've won this round. V is back in politics. It's going to be an eh-ee-double-hockey-sticks-uva ride.

I guess you can conceivably be apolitical and be a politician representing voters as an MC or senator, maybe?  Can't quite figure that one out, since they seem like inherently political roles to me.

Is it that you think we're sad that a relatively inactive citizen has decided to become more active and join the Ziu?  We're not!  It's basically one of our main goals. :)

On the contrary—I entirely think that no UC Judge, including myself, has the ability to be neutral and impartial when adjudicating a matter that involves government conduct, the election, or legislation supported by the UC Judge when that UC Judge has publicly supported it (including voting for the legislation or propping up the Government supporting the conduct).  You seem to think that I am suggesting something else because I am asking the FreeDems for a seat in the Ziu.
 
What I am actually saying is that the TNC and you have said it does not matter if the foregoing creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and therefore I needn't hold myself to a standard that the TNC does not wish to enforce against the UC Judges within its own ranks. Meaning, the TNC is saying "who cares if there may be an actual or apparent conflict of interest?" I am saying, "okay cool. Let's fully test this theory."

If, however, Litz resigned the UC or stated that she would cease politicking and not accept any seats in the Ziu, I would happily maintain my retirement from Talossan politics and drop the issue. But until then, I fully intend to make sure the TNC gets exactly what it supports.

(And this is not a direct attack on Litz per se. I'm annoyed that we're abolishing the notion of having an apolitical UC bench simply because it favors the new Government.)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

On the contrary—I entirely think that no UC Judge, including myself, has the ability to be neutral and impartial when adjudicating a matter that involves government conduct, the election, or legislation supported by the UC Judge when that UC Judge has publicly supported it (including voting for the legislation or propping up the Government supporting the conduct).  You seem to think that I am suggesting something else because I am asking the FreeDems for a seat in the Ziu.

Well, yes.  If you're saying that a judge can't be neutral and impartial in a case involving anything they've publicly supported in any way as a politician, or anything that might adversely affect the party they support, and you really believe that, then I don't see how you then want to be a politician again.  Since it seems like you'll end up recusing a lot, since you'd need to recuse on anything that might harm the interests of the FDT or anything touching on any law or proposal which you've voted or supported in any way.  The only alternative interpretation is that you are announcing your intention to become a judge who isn't neutral and impartial, and that doesn't seem your style.

I get that you disagree with the idea that a judge should be allowed to be a politician, and maybe you weren't aware that this has been the law for many years.  That's fine -- I think reasonable people can definitely disagree on this one, and if we were larger or had more for judges to do, I'd agree with you.

What I am actually saying is that the TNC and you have said it does not matter if the foregoing creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and therefore I needn't hold myself to a standard that the TNC does not wish to enforce against the UC Judges within its own ranks. Meaning, the TNC is saying "who cares if there may be an actual or apparent conflict of interest?" I am saying, "okay cool. Let's fully test this theory."

That is explicitly not what we're saying.  We're saying that there are aspects of political involvement that don't preclude neutrality, but not all of them.

But I guess I don't really want to argue too hard with you -- I'm happy you're rejoining more active involvement in Talossa! :)

If, however, Litz resigned the UC or stated that she would cease politicking and not accept any seats in the Ziu, I would happily maintain my retirement from Talossan politics and drop the issue. But until then, I fully intend to make sure the TNC gets exactly what it supports.

Litz has been an MC for quite some time already... And other judges have even served in the Government -- as Seneschal, even!  This change dates back to like, eight years ago.

[Viteu]

I will not be recusing myself *from anything* while we have a politicized UC bench.  The TNC cannot, without speaking out of both sides of its mouth, take umbrage with that.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

I find it baffling that someone who takes judge neutrality so seriously is willing to completely throw away their principles on a (ironically politically motivated?) whim.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Technically I am a *Community Jurist*